Bryan Mazzola Partner
Bryan J. Mazzola, Esq. is a litigator whose focus is in defending cooperative corporations, condominium associations, HOA’s and their board members and managing agents. Bryan litigates a wide variety of matters in this regard: holder of unsold shares issues, construction disputes, neighbor on neighbor disputes, breaches of contract, warranty of habitability claims and nuisances, particularly noise disputes.
Bryan also defends employers in employment law matters, including discrimination claims, requests for accommodations and Fair Labor Standard Act and Wage disputes.
In addition to litigating cases in State and Federal courts, Bryan appears regularly before various state and federal agencies and has extensive experience mediating disputes.
Bryan also handles appeals and has appeared before the First and Second Appellate Departments, the New York State Court of Appeals, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Bryan graduated from Hofstra Law School where he was a member of the Labor Law Journal and provided pro-bono services to low income tenants at the housing rights clinic. He is a member of the New York City Bar Association and served on the Cooperative and Condominium Law Committee.
Bryan is a former partner in Cantor Epstein & Mazzola. Bryan participated in the City Bar’s Litigation Mentoring Circle and he served as a program faculty member. He has presented CLE program courses to the City and State Bars as well as the Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums. Topics on which he spoke included coop/condo governance issues, noise disputes, employment and housing discrimination, and legal writing.
ADMISSIONS, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND MEMBERSHIPS
Bryan is admitted to practice law before the New York State and Florida courts, as well as the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the Southern District of Florida and Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hofstra Law School, Juris Doctor
Plaintiff employee filed a complaint alleging that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race and national origin in violation of Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Commission. He also alleged retaliation. Defendants moved to compel arbitration on the grounds that plaintiff was a union member and subject to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement which provided that arbitration was his sole and exclusive remedy.
Defendants’ motion was granted and the matter was dismissed. Plaintiff buyer sued, among others, the cooperative and managing agent, alleging that by approving his purchase application, while knowing he could not afford to close on the unit, they participated in a scheme to defraud him out of his security deposit. The cooperative’s and managing agent’s motion to dismiss was granted and affirmed on appeal. Plaintiff, a member of Local 32B-32J, commenced suit against the cooperative he worked for and his union, alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation after he was wrongfully terminated from his job as a doorman after 40 years of service, in breach of the collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiff additionally alleged that his union failed to properly represent him at an arbitration and challenged certain disciplinary actions taken against him by the coop. The Court dismissed the action on summary judgment, finding that plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence of any of his claims. This is a companion case in which plaintiff alleged that he was subject to unlawful discrimination because of an alleged mental disability in violation of the American with Disabilities Act, and that he was discriminated against based on his religion. In addition, he asserted claims for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Coop. It found that the Coop had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for disciplining plaintiff and that plaintiff failed to meet the commerce requirement necessary for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over his federal wage claims. The plaintiffs claimed to be holders of unsold shares and sought, inter alia, a declaration confirming their status.
The Appellate Division affirmed a ruling in favor of the cooperative and dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that, pursuant to the cooperative’s proprietary lease and offering plan, as well as the contract of sale under which the plaintiffs purchased, the plaintiffs failed to establish they were holders of unsold shares. A defense verdict was received after a trial in Bronx Supreme Court. Plaintiff alleged that the cooperative and managing agent were responsible for mold and water damage to his apartment which he claimed resulted from leaks. The court held that plaintiff breached the proprietary lease, and was not entitled to damages, because he refused to allow the cooperative access to inspect and make necessary repairs. The Court further determined that a tenant will not be entitled to money damages where he complains but then refuses to allow the landlord to make repairs. Summary judgment was awarded dismissing the managing agent of a condominium and finding that (a) no fiduciary relationship existed between the plaintiff tenant and the managing agent; (b) the tenant was not a third party beneficiary to the management agreement; and (c) the managing agent worked for a disclosed principal. Plaintiff, commercial lessee, sued the cooperative cooperation alleging that the cooperative overcharged it for rent and taxes and was awarded summary judgment by the motion court.
On appeal, the decision below was reversed and the Court determined that the claims were barred by the voluntary payment doctrine given that the plaintiff was a sophisticated entity whose members drafted the proprietary lease, and that it paid the amounts charged for 20 years without question. The parties entered into a contract for the sale of real estate, but following this, the president of the defendant corporation refused to proceed with the transaction. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants on the grounds that the memorandum of agreement did not satisfy the statute of frauds. On appeals, the decision was reversed and the complaint was reinstated.