Michael C. Barrows

Michael-C-BarrowsAs an experienced trial attorney and appellate advocate, Mr. Barrows has successfully prosecuted and defended complex civil, criminal and commercial actions on behalf of clients located in the New York City, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island and Nassau and Suffolk Counties in Long Island.

Mr. Barrows’ civil litigation experience includes car accidents, slip and fall, premises liability, construction accidents, religious discrimination, negligence, and other personal injury.  As a commercial litigator, Mr. Barrows has represented clients in State and Federal actions for breach of contract, shareholder disputes, fraud and fraudulent inducement, mismanagement, theft, unlawful transfer of assets, breach of fiduciary duty, employer/employee disputes, and commercial collections.

As an accomplished divorce attorney, Mr. Barrows practices in all areas of matrimonial law at the trial and appellate levels, with a particular emphasis on complex contested divorce litigation. In addition to his divorce litigation practice, Mr. Barrows represents clients in uncontested divorce matters, divorce mediation and the negotiation of separation and pre-nuptial agreements.

Notable Cases:

$850,000.00 settlement against a WISE (World Institute of Scientology Enterprises) affiliate in an action filed with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Robert “Preppie Killer” Chambers contempt case.  

$2,600,000.00 lawsuit by world renowned Russian military medal and order collector against auction house. Click here to read more.

Katt v. Markov, 121 A.D.3d 542 (1st Dept. 2014) – Mr. Barrows successfully defended appeal by plaintiff. Appellate Division held that agreement for the purchase of plaintiff’s goods by defendant terminated the fiduciary relationship between the parties. Moreover, Appellate Division upheld release of fiduciary by sophisticated principal where evidence established that principal understood that the fiduciary was acting in his own interest and knowingly entered into release.

Troccoli v. Zarabi, 57 A.D.3d 931 (2nd Dept., 2008) – Mr. Barrows wins a reversal of trial court’s dismissal of an action against seller for his fraudulent inducement of plaintiff to enter into contract for the purchase of real estate.

Am. Nat’l Theatre & Acad. v. Am. Nat’l Theatre, Inc., 472 F. Supp.2d 487 (S.D.N.Y 2006) – Mr. Barrows was part of a team of attorneys who successfully defended a prominent national theater company’s use of it’s name in a complex intellectual property action brought in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. Mr. Barrows had filed the trademark for the theater company and defended its use before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Metzger v. Yuenger Woodworking Corp. et al., 33 A.D.3d 678 (2nd Dept. 2006) – Mr. Barrows wins a reversal of trial court’s dismissal in an action seeking recovery of $1,750,000.00 in damages for constructive fraudulent transfers under New York Debtor Creditor Law 273 and 273-a and actual fraud under New York Debtor and Creditor Law 276.

Merchants T & F, Inc v. Drucker, 19 A.D.3d 134 (1st Dept. 2005) – Mr. Barrows successfully argued for a dismissal of a fraudulent conveyane action against his client because of the plaintiff’s willful and contumacious refusal to comply with multiple orders of disclosure. On appeal, the trial court’s order of dismissal was affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department.   See alsoMerchants T & F, Inc v. Drucker

Ghilduta v. The Trump Corporation et al., (SDNY) – Mr. Barrows defeats defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a “hybrid claim” action brought pursuant to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, alleging employer’s breach of a collective bargaining agreement and a union’s breach of its duty of fair representation.

Herman v. Spitz , 2004 WL 2852659 (Civil Court, N.Y. County 2004). Reported in  New York Law Journal,  “Decision of Interest”, on October 29, 2004.  Court held that medical evidence is not essential to finding plaintiff liable for defendant’s emotional distress, but relevant only to the extent of her damages. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaim was denied.