D

Gary S. Graifman, Esq. is a partner in the firm of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman P.C., and has been a practicing attorney for over 22 years. Mr. Graifman concentrates his practice in the areas of employment law, commercial litigation, class action securities and consumer law, trademark law and copyright law.

He has also represented individuals in private long term disability matters in Federal Court in connection with ERISA-based claims. Mr. Graifman is admitted to practice before the State Courts of New York and New Jersey, the United States Federal Courts in the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York, the District of New Jersey, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Third Circuit and Eighth Circuit. He has also been admitted for the purpose of litigating particular cases in various other jurisdictions including: the Federal Courts for the Northern District of California, the Southern District of Florida, the Middle District of Florida, the Eastern District of Michigan; the Eastern District of Tennessee; and the District of Nevada.

Mr. Graifman Also focuses his emphasis on the firm's Employment Law practice. He is currently Chairman of the Employment Law Committee of the Rockland County Bar Association. He has also recently been selected by Super Lawyers Magazine as one of New Jersey's Super Lawyers 2010.

One of his areas of particular interest also involves representation of photographers, photography agents, producers, distributors, artists, galleries and musicians and has an expertise in licensing agreements. He was involved in shaping the early case law in New York which defined the right of privacy and right of publicity (see cases below).

Mr. Graifman has also served as counsel to, and was a founder of, the Private Art Dealers Association, a trade organization of fine art dealers. He is also a member of the Class Action Committee of the New Jersey State Bar Association. Mr. Graifman has litigated numerous cases involving complex business litigation and employment law.

In a recent settlement of a nationwide consumer fraud class action on behalf of 11,000 businesses which had been defrauded by the telephone company Norvergence Corp., and which involved various equipment leasing companies, the New Jersey Superior Court approved settlements with CIT Technology Financing, U.S. Bancorp, De Lage Laden Leasing and two other leasing companies on June 30, 2006. The firm, Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, was Co-Lead Counsel.

The presiding Judge, Judge Robert Coogan stated that: "The class counsel at bar ...are well qualified, they are experienced in class action litigation. Counsel have vigorously pursued this litigation in this court, and although it's a rounded number, it has been two years, almost. [W]hat was shown here and what leads me to acknowledge this is the dimension, the worthiness, the scope of the advocacy, and the overall professional presentation, both in terms of the pleadings and here in the courtroom.…; This pursuit has been vigorous. There has been extensive document discovery conducted here, depositions were conducted. And all of that to a point prior, prior to the time of beginning the time to, process of trying to resolve the case… I'm satisfied that counsel who have accepted the responsibility of appearing on behalf of the named plaintiffs have fairly and adequately represented the interest of the class. Adequately I use only because that's the standard. The reality here is that it was superior work."

In another recent settlement of a nationwide class action against the vehicle manufacturer DaimlerChrysler, alleging defective brake assemblies for Jeep Grand Cherokees, Mr. Graifman served as co-lead counsel for the class. In approving the settlement of 14.5 million, the Court (Hon. Jonathan N. Harris, New Jersey Super. Ct., Bergen Co.) stated: "[P]laintiffs' counsel engaged in careful and extensive research, investigation, and analysis of the facts and circumstances surrounding the conduct of defendants' business practices. I conclude that class counsel have a sufficient basis upon which to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and the terms of the settlement."

Furthermore, in a matter settled in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in which Mr. Graifman and the Firm were co-lead counsel (entitled In re Rambus Inc. Securities Litigation, 06-cv-4346 (N.D. Ca.)), and which involved an $18.33 million settlement approved by the Court in a securities fraud matter involving backdated options, U.S. District Court Judge, Jeremy Fogel, stated in approving the settlement that "[i]t appears that the class will receive more money than is typical in these types of cases, certainly in backdating cases. This is a substantial settlement. So, I am satisfied in terms of an independent review and adequacy of the settlement that it is fair and adequate." (From Transcript of Final Approval Hearing, dated May 14, 2008).

The following represent examples of class action, complex business litigation and reported cases of note Mr. Graifman and the firm have taken an active role in:

• In re Rambus Securities Inc. Litigation., 06-c-v4346-JF (N.D. Cal.) Mr. Graifman and the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel for the class in this securities class action involving allegations of backdating of options. The matter was settled for $18.33 million and approved on May 14, 2008.
• Lubitz, et al. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., BER-L-4883-04 (New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen Co.) Mr. Graifman and the Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel for the class in this consumer action against DaimlerChrysler Corp. The Court certified a nationwide settlement class and approved a settlement valued at $14.5 million to owners of Jeep Grand Cherokees, model years 1999 through 2004.
• In re: Painewebber Limited Partnership Litigation, 94 Civ. 8547 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.) Court approved a settlement involving a fund of approximately $200 million. This suit was first initiated by KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. and two other firms in Texas. The case later expanded to cover a multitude of other claims and was settled in a consolidated New York action.
• In re NICE Systems, Ltd. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 2:01cv737 (JAG)(U.S. District Ct., D. New Jersey). Mr. Graifman and the Firm served as Liaison Counsel for the class in this securities fraud class action litigation which settled for 10 million dollars and was approved by the Court on April 7, 2003.
• MARTINEZ v DISTRICT 1199J NEW JERSEY BENEFIT FUND, et al., Docket No. 97cv3381 (WJM) (U.S. District Court D. New Jersey). Mr. Graifman and the Firm served as Lead Counsel in certified class action against Union Benefit Fund in which claims alleging violation of ERISA were upheld. The case was fully litigated to final judgment for the plaintiff class and thereafter, upon execution on the judgment was satisfied with full payment being made to reimburse class members 100% of their losses (Union Members received full reimbursement for all medical bills paid out-of-pocket during the class period).
• In re PHARMAPRINT, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2.3 million dollars in connection with claims against this out of business company.
• Birenbaum v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., L-1957-96 (N.J. Superior Court, Essex Co.). Mr. Graifman and the Firm served as Co-Counsel for the class in this securities fraud class action certified and settled as a nationwide class action in New Jersey State Court.
• Maizes & Maizes, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.15 million dollars.
• Goldberg v. IDM Environmental1.125 million to nationwide claims of shareholders.
• Amplidyne, Inc. Securities Litigation, 99-4468 (D. New Jersey). Securities fraud class action litigation settled, alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the Exchange Act of 1934.
• In re: Anadigics Securities Litigation 11.75 million dollars.
• In re: Interactive Network, Inc. Securities Litigation 1.9 million dollars.
• In re: Delgratia Mining Corp. Securities Litigation, MDL Dock. No. 1201 (D. Nev.). Securities fraud class action litigation alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the Exchange Act of 1934. Nationwide class action settled for stock of defendant and distribution of a cash payment.
• Feiner v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc., 862 F. Supp. 1084, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide 8672 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 1994) (No. 93 Civ. 5796 (CLB) (filed as class action on behalf of ratepayers of utility) (settled on appeal before the Second Circuit).
• Dakota Industries, Inc. v. Ever Best Ltd., 38 F.3d 910, 31 U.S.P.Q.2d 1355 (8th Cir. (S.D.), July 8, 1994) (No. 93-2723, 93-2765). In this trademark infringement matter, Mr. Graifman and the Firm served as lead trial counsel for the defendant, a nationwide jeans distributor. After a three week trial in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, the jury returned a verdict for defendant.
• Nu-Life Const. Corp. v. Board of Educ. of City of New York, 809 F.Supp. 171, 80 Ed. Law Rep. 568 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 1992) (No. Civ-86-0807) (ADS)). In this major RICO action based on wire fraud, mail fraud and violations of the Hobbs Act, Mr. Graifman and the Firm served as sole trial counsel for plaintiffs who alleged that they were subjected to extortion demands by various school construction authority supervisors and inspectors. After a six week jury trial before Judge Spatt, one plaintiff procured a partial settlement and the other received a verdict on their RICO claims against the respective school inspectorial staff members.
• Nu-Life Const. Corp. v. Board of Educ. of City of New York, Div. of School Bldgs. of Bd. of Educ. of City of New York, 795 F.Supp. 602, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide 8035 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 1992) (No. CV-86-0807 (ADS)). See above description.Nu-Life Const. Corp. v. Board of Educ. of City of New York, 789 F.Supp. 103, 75 Ed. Law Rep. 1009, RICO Bus. Disp. Guide 7885 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 1991) (No. CV-86-0807 (ADS)). See above description.
• Dakota Industries, Inc. v. Ever Best Ltd., 944 F.2d 438, 20 U.S.P.Q.2d 1158 (8th Cir. (S.D.), Sept. 12, 1991) (No. 91-1036).Elliot Gould v. Ladenberg Thalman, 1990 WL 209641, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P. 95, 667 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 1990) (No. 90 Civ. 4140 (MBM)). Securities fraud claims litigated on behalf of Elliot Gould against former financial advisors. Case settled before trial.
• Sablosky v. Edward S. Gordon Co., Inc., 73 N.Y.2d 133, 535 N.E.2d 643, 538 N.Y.S.2d 513, 4 IER Cases 1315 (N.Y., Feb. 21, 1989) (No. 32). Reported case decided by New York Court of Appeals which concerned the scope of contractual obligations and enforcement thereof.
• SSH Co., Ltd. v. Shearson Lehman Bros. Inc., 678 F.Supp. 1055, Blue Sky L. Rep. P. 72, 695, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P. 93, 647 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 24, 1987) (No. 86 Civ 5981 (PNL)).
• Stephano v. News Group Publications, Inc., 64 N.Y.2d 174, 474 N.E.2d 580, 485 N.Y.S.2d 220, 11 Media L. Rep. 1303 (N.Y., Dec. 20, 1984). Mr. Graifman litigated this case defining the parameters of right of privacy and right of publicity in the State of New York.
• Brooke Shields v. Garry Gross, 58 N.Y.2d 338, 448 N.E.2d 108, 461 N.Y.S.2d 254, 9 Media L. Rep. 1466 (N.Y., Mar. 29, 1983). Mr. Graifman represented fashion photographer, Gary Gross, sued by Brooke Shields relating to scope of the right of privacy and right of publicity in New York. This case of first impression was decided by the New York Court of Appeals, which affirmed the original trial court judgment in favor of photographer.