Skip to Content

Jim Landau is a Partner and a member of the firm’s Litigation Group. He represents clients in litigation before Federal, New York State and Local courts and other tribunals, including arbitration and mediation before the American Arbitration Association.

Jim’s practice also focuses on providing day-to-day business counseling to cannabis and other businesses with an eye toward avoiding problems before they arise. 

Jim has been recognized as a New York Metro Super Lawyer® in the area of Commercial Litigation every year since 2012. In addition, Jim has received a peer review rating of AV®Preeminent on Martindale-Hubbell®.

Jim has become a thought leader in the New York Cannabis legal community. He frequently writes and speaks on such topics as attorney ethics, cannabis banking and licensing of cannabis businesses. Jim is currently the President-Elect of the Westchester County Bar Association. He is Chair of the Ethics Committee of the Cannabis Law Section of the New York State Bar Association and Co-Chair of the Cannabis and CBD Litigation Committee of NYSBA’s Commercial and Federal Litigation Section. He is also a Founder and Immediate Past Co-Chair of the Westchester County Bar Association’s Cannabis Law Committee and a Director and Chair of the Regulatory Committee of the Hudson Valley Cannabis Industry Association. Jim is a past president of the White Plains Bar Association.

Prior to joining the firm, Jim was an attorney at Prince Lobel & Tye LLP in Purchase, NY, McCarthy Fingar LLP in White Plains, NY, and Ellenoff, Grossman & Schole LLP, Proskauer LLP and Brown Raysman & Millstein LLP in New York City.

Jim received his J.D. from Boston University School of Law and his B.A. from the University of Michigan. He is admitted to practice in New York and Pennsylvania and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

Representative Matters

  • Representation of a global telecommunications conglomerate in an action against a television network for consulting fees
  • Representation of a college in New York City in an action against a former employee to recover hundreds of thousands of dollars stolen by that employee
  • Representation of a manufacturer of handbags against a famous label for non-payment of over $1,000,000 in joint venture costs and costs of goods sold
  • Representation of a large New York developer in an appraisal proceeding to determine the replacement value of several iconic structures that were destroyed during the terrorist attacks of September 11
  • Representation of Corporation providing back office services to the market in connection with actions brought by issuers and stockholders based on alleged violations of federal and state securities laws
  • Representation of large commercial landlord in connection with numerous actual and potential lawsuits involving its commercial tenants
  • Representation of major weight loss chain in connection with a RICO claim brought by a vendor
  • Representation of an Examiner appointed in the bankruptcy of an iconic corporation in connection with the investigation of possible accounting irregularities
  • Representation of a major New York City newspaper in connection with an action commenced against its general contractor and engineer for damages for the negligent design and construction of its printing a distribution facility
  • Representation of quasi-governmental lender in connection with foreclosures of mortgages on large apartment buildings in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx
  • Representation of vendors, users and distributors of software and hardware in litigations involving failed systems as well as trademark, copyright and patent infringement and various breaches of license agreements
  • Representation of major retailer in dispute with landlord over HVAC charges and building department issues
  • Representation of iconic jewelry retailer in dispute with landlord over landlord’s refusal to consent to renovation of its original and best known store
  • Representation of major publisher in actions commenced against authors for return of their advances for failure to deliver acceptable manuscripts