Aaron Charney, Bernard Fried, Biglaw, Gay, H. Rodgin Cohen

Brokeback Lawfirm: Score One for S&C

By  
on

After a quiet period, in which we were reduced to wishing Gera Grinberg a happy birthday, there’s some actual news about Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. From Keeping Up With Jonas:

Judge Fried issued his decision in response to S&C’s partial motion to dismiss. Though both sides landed blows, it seems that S&C can claim itself the victor of this battle. The Court dismissed Charney’s Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) and Conspiracy causes of action, albeit without prejudice. However, at least as it stands now, it appears that Charney may have difficulty reviving these claims. But it was not a complete victory for S&C. The Court declined to strike most of the paragraphs from the Complaint that S&C had requested.

More from Jonas here, and Justice Bernard Fried’s order here (PDF). Jonas titled his post “The Empire Strikes Back.” But why did he use a photo of Sharon Nelles instead of H. Rodgin Cohen (who is closer in age and appearance to Emperor Palpatine)?
Professor Arthur Leonard offers the detailed, thorough analysis that we’ve come to expect from him. Here’s an excerpt:

So, what does all this mean? I’m not entirely sure….

I had thought that these additional claims were separate and distinct from the NYC HRL [Human Rights Law] claims, as relating to the activities of S&C and Gallion in reaction to the lawsuit rather than to S&C’s treatment of Charney as an employee. That is, the HRL claims related to what happened before Charney filed his original lawsuit. The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was addressed to the tactics that S&C then used after the lawsuit was filed to try to pressure Charney to back down, and the conspiracy claim was specifically aimed at the enlistment of attorney Gallion to add to the pressure and sidetrack Grinberg from allying himself with Charney

Does Fried’s action in dismissing these additional legal claims but refusing to strike almost all the factual allegation paragraphs of the complaint that specifically relate to them mean that he believes the events that came after the first complaint are now part of the overall case under the city Human Rights Law? If so, then Charney has lost nothing by this dismissal order, and the judge has at least implicitly ratified the idea that S&C’s response to his complaint becomes part of the retaliation case, at the very least.

Professor Leonard’s full post appears here. We agree with his assessment that “this continues to be a complicated case.” When are we going to get more sexy and salacious allegations?
Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell [New York Supreme Court (PDF)]
Court rejects bid to expand Charney case [Leonard Link (Art Leonard)]
Charney Sullivan & Cromwell Decision: The Empire Strikes Back [Keeping Up With Jonas]

Sponsored

Topics