Kucker & Bruh, LLP: Saul D. Bruh

Saul D. Bruh

Mr. Bruh is a partner who co-founded the K&B firm in 1984. As a senior attorney, he specializes in real estate law, landlord and tenant law, commercial law, business transactions and disputes, civil litigation, including ordinary and complex civil actions, and administrative law. However, he has a vast knowledge of the substantive law in a broad range of practice areas, including construction law, zoning law and land use, intellectual property (including transactions and disputes concerning works of art, other creative works, security agreements, licensing, trade secrets and proprietary business models), art insurance, contract law, tort negligence law (remedies for damages to property, Qui Tam federal civil actions (False Claims Act), corporate law, partnership law, limited liability law, and debtor/creditor law.

Mr. Bruh began his career practicing administrative law, and focused on administrative procedures. He has practiced in the area of civil litigation for more than 25 years. Mr. Bruh is an artisan of the craft, and possesses an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules of law and evidence. He has earned a reputation as a premier litigator, and has won innumerable trials in state and federal trial courts. His methodical preparation, oratorical skills and powers of persuasion have enabled clients of the firm to obtain multi-million dollar verdicts in jury trials. In addition, Mr. Bruh has argued and prevailed in numerous appeals at all levels. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Mr. Bruh is a recognized leader in the fields of commercial and residential real property law, landlord-tenant law and dispute resolution, and frequently is called upon by other attorneys to lend his expert advice and support. He is admitted to practice before all of the trial and appellate courts in the state of New York. In addition, he is a member of the bar of many federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. He is a member of the Assoc. of the Bar of the City of New York (Civil Court Committee) and the NY State Bar Assoc.

Reported cases in which Mr. Bruh has appeared include the following: Beljakovic v Melohn Properties, Inc., 1:04-cv-02694-RJH-GWG (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2009) (Holwell, J.) (court granted K&B’s renewed motion to compel arbitration and amended its earlier decision, on September 26, 2006, to hold that K&B’s client is entitled to an Order which compels the plaintiff-employee to arbitrate all of the discrimination claims alleged in his federal court complaint); Beljakovic v Melohn Properties, Inc., 1:04-cv-02694-RJH-GWG (S.D.N.Y. April 17, 2008) (Holwell, J.) (important interim result; K&B succeeded on its motion for an order pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §3 which stays the action until after the U.S. Supreme Court decides a similar case); Beljakovic v Melohn Properties, Inc., 06-cv-4760 (2nd Cir. August 21, 2007) (court in error disregarded 9 U.S.C. §16(a)(1)(A) and (B), and 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(1), by dismissing the defendant-employer’s appeal for purported lack of appellate jurisdiction in the absence of a final order); Beljakovic v Melohn Properties, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70480 (S.D.N.Y. September 26, 2006) (Holwell, J.) (court relied on Rogers v. New York University, 220 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2000), to deny K&B’s motion pursuant to Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §1, et seq.), specifically 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 and 4, and Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended (29 U.S.C. §141, et seq.), on behalf of a company that employs doormen, porters and a superintendent in a residential apartment building, for an Order which compels the plaintiff-employee to arbitrate his age discrimination claims alleged under the ADEA statute in his federal court complaint – however, K&B subsequently succeeded in obtaining a favorable amendment of this decision); 4 Third Avenue Leasehold, LLC v. Permanent Mission of the United Arab Emirates, 133 Fed.Appx. 768, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 9494 (2nd Cir. 2005) [overturned the federal district court's incorrect ruling which failed to enforce liquidated damages clause in a commercial lease agreement; the liquidated damages provision was not an unenforceable penalty and had not been waived]; Spanierman Gallery Profit Sharing Plan v. Merritt, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1444 (S.D.N.Y., Jan.30, 2003) [plaintiff not prevented from proceeding due to state court judgment against third party]; Calka v. Chuu, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4090 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) [obtained ruling that the adversary proceeding by a debtor tenant to recover funds paid to apartment owner should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as it did not involve a core bankruptcy matter, and a recovery would not benefit the debtor's bankruptcy estate]; Melohn v. R&M Combustion Co., Inc., Mystic Transportation and Amerada Hess Corporation, 296 A.D.2d 323, 744 N.Y.S.2d 321 (1st Dep't 2002) [$2.35 million judgment for damages caused by oil spill in apartment building, following a jury trial]; Reynolds v. Gagen, 293 A.D.2d 310, 739 N.Y.S.2d 704 (1st Dep't 2002) [reversal of trial court error in holding the parties' purchase agreement violated the rule against perpetuities]; Citrin v. Conti, 290 A.D.2d 264, 735 N.Y.S.2d 541 (1st Dep't 2002) [trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff's breach of contract claim]; Benjamin Aryeh and Nancy Levinson v. 61 E. 86 Owners and Tudor Realty Services, N.Y.L.J., Dec. 3, 1999, p. 5 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co., 1999) (Schlesinger, J.) [$1.4 million judgment in favor of K&B's clients, tenants who were wrongfully evicted from a cooperative apartment and suffered substantial damages as a result of some of their personal property being stolen and other property destroyed after it was removed from the apartment by landlord and placed in an open shack; the jury award included compensatory damages of $260,000.00, plus treble damages and accrued interest]; High Return Properties, S.A., Inc. v. Calka, 256 A.D.2d 82, 681 N.Y.S.2d 246 (1st Dep't 1998) [affirmed award of damages in favor of landlord for use and occupancy]; Dayton Operating Company v. DHCR, 236 A.D.2d 395, 654 N.Y.S.2d 322 (1st Dep't 1997) [reversal of trial court ruling, and granting of plaintiff landlord's petition on the merits]; Popik v. American Int'l Mortg. Co., 936 F.Supp. 173 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) [the purpose for which the defendant tenant requested a consumer credit report regarding the plaintiff landlord -- to determine his financial ability to pay the contemplated settlement funds, which would buy out the tenant's interest -- was not a legitimate business need within the meaning of section 1681b of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681t (1994); in doing so, the tenant violated federal law; West Seventy-Ninth Street Assoc. v. Lemi, Inc., 144 Misc.2d 216, 542 N.Y.S.2d 942 (Civ. Ct., N.Y. Co. 1989) [interplay of landlord-tenant law with bankruptcy law].

Legal Disclaimer

Attorney Advertising

Kucker & Bruh, LLP – 747 Third Avenue – New York, NY 10017 – (212) 869-5030 – (212) 944-5818 Fax