On a street in Harlem known worldwide for the performance and production of music, an upstart hometown music recording studio was embroiled in a dispute with its neighbor who complained the performance and production of his music was causing damages to his quality of life. The dispute heated up and litigation was commenced by the neighbor, but the studio attempted to represent itself. Lacking legal expertise and facing declining prospects of victory, the studio turned to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. for help.
Upon taking this matter, attorneys for Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. quickly learned that the studio was deep inside a judicial nightmare. Several months prior to being retained, the Court entered a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) on default against the studio enjoining any activity at the studio in violation of the noise code. With a motion pending filed by the studio’s neighbor seeking an Order of default and contempt for the studio’s alleged violation of the TRO, as well as a hearing pending before the NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (“OATH”) on a summons issued against the studio for an alleged noise complaint, the studio was in dire straits.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. attorneys jumped into action in defense of the studio and immediately commenced work on all fronts. Contractors already hired to install sound absorption materials and make other improvements to the studio to soundproof the premises were expedited. An acoustical engineer was hired and scheduled to inspect the premises upon completion of these improvements. Pleadings were drafted, alongside opposition to the pending order to show cause filed by the neighbor. Attorneys from Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. appeared, together with representatives of the studio, to fight the summons issued against the studio.
The first victory was achieved when OATH dismissed the summons in its entirety. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. attorneys successfully argued that the studio had taken several efforts to soundproof the studio and the summons was issued without a sufficient evidentiary basis, as the officers from the police department issued the summons based upon testimony from the neighbor alone, without testing any noise levels emanating from the studio itself.
The second victory came when the Court denied the neighbor’s motion for default and contempt and compelled the neighbor to accept the studio’s newly drafted answer. Attorneys at Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. successfully argued that although the studio was in default, the studio engaged in remedial measures ever since the Court entered its TRO and the neighbor utterly failed to submit any evidence that the studio was in violation of that Order. Thus, there was no prejudice to the neighbor in compelling them to accept the late answer. Further evidence that the studio’s remedial measures were successful bolstered its arguments by demonstrating that the studio was now in compliance with the noise code.
With the summons dismissed, no pending motions, and the studio’s answer deemed served on all parties, the studio is positioned to take the offensive. Attorneys from Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. are ready to zealously continue to defend this matter to its ultimate conclusion.
Adam Leitman Bailey P.C. attorneys made the appearances before the various bodies and Dov Treiman crafted the papers.
