1. Contact a New York business litigation lawyer immediately. The legal professional will evaluate the facts and circumstances surrounding your claim.
2. Gather copies of all written documentation of the agreements with the school.
3. Assemble supporting documentation that verifies you upheld your end of the agreement. This may include copies of grades, transcripts, and checks that demonstrate tuition payments were made on time and in full.
4. Pull together any supporting evidence that documents any agreements that were not made in writing. To learn more about how contracts can exist even without written agreements, consult our free guide, When You Don’t Have a Written Agreement.
5. Meet with your New York breach of contract attorney and outline an action to plan to avoid any statute of limitations issues.

• not go beyond that which is needed to protect the employer’s “legitimate interest”;
• not be overly broad;
• not be “injurious to the public”; and
• be reasonably limited with regard to time and geographic scope.

• Not to provide services, directly or indirectly, to any person or entity within a specified geographic area.
• Not to provide services, directly or indirectly, to any person or entity who is currently a customer of the buyer or user of the app.
• Not to solicit, directly or indirectly, any person or entity who is currently a customer of the buyer or user of the app.
• Not to advertise or promote competing products.

• fraud,
• promissory estoppel,
• unjust enrichment, and
• breach of contract.

• the signed written agreements between the parties;
• the specific provisions contained within the contracts;
• facts in support of the quality of Mr. Bergstein’s performance; and
• facts in support of any oral agreements made between the parties.

• The handbook constituted an enforceable agreement that existed between the University and the resident assistants.
• NYU fulfilled its obligations under the handbook.
• The resident assistants breached the handbook.
• NYU sustained damages as a direct result of the resident assistants’ failure to fulfill their obligations under the handbook.

• breach of contract;
• tortious interference; and
• accounting irregularities.

• The defendant served as trustee of the 26 investment trusts containing the alleged bad mortgages.
• The defendant had a fiduciary duty as trustee of the trusts to the investors.
• The defendant failed to notify investors that Countrywide had defaulted on some of its obligations as either a servicer or a mortgage lender.

• That there was an enforceable agreement.
• That the plaintiff fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.
• That the defendant breached the agreement.
• That the plaintiff sustained damages as a direct result of the defendant’s failure to fulfill its obligations under the contract.

• The provision does not go beyond that which is needed to protect the buyer’s “legitimate interest.”
• The provision is not overly broad, such as being reasonably limited with regard to time and geographic scope.
• The provision is not “injurious to the public.”

• There are nine other Singas Famous Pizza Restaurants within 10 miles of New York Famous Pizza.
• The flagship Singas Famous Pizza restaurant is less than 1 mile away from New York Famous Pizza.
• There is significant danger posed to Singas’s institutional knowledge, reputation, and goodwill by New York Advertising continuing to operate New York Famous Pizza.
• Singas uses a distinctive system and is a well-recognized brand.
• New York Famous Pizza used a menu that was virtually identical to Singas Famous Pizza, adopted other distinctive practices used by Singas, employed former Singas employees, and used custom-made equipment taken from its Singas franchise restaurant.

In this case, the nurse claimed that she became concerned when one of the lower-school students appeared to have significant bruising on one of his cheeks, which the student allegedly claimed was the result of being hit by his father. After (purportedly) confirming that the father was indeed the source behind this child's bruising, the nurse decided to report it to the New York State Central Child Abuse and Maltreatment Register, in accordance with NY Social Services Law §413(1)(a), which requires a "school official, which includes but is not limited to…[a] school nurse, "to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with this title when they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is an abused or maltreated child."  (For more on this topic, please see "When a NY School Has a Duty to Report Abuse").

On the other hand, there was a vigorous two-judge dissent that argued the relatiatory discharge claim should have been dismissed because, in their view, the potential abuse of one student does not constitute a danger to the public, which is the nature of the whistleblowing contemplated by Labor Law §740, which provides as follows:

"2. Prohibitions. An employer shall not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because such employee does any of the following:

(a) discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer that is in violation of law, rule or regulation which violation creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety…;

(b) provides information to, or testifies before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into any such violation of a law, rule or regulation by such employer; or

(c) objects to, or refuses to participate in any such activity, policy or practice in violation of a law, rule or regulation." 

According to the dissent, "Like subdivision 2(a), subdivision 2(c), upon which the majority relies, "is triggered only by a violation of a law, rule or regulation that creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety."

Given the vigorous dissent, it is certainly safe to assume that this case will go up on appeal (which the defendant school can do by right).

• that there was an enforceable agreement between the employer and the employee;
• that the employer fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;
• that the employee breached the agreement; and
• that the employer sustained damages as a direct result of the employee’s failure to fulfill his obligations under the contract.

• that Mr. Cohen misappropriated confidential information;
• that Mr. Cohen began a business in direct competition with Delta; and
• that the misappropriation and subsequent starting of the new business were actions Delta in violation of a Confidentiality Agreement signed by Mr. Cohen 

The transaction that would take the company private was agreed on at $2 billion, and the investigators are going to try to determine if this was enough to be considered a sale that is in the best interest of the company’s private investors. The share price caught attention of investigators who know the company’s stock had traded at over $26 within the last ten months, and they say the company should buy the shares at a price that could go as high as $29. 

Quest Software’s current CEO Vincent C. Smith and some of the high ranking managers will continue to run the company after the transition has been made. The investigation will seek to determine if the company’s board of directors is in breach of fiduciary duty to its shareholders by making an agreement to repurchase the stock at the agreed price. 

Shareholders of this company, and any other shareholders concerned that their best interests might be overlooked, should contact an experienced New York business litigation attorney to discuss their situation and their options. The Law Offices of Jonathan M. Cooper offer a free consultation to answer any questions you may have about the fiduciary duty that companies have to their shareholders. 

The breach of fiduciary duty claim states that the board of directors did not properly maintain supervision of the company’s internal workings, and as a result the company filed information that could be considered misleading. 

The plaintiff also points out that METLife, Inc. itself admitted to using practices that would lead to financial penalties if the Securities and Exchange Commission went looking in the right places. Putting the company at risk of undue financial burden would put the decision makers in violation of fiduciary duty to the shareholders. 

METLife also improperly used the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File to gather information that would help save the company money, and ignore information that would cost it money. 

Filing misleading information, putting the company at risk of financial penalties, and immorally and unfairly using a national database for personal gain only could damage the company, and therefore put the board of directors and officers in a breach of fiduciary duty to its investors. 

If you have questions about a company that may be in breach of fiduciary duty to shareholders in New York, contact The Law Offices of Jonathan M. Cooper for a free consultation. The New York business attorney also offers the free book 3 Reasons That Your Employment Agreement May Not Be Worth The Paper It's Printed On.

Riverhead was going to publish Davenport’s novel originally titled The Chinese Soldier’s Daughter until they found a collection of short stories available through Amazon’s self-publishing program. Riverhead and Penguin cancelled the contract, even though they had rejected Davenport’s collection years before, and are seeking to reclaim the $20,000 advance they paid for her new book. 

Penguin and Riverhead argue that they have invested in the author’s career and their involvement in her writing goes into her career’s future, not just the book that is currently under contract. Publishing other works through another company could take a way form the reception of the book she has with them. 

Davenport’s lawyer disagrees, saying that since they rejected the collection previously and another upcoming book she’s working on, Penguin no longer has an exclusive right to her works. A non-compete clause would typically forbid an author to seek publishing with a different company, but because Davenport’s book was rejected, it allowed her to take her work elsewhere.

Amazon will publish her book, retitled The Spy Lover through the same publishing technology as the collection. 

Navigating a non-compete agreement can be a difficult situation, but an experienced New York non-compete lawyer can help. If you have questions about your future career and what a business contract means to you, contact the Law Offices of Jonathan M. Cooper for a free consultation. 

This Super Bowl could have instigated a breach of contract, but not from one of the wide receivers or the ever under-appreciated assistant coaches. The topic for the upcoming legal dispute happened during halftime.

The musical artist M.I.A., who performed with Madonna for the halftime show, made an obscene gesture to the camera and included profane language in her lyrics. It may have been a publicity stunt to revive the artist’s idle career, but it could put her career back in the gutter before she was even back on the road to stardom. 

Not only could the FCC be knocking on her door to discuss the performance, M.I.A. could be in breach of contract with the NFL. All performers sign a contract with the NFL, who is responsible for the content it airs, that states what kind of behavior is expected. The acceptable behavior does not involve curse words or obscene gestures, and she may have violated the terms of her contract with the league. 

The strict guidelines have been in place since the 2004 Super Bowl incident with Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson, commonly known as the “wardrobe malfunction.” The NFL and NBC have apologized for the failure of the signal delay system that was designed to protect against this type of situation. 

While the system failure will be investigated, blame is not going to be shifted away from M.I.A. The National Football League will more than likely pursue a breach of contract lawsuit against the one-hit wonder.

The specifics of a breach of contract case can be quite tricky. Both parties in a contract should have sufficient legal representation if contract issues become apparent. If you need help with questions regarding contract discrepancies, contact a New York breach of contract attorney who may be able to answer those questions. The Law Offices of Jonathan M. Cooper offer free consultations, and you can order their book When You Don't Have a Written Agreement for free online.

Their son, Nick, was in a severe car accident in 2007 while driving one of Hulk’s cars, and the accident left passenger John Graziano, a friend of Nick’s, in extremely poor condition. The family of Graziano sued the Hogans for direct liability and negligence, and settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. 

Hulk Hogan is suing his wife because he had to pay a significant amount of the settlement out-of-pocket and now knows the $250,000 per passenger insurance was insufficient. The lawsuit initially named only Well Fargo, but Linda Hogan was added because she was the business manager at the time. The claim states that the insurance company and Linda should have agreed on a more valuable insurance policy to protect the Hogans’ assets, and because they didn’t, they are in violation of fiduciary duty. 

The addition of Linda was thrown out because the confidential marital settlement agreement Hulk and Linda Hogan signed during divorce proceedings included language that relieves Linda of any liabilities. The case against Wells Fargo is still proceeding.

If you have questions about breach of fiduciary duty, contact an experienced New York breach of fiduciary duty attorney. The Law Offices of Jonathan M. Cooper offers a free consultation to discuss your options. Visit our website to order a free copy of the book When You Don't Have a Written Agreement.