P. Daniel Hollis III - Mount Kisco, NY

Dan Hollis leads the firm’s zoning and land use practice area. Dan has been practicing law for 50 years. Over those decades, he has led some of the most consequential litigations in New York, having conducted some of the State’s most newsworthy trials and appeals, from state trial courts all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. He is a widely respected authority in the areas of complex corporation and real estate, estate, guardianship, land use and large-scale zoning matters. He has spearheaded obtaining municipal approvals for commercial and industrial uses, retail establishments, residential developments, and not-for-profit entities, such as educational and religious organizations. He also litigates cases involving zoning approvals or denials, handles the dissolution of closely held businesses, corporate disagreements, and forced buyouts, and counsels high net worth individuals on private land use matters.

Dan is most proud of his professional and community leadership. He has deep involvement in organizations throughout Northern Westchester, where he has resided for over 60 years. Dan served as President of the Westchester County Bar Association. He has also served on its judicial screening committee since 2006. He served as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Bedford from 1984 to 1990, was a member of the Board of Trustees of Northern Westchester Hospital Center from 1981 to 2004, serving as Chairman of the Board for five of those years. He has been the recipient of the Mount Kisco Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year Award, a two time recipient of the Boys & Girls Club of Northern Westchester Humanitarian of the Year Award, and the Westchester County Bar Association “Raising the Bar” Award. He played college basketball at Siena College, and after graduating he served with the 82nd Airborne in Vietnam and was awarded the Army Commendation Medal; Army Commendation Medal: First Oak Leaf Cluster; and Bronze Star Medal for his actions during that service.

Representative Cases

Hayman v. Brown, et al., No. 10-4646 (Sup. Ct. Ulster Co. Jan. 11 2013)

Mr. Hollis represented the defendant in a partition action brought by plaintiff, the defendant’s former employee and romantic partner, as against a one-acre parcel owned by the parties as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. Plaintiff was also the record owner of an adjoining 70-acre property. Mr. Hollis counterclaimed to have a constructive trust imposed on the properties and that defendant be given a share of any partitioning. After a trial and post-trial briefing, the Court agreed with Mr. Hollis that, while the properties were in plaintiff’s name, the parties set up ownership that way to protect them from a federal tax lien incurred by defendant. The Court agreed that plaintiff would have been unjustly enriched if she retained a 100% ownership in the parcels. It granted a constructive trust on the 70-acre parcel and ordered that plaintiff convey a deed to defendant for that parcel making the two tenants in common. The Court also ordered that both properties be partitioned with the proceeds split between the parties, with defendant receiving an additional credit for principal reduction and taxes paid.

Town of Mount Pleasant v. Legion of Christ, Inc., 7 N.Y.2d 122 (2006)

Mr. Hollis successfully represented Legion of Christ, Inc. (“Legion”), an order of the Roman Catholic Church, in zoning litigation against the Town of Mount Pleasant (“Town”). The Legion acquired a facility on land zoned for “conference and training facilities,” which was used in that manner by IBM, the previous owner. When the Legion began using the facility for training future priests and other religious education, the Town claimed such use was not permissible. The New York Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Hollis’s argument that the Legion’s use was lawful under the Town Code. The Town filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Hollis opposed the application, and the Supreme Court agreed, denying the Town’s petition. Town of Mount Pleasant, N.Y. v. Legion of Christ, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1332 (2007).

380 Yorktown Food Corp. v. 380 Downing Dr., LLC, 2012 NY Slip Op 51132(U) (Sup. Ct. Westchester Co. Mar. 9, 2012)

Mr. Hollis represented Defendant 380 Downing Drive, LLC (“Downing”) in a case brought by its sublessor, Plaintiff 380 Yorktown Food Corp (“Yorktown”). Yorktown’s sublease stated that it would terminate upon the termination of Downing’s primary lease with Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (“A&P”). A&P filed for bankruptcy, and in the course of those proceedings, it terminated that primary lease with A&P, but Downing stipulated that A&P could repossess the premises. Downing took the position that the termination of that primary lease terminated A&P’s sublease with Yorktown. Yorktown moved for summary judgment claiming a right to remain in the premises and asserting that Downing and A&P interfered with its right of possession of the property. Mr. Hollis, on behalf of Downing, counterclaimed for ejectment and moved for summary judgment seeking the removal of Yorktown from the premises. Mr. Hollis won Downing’s motion for summary judgment and secured a denial of Yorktown’s motion. In a judgment that was later affirmed by the Appellate Division, Second Department, and then denied leave for appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, Justice Alan Scheinkman of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, ruled that Yorktown was not entitled to remain in possession of the subject premises, and for judgment in its favor on Downing’s counterclaim for ejectment.

380 Downing Drive, LLC v. 380 Yorktown Food Corp., et al., No. 56010/2014, NYSCEF Doc. No. 60 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Co. May 16, 2016)

Even after Justice Scheinkman ruled that Yorktown’s lease was terminated, Yorktown continued collecting rents from its lessor (Downing’s sub-sub-lessor) Turco’s North, LLC. Justice Linda S. Jamieson, Supreme Court, Westchester County, agreed with Mr. Hollis’s argument on behalf of Downing that those rents did not belong to Yorktown after Justice Scheinkman’s ejectment ruling. But more extraordinarily, Mr. Hollis sought to pierce Yorktown’s corporate veil and recover against its sole individual shareholder. When the shareholder moved for summary judgment on that claim, the Court ruled in favor of Downing. Justice Jamieson agreed with Mr. Hollis’s argument that a reasonable jury could find that Yorktown was an “alter ego” of its sole individual shareholder and that the only way to compensate Downing was to pierce the corporate veil.