BRONSTER LLP

Partner
156 W 56th Street, Suite 703, New York, NY 10019
T. 347-246-4890
mscollar@bronsterllp.com

Marc Scollar’s interest in law was founded by his grandfather, who was a pioneer in the area of real estate title insurance. His son, Samuel L. Scollar, practiced law for more than 65 years. After graduating from law school, Marc Scollar became a partner in his father Samuel Scollar’s firm.

In 1986, Mr. Scollar was admitted to Touro Law Center and attended their part-time program during this period, Marc Scollar worked with his father. There, Marc learned to prepare title abstracts, a first-rate education into the transactional field of real estate law. He learned the language and the process. Real property law became a living, breathing transaction as opposed to a theory in a book. Upon admission to the bar, he continued to work with his father as junior partner. As a small firm, they branched out and the practice expanded. They had a successful litigation practice, where Marc learned to prepare pleadings, discovery documents and ultimately, formulate and organize for trial. At the same time, they also had a successful real estate transactional practice. As stated, the firm also wrote titles for different underwriters. Staten Island is unique in that many small law practices subsidized their income as title agents.

Throughout his career, Mr. Scollar has handled hundreds of residential and commercial real estate transactions. He also specializes in defending and prosecuting mortgage foreclosures of both residential and commercial mortgages.

With his father, Samuel Scollar, he had many notable achievements, including a favorable decision by the New York State Court of Appeals in a ground-breaking case regarding zoning law. During his long history of litigating for clients several of his cases of becoming legal precedents followed the courts today.

Such as:
‍
In the Matter of Vomero v City of New York, 13 N.Y.3d 840, 920 N.E.2d 340, 892 N.Y.S.2d 284, 2009 N.Y. LEXIS 4049, 2009 NY Slip Op 8476.  Marc Scollar prepared all the litigation paperwork, pleadings, motions and briefs on the trial level, Appellate Division (Second Dept.) and the matter reached the New York State  Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals  annulled a decision by the Board of Standards and Appeals and held that “A local zoning board has broad discretion when reviewing an application for a zoning variance, but its determination may be set aside if the record reveals that the board acted illegally or arbitrarily or abused its discretion.”

In a case handled by Mr. Scollar recent decision, the Appellate Division just reversed the lower court and held in case Deutsche Bank, National Trust Company v Futerman, 232 A.D. 656 (2024) as follows:

While it is true that “[e]vidence which is a matter of public record is generally not deemed new evidence which could not have been discovered with due diligence” (IMC Mtge. Co. v. Vetere, 142 A.D.3d 954, 955, 37 N.Y.S.3d 329 [internal quotation marks omitted]), that principle does not require a party to be omniscient, in particular, where, as here, the records at issue are not readily accessible and their utility requires additional investigation and synthesis.

Scollar v City of New York, 160 A.D.3d 140, 74 N.Y.S.3d 173, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1895, 2018 NY Slip Op 02032, 2018 WL 1414084. Marc Scollar was retained by his sister (plaintiff)  after her original attorney withdrew.  As stated by the Appellate Division, this case arose out of an acrimonious child custody battle. A police sergeant allegedly took tortious actions siding with my sister’s former partner. The complaint alleged six causes of action which were dismissed by the trial court in its entirety. The Scollar Court held –“A custodial parent sufficiently stated claims against a police sergeant for IIED because the parent alleged the sergeant maliciously and recklessly made false reports to the child services agency and engaged in a campaign of harassment, including interrogating the parent in her home and contacting the family court judge and the child's law guardian; [2]- The parent has also stated a claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 for deprivation of her Fourth Amendment rights because the parent's allegation that the police entered the parent's home on the illegitimate pretext that the child was at imminent risk; the parent also stated a claim for holding the city liable under § 1983 on account of its gross negligence or deliberate indifference to the sergeant's unconstitutional actions.” 2.

2015 Freeman LLC v Seneca Specialty Ins. Co., 136 A.D.3d 531, 26 N.Y.S.3d 19, 2016 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1134, 2016 NY Slip Op 01133. This was the one of the last jury trials held prior to the shutdown of covid. Plaintiffs commenced this action against defendant insurance company based on their claim that defendant wrongfully denied coverage under the insurance policies issued to them for two commercial properties located in Ohio. My client alleged in their complaint vandalism damages and a bad faith denial of the claim I prepared all the dispositive motions and responses. Defendant Seneca moved to dismiss complaint based upon documentary evidence that Plaintiffs’ insurance policy didn’t cover theft damages to two school buildings in Cincinnati, Ohio The jury trial took place and verdict (judgment) was entered in favor Plaintiffs on March 2020.

Marc is committed to providing quality representation and service at all stages of the legal process. If you need an effective and passionate attorney, contact Marc Scollar, Attorney at Law for a consultation.

Every case cannot be a winner, yet, Marc Scollar with his dogged determination has found many ways to produce success.