Robinson Cole LLP
High Contrast Mode

Janet (Zhanna) Kljyan has developed extensive experience with helping businesses and other institutional clients litigate and resolve their disputes across an array of industries, including real estate, health care, technology, insurance, manufacturing, education and non-profits. She routinely handles cases before federal and state courts and administrative agencies in New York as well as courts in other jurisdictions involving issues of contract, intellectual property, trade secrets, unfair trade practices, land use, and employment disputes. Janet is a member of our firm’s Business Litigation group and a secondary member of the Intellectual Property + Technology Group.

  • Fordham University School of Law (Juris Doctor, cum laude)
    • Milton Young Award for Excellence in the Field of Taxation
  • William E. Macaulay Honors College at Queens College (Bachelors, summa cum laude)
    • B.A., Economics and Urban Studies
    • M. Anne Hill Award for Outstanding Scholarship in Economics

  • State of New York

Presented with a certificate of recognition for dedicated service to the New York State Courts Access to Justice Program as part of the New York County Lawyers Association, New York State Bar Association and New York State Unified Court System’s Office for Justice Initiatives 2023 and 2024 Pro Bono Awards

2025 "Ch. 11 Reorganization of the Year”" in the under ($100MM) for the restructuring of Mariner Health Central Inc. and affiliates, presented at M&A Advisor's 19th Annual Turnaround Awards

2024 "Restructuring of the Year" in the ($50MM TO $100MM) for the restructuring of Mariner Health Central Inc. and affiliates presented at the 23rd Annual M&A Advisor Awards

Selected by her peers for inclusion in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in the area of Commercial Litigation for 2026

New York City Bar Association
Copyright & Literary Property Committee
Choir Soprano Section Leader (2019-2023)

Hudson River Housing, Inc.
Board of Directors (2021 - Present)
Vice President (Feb. 2024 – present)
Treasurer (Feb 2023 – Feb 2024)
 

Experience


Banking Institution Breach of Contract

Defended banking institution in breach of contract and misappropriation action brought by software technology company based on alleged breaches of a software licensing agreement. Won pre-answer motion to dismiss prior to engaging in discovery.

Read More

Tech Companies in Breach of Contract

Defended two global technology companies in breach of contract action brought by 15 individuals in federal court in Ohio. Won pre-answer motion to dismiss prior to engaging in discovery.

Business Litigation: Picasso Sculpture Sale

Defended family in fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims brought by a New York City-based art dealer stemming from the purchase and subsequent sale of a Picasso sculpture for over $20 million. Won pre-answer motion to dismiss prior to engaging in discovery.

Read More

Publications


Be in the Know: How to Protect Your Business From Predatory Lawsuits teaser
March 2025

Be in the Know: How to Protect Your Business From Predatory Lawsuits

Food and Beverage Magazine
Legal Update: Supreme Court Decision Could Increase Copyright Trolling in the Second Circuit teaser
May 24, 2024

Legal Update: Supreme Court Decision Could Increase Copyright Trolling in the Second Circuit

February 14, 2024

‘Yellowstone’ Injunctions: Navigating the Wild West of Commercial Lease Disputes

New York Law Journal

The Yellowstone injunction is implicated in nearly every lease for commercial real property in the state of New York, yet most landlords and tenants do not know what it is or how it affects them. Below is a succinct overview of its implications so that commercial landlords and tenants can better navigate lease disputes. Stopping the Clock on a Cure Period Yellowstone injunctions take their name not from the popular neo-Western drama series but from the New York Court of Appeals case of First National Stores v. Yellowstone Shopping Center that created this limited-purpose injunction. In that case, the landlord and tenant disagreed about who was responsible for installing a sprinkler system, which the court ultimately decided was the tenant’s responsibility. Although the tenant was able and willing to make the installation once the court said so, the tenant had not asked to pause the cure period, and the landlord had terminated the lease for default. New York’s highest court decided it was not empowered to extend the tenant’s deadline to cure its default and upheld the lease termination. This case conceptualized and gave rise to the remedy referred to a Yellowstone injunction. Its purpose is to stop the running of the applicable cure period: it prevents a commercial landlord from prematurely terminating a lease for default until a court decides whether the alleged default is proper or not. Only a commercial tenant can ask for such an injunction, and it must demonstrate that: (1) it has received a notice of default, notice to cure, or a threat of termination; (2) it has made its request to the court for an injunction prior to the termination of the lease; and (3) it is willing and able to cure the alleged default. Since these three factors are relatively easy to prove, such injunctions are commonly granted. Although Yellowstone injunctions are a tenant’s remedy, they are not always one-sided and can provide protections for a landlord. New York courts have imposed conditions on injunctions meant to protect the landlord during the period of the stay. For example, in disputes concerning defaults unrelated to the payment of rent, courts have conditioned the injunction on the continued payment of rent or the posting of a bond. In disputes concerning the payment of rent, courts have required the tenant to deposit rent arrears in a jointly held escrow account and deposit monthly sums equal to rent in the account for the duration of the injunction. Practical Implications From a tenant’s perspective, time is often of the essence. Because most cure periods can be quite short (7 to 10 calendar days is typical), a tenant must act quickly if it receives a notice of default or notice of cure. This should involve having an attorney review the notice and the lease, assess whether an injunction remedy is available, and, if so, make an emergency application in court to stop the clock on the cure period. Acting quickly not only preserves the tenant’s right to cure its default down the road if the court decides against the tenant, but it also provides the tenant some leverage by engaging the landlord in urgent litigation. From a landlord’s perspective, these practical implications have led many landlords to require a tenant to waive its right to seek such an injunction. These waivers often go beyond Yellowstone injunctions to waive a tenant’s right to bring a lawsuit for a “declaratory judgment”—meaning a lawsuit brought in the Supreme Court of New York seeking an interpretation of the lease and giving the parties access to full discovery. As a result of such a waiver, tenants are typically limited to bringing their claims in an expedited, streamlined proceeding in the landlord-tenant part of the local court, which does not typically allow for discovery (and is, thus, less costly for the landlord). However, a wave of new laws arose in 2019 with respect to declaratory judgment waivers, making it prudent for landlords to take stock of their commercial leases well before a dispute arises. In 2019, the Court of Appeals upheld the enforceability of a lease provision waiving a commercial tenant’s right to bring an action for a declaratory judgment. In the case decided by the court, the Yellowstone injunction requested by the tenant as part of the action was also denied as waived. Almost immediately, in response to the Court of Appeals decision, the New York State Legislature passed a law prohibiting such declaratory judgment waivers effective Dec. 20, 2019. Section 235-h of the New York Real Property prohibits and nullifies any provision in a commercial lease “waiving or prohibiting the right of any tenant to bring a declaratory judgment action with respect to any provision, term or condition” of its commercial lease. Section 235-h raises more questions than it answers. First, Section 235-h has been interpreted to only apply to leases signed after Dec. 20, 2019. Therefore, waivers of declaratory judgment actions contained in older leases can still be enforceable. Second, the prohibition’s scope is unclear and has not yet been tested in court.  Section 235-h prohibits waiving the remedy of a “declaratory judgment action,” but a Yellowstone injunction can still be available to tenants in other types of actions as well. This creates opportunities and risks for both tenants and landlords. From a tenant’s perspective, a tenant whose lease only waives “declaratory judgment” actions can try to frame its lawsuit as one for breach of contract (i.e., a breach of the lease) and seek a Yellowstone injunction in that context. Although this type of action may not be ideal for the tenant, it is a potential workaround of the waiver that creates the same urgency and leverage that can promote an out-of-court resolution. From a landlord’s perspective, a landlord may still try to require a more limited waiver of only a Yellowstone injunction (not declaratory judgments broadly) because Section 235-h does not call out Yellowstone injunctions specifically. Tenants, in turn, may try to resist or negotiate such a waiver depending on their relative bargaining power. Negotiations could include lengthening the cure period in exchange for a waiver or requiring the parties to participate in a mediation before the lease can be terminated. Yellowstone injunctions and related waivers are frequently litigated, making it essential to stay updated on changes in the law. Janet Kljyan is a member of Robinson+Cole’s business litigation group and Charles F. Martin III is a partner in the firm’s real estate and development group. Reprinted with permission from the February 14, 2024 edition of the New York Law Journal© 2023 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com

Be in the Know: How to Protect Your Business From Predatory Lawsuits teaser
March 2025

Be in the Know: How to Protect Your Business From Predatory Lawsuits

Food and Beverage Magazine
Legal Update: Supreme Court Decision Could Increase Copyright Trolling in the Second Circuit teaser
May 24, 2024

Legal Update: Supreme Court Decision Could Increase Copyright Trolling in the Second Circuit

February 14, 2024

‘Yellowstone’ Injunctions: Navigating the Wild West of Commercial Lease Disputes

New York Law Journal

The Yellowstone injunction is implicated in nearly every lease for commercial real property in the state of New York, yet most landlords and tenants do not know what it is or how it affects them. Below is a succinct overview of its implications so that commercial landlords and tenants can better navigate lease disputes. Stopping the Clock on a Cure Period Yellowstone injunctions take their name not from the popular neo-Western drama series but from the New York Court of Appeals case of First National Stores v. Yellowstone Shopping Center that created this limited-purpose injunction. In that case, the landlord and tenant disagreed about who was responsible for installing a sprinkler system, which the court ultimately decided was the tenant’s responsibility. Although the tenant was able and willing to make the installation once the court said so, the tenant had not asked to pause the cure period, and the landlord had terminated the lease for default. New York’s highest court decided it was not empowered to extend the tenant’s deadline to cure its default and upheld the lease termination. This case conceptualized and gave rise to the remedy referred to a Yellowstone injunction. Its purpose is to stop the running of the applicable cure period: it prevents a commercial landlord from prematurely terminating a lease for default until a court decides whether the alleged default is proper or not. Only a commercial tenant can ask for such an injunction, and it must demonstrate that: (1) it has received a notice of default, notice to cure, or a threat of termination; (2) it has made its request to the court for an injunction prior to the termination of the lease; and (3) it is willing and able to cure the alleged default. Since these three factors are relatively easy to prove, such injunctions are commonly granted. Although Yellowstone injunctions are a tenant’s remedy, they are not always one-sided and can provide protections for a landlord. New York courts have imposed conditions on injunctions meant to protect the landlord during the period of the stay. For example, in disputes concerning defaults unrelated to the payment of rent, courts have conditioned the injunction on the continued payment of rent or the posting of a bond. In disputes concerning the payment of rent, courts have required the tenant to deposit rent arrears in a jointly held escrow account and deposit monthly sums equal to rent in the account for the duration of the injunction. Practical Implications From a tenant’s perspective, time is often of the essence. Because most cure periods can be quite short (7 to 10 calendar days is typical), a tenant must act quickly if it receives a notice of default or notice of cure. This should involve having an attorney review the notice and the lease, assess whether an injunction remedy is available, and, if so, make an emergency application in court to stop the clock on the cure period. Acting quickly not only preserves the tenant’s right to cure its default down the road if the court decides against the tenant, but it also provides the tenant some leverage by engaging the landlord in urgent litigation. From a landlord’s perspective, these practical implications have led many landlords to require a tenant to waive its right to seek such an injunction. These waivers often go beyond Yellowstone injunctions to waive a tenant’s right to bring a lawsuit for a “declaratory judgment”—meaning a lawsuit brought in the Supreme Court of New York seeking an interpretation of the lease and giving the parties access to full discovery. As a result of such a waiver, tenants are typically limited to bringing their claims in an expedited, streamlined proceeding in the landlord-tenant part of the local court, which does not typically allow for discovery (and is, thus, less costly for the landlord). However, a wave of new laws arose in 2019 with respect to declaratory judgment waivers, making it prudent for landlords to take stock of their commercial leases well before a dispute arises. In 2019, the Court of Appeals upheld the enforceability of a lease provision waiving a commercial tenant’s right to bring an action for a declaratory judgment. In the case decided by the court, the Yellowstone injunction requested by the tenant as part of the action was also denied as waived. Almost immediately, in response to the Court of Appeals decision, the New York State Legislature passed a law prohibiting such declaratory judgment waivers effective Dec. 20, 2019. Section 235-h of the New York Real Property prohibits and nullifies any provision in a commercial lease “waiving or prohibiting the right of any tenant to bring a declaratory judgment action with respect to any provision, term or condition” of its commercial lease. Section 235-h raises more questions than it answers. First, Section 235-h has been interpreted to only apply to leases signed after Dec. 20, 2019. Therefore, waivers of declaratory judgment actions contained in older leases can still be enforceable. Second, the prohibition’s scope is unclear and has not yet been tested in court.  Section 235-h prohibits waiving the remedy of a “declaratory judgment action,” but a Yellowstone injunction can still be available to tenants in other types of actions as well. This creates opportunities and risks for both tenants and landlords. From a tenant’s perspective, a tenant whose lease only waives “declaratory judgment” actions can try to frame its lawsuit as one for breach of contract (i.e., a breach of the lease) and seek a Yellowstone injunction in that context. Although this type of action may not be ideal for the tenant, it is a potential workaround of the waiver that creates the same urgency and leverage that can promote an out-of-court resolution. From a landlord’s perspective, a landlord may still try to require a more limited waiver of only a Yellowstone injunction (not declaratory judgments broadly) because Section 235-h does not call out Yellowstone injunctions specifically. Tenants, in turn, may try to resist or negotiate such a waiver depending on their relative bargaining power. Negotiations could include lengthening the cure period in exchange for a waiver or requiring the parties to participate in a mediation before the lease can be terminated. Yellowstone injunctions and related waivers are frequently litigated, making it essential to stay updated on changes in the law. Janet Kljyan is a member of Robinson+Cole’s business litigation group and Charles F. Martin III is a partner in the firm’s real estate and development group. Reprinted with permission from the February 14, 2024 edition of the New York Law Journal© 2023 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com

Legal Update: FTC Proposes Rule Prohibiting Employee Noncompete Agreements and Broadly-Worded Non-Disclosure Agreements teaser
January 6, 2023

Legal Update: FTC Proposes Rule Prohibiting Employee Noncompete Agreements and Broadly-Worded Non-Disclosure Agreements

March 21, 2022

Avoid ‘Deadnaming’: How Universities and Colleges Can Get Ahead of Preferred Name Usage

University Business

The article covers challenges facing universities and colleges around the country from growing requests by students to identify themselves by a preferred or chosen name in place of the student’s legal name. The authors suggest that having a clear and thoughtful policy in place to address preferred name usage will help avoid “ad hoc or case-by-case determinations to grant such requests for a few reasons.” Universities and colleges may want to review a number of considerations as develop their policies, including: “(1) the logistics of establishing and utilizing a preferred name, (2) matters requiring the use of a legal name, and (3) identifying instances that may warrant rejecting a student’s request to use a preferred name.” View the article.

Legal Update: The Ever-Changing Landscape of Non-Compete Agreements – Recent Developments teaser
September 27, 2021

Legal Update: The Ever-Changing Landscape of Non-Compete Agreements – Recent Developments

Legal Update: Recent Amendments to Home Care Worker Wage Parity Law teaser
April 10, 2020

Legal Update: Recent Amendments to Home Care Worker Wage Parity Law



Legal Update: FTC Proposes Rule Prohibiting Employee Noncompete Agreements and Broadly-Worded Non-Disclosure Agreements teaser
January 6, 2023

Legal Update: FTC Proposes Rule Prohibiting Employee Noncompete Agreements and Broadly-Worded Non-Disclosure Agreements

March 21, 2022

Avoid ‘Deadnaming’: How Universities and Colleges Can Get Ahead of Preferred Name Usage

University Business

The article covers challenges facing universities and colleges around the country from growing requests by students to identify themselves by a preferred or chosen name in place of the student’s legal name. The authors suggest that having a clear and thoughtful policy in place to address preferred name usage will help avoid “ad hoc or case-by-case determinations to grant such requests for a few reasons.” Universities and colleges may want to review a number of considerations as develop their policies, including: “(1) the logistics of establishing and utilizing a preferred name, (2) matters requiring the use of a legal name, and (3) identifying instances that may warrant rejecting a student’s request to use a preferred name.” View the article.

Legal Update: The Ever-Changing Landscape of Non-Compete Agreements – Recent Developments teaser
September 27, 2021

Legal Update: The Ever-Changing Landscape of Non-Compete Agreements – Recent Developments

Legal Update: Recent Amendments to Home Care Worker Wage Parity Law teaser
April 10, 2020

Legal Update: Recent Amendments to Home Care Worker Wage Parity Law

News


October 3, 2025

Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganizations Practice Earns Dual Recognitions at Turnaround Atlas Awards

Robinson+Cole’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group won awards for both “Out of Court Restructuring of the Year” and “Healthcare Restructuring of the Year” presented by Global M&A Network at its 17th Annual Turnaround Atlas Awards. The event was hosted on September 23, 2025, at the Metropolitan Club in New York, NY. The “Out of Court Restructuring of the Year” award was presented for the secured party sale of Gander Group, a recognized leader in casino continuity and loyalty programs, to Stran Loyalty Solutions, LLC, a leading outsourced marketing solutions provider that leverages its promotional products and loyalty incentive expertise. Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group co-chair, Patrick M. Birney, led the acquisition, which created value by combining Gander Groups’ established presence and expertise in casino loyalty programs with Stran’s operational infrastructure and broad customer base, enabling cross-selling, operational efficiencies, and expended market reach, with projected revenue and cash flow growth. Robinson+Cole’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group also received the “Healthcare Restructuring of the Year” award for its representation of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in In re Mariner Health Central Inc. (N.D. Calif. 2022-23). The team representing the committee included Bankruptcy + Reorganizations co-chair Natalie D. Ramsey and partners Jamie L. Edmonson and Rachel Jaffe Mauceri, as well as Robinson+Cole attorneys John L. Cordani, Curtis J. Crowther, Tasnuva (Taz) Islam, and Janet (Zhanna) Kljyan. The debtors were three members of a corporate family (Mariner Health Care) that oversaw, managed, and operated approximately 20 skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) in California, plus additional facilities outside California. Robinson+Cole's co-representation of the Mariner Committee led significantly to the resolution of all of the litigation pending against the debtors and their non-debtor affiliates and a consensual plan. The firm’s co-committee advisors included co-counsel Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hamilton, LLP and Committee financial advisor, Province. Other key professionals included the Mariner Debtors’ advisors, Raines Feldman Littrell LLP, Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl & Jones and Sierra Constellation Partners. “We’re deeply honored by these recognitions, which underscore the sophistication and tenacity of our Bankruptcy + Reorganizations attorneys,” said Natalie Ramsey. “Each matter presented unique challenges, and our ability to deliver strategic, client-focused solutions is a testament to the depth of talent and collaboration across our group. These awards reflect not just meaningful outcomes, but the trust our clients place in us to navigate complex, high-stakes restructurings.” The independently governed Turnaround Atlas Awards honor the best value-creating transactions, outstanding firms, professionals and leaders from the global restructuring, insolvency, and distressed investing communities. In March, M&A Advisor also recognized Robinson+Cole’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group with the “Ch. 11 Reorganization of the Year” award in the under $100MM category for its representation of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in In re Mariner Health Central Inc. (N.D. Calif. 2022-23) at its 19th Annual Turnaround Awards. The Group went on to take home one of the event’s most significant recognitions: “Law Firm of the Year.”

Wins “Out of Court Restructuring” and “Healthcare Restructuring” Categories at Prestigious Annual Event
Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganizations Practice Earns Dual Recognitions at Turnaround Atlas Awards teaser
August 26, 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026

Firm receives top listing in Connecticut lawyer count in national peer review survey
78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026 teaser
April 7, 2025

Robinson+Cole Hosts 2025 Training for New York City Family Court Volunteer Attorney Program

Robinson+Cole Hosts 2025 Training for New York City Family Court Volunteer Attorney Program teaser
October 3, 2025

Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganizations Practice Earns Dual Recognitions at Turnaround Atlas Awards

Robinson+Cole’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group won awards for both “Out of Court Restructuring of the Year” and “Healthcare Restructuring of the Year” presented by Global M&A Network at its 17th Annual Turnaround Atlas Awards. The event was hosted on September 23, 2025, at the Metropolitan Club in New York, NY. The “Out of Court Restructuring of the Year” award was presented for the secured party sale of Gander Group, a recognized leader in casino continuity and loyalty programs, to Stran Loyalty Solutions, LLC, a leading outsourced marketing solutions provider that leverages its promotional products and loyalty incentive expertise. Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group co-chair, Patrick M. Birney, led the acquisition, which created value by combining Gander Groups’ established presence and expertise in casino loyalty programs with Stran’s operational infrastructure and broad customer base, enabling cross-selling, operational efficiencies, and expended market reach, with projected revenue and cash flow growth. Robinson+Cole’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group also received the “Healthcare Restructuring of the Year” award for its representation of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in In re Mariner Health Central Inc. (N.D. Calif. 2022-23). The team representing the committee included Bankruptcy + Reorganizations co-chair Natalie D. Ramsey and partners Jamie L. Edmonson and Rachel Jaffe Mauceri, as well as Robinson+Cole attorneys John L. Cordani, Curtis J. Crowther, Tasnuva (Taz) Islam, and Janet (Zhanna) Kljyan. The debtors were three members of a corporate family (Mariner Health Care) that oversaw, managed, and operated approximately 20 skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) in California, plus additional facilities outside California. Robinson+Cole's co-representation of the Mariner Committee led significantly to the resolution of all of the litigation pending against the debtors and their non-debtor affiliates and a consensual plan. The firm’s co-committee advisors included co-counsel Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hamilton, LLP and Committee financial advisor, Province. Other key professionals included the Mariner Debtors’ advisors, Raines Feldman Littrell LLP, Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl & Jones and Sierra Constellation Partners. “We’re deeply honored by these recognitions, which underscore the sophistication and tenacity of our Bankruptcy + Reorganizations attorneys,” said Natalie Ramsey. “Each matter presented unique challenges, and our ability to deliver strategic, client-focused solutions is a testament to the depth of talent and collaboration across our group. These awards reflect not just meaningful outcomes, but the trust our clients place in us to navigate complex, high-stakes restructurings.” The independently governed Turnaround Atlas Awards honor the best value-creating transactions, outstanding firms, professionals and leaders from the global restructuring, insolvency, and distressed investing communities. In March, M&A Advisor also recognized Robinson+Cole’s Bankruptcy + Reorganizations group with the “Ch. 11 Reorganization of the Year” award in the under $100MM category for its representation of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in In re Mariner Health Central Inc. (N.D. Calif. 2022-23) at its 19th Annual Turnaround Awards. The Group went on to take home one of the event’s most significant recognitions: “Law Firm of the Year.”

Wins “Out of Court Restructuring” and “Healthcare Restructuring” Categories at Prestigious Annual Event
Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganizations Practice Earns Dual Recognitions at Turnaround Atlas Awards teaser
August 26, 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026

Firm receives top listing in Connecticut lawyer count in national peer review survey
78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026 teaser
April 7, 2025

Robinson+Cole Hosts 2025 Training for New York City Family Court Volunteer Attorney Program

Robinson+Cole Hosts 2025 Training for New York City Family Court Volunteer Attorney Program teaser
April 2, 2025

Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganization Group Wins “Law Firm of the Year”

M&A Advisor 19th Annual Turnaround Awards
Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganization Group Wins “Law Firm of the Year” teaser
March 12, 2025

Janet Kljyan and Kathryn Rattigan Co-Author Article on Potential for Predatory Lawsuits in the Restaurant Industry

Food and Beverage Magazine
January 13, 2025

Robinson+Cole Elects New Partners and Counsel for 2025

November 26, 2024

Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganizations Group Wins Two 23rd Annual M&A Advisor Awards

M&A Advisor
Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganizations Group Wins Two 23rd Annual M&A Advisor Awards teaser
March 19, 2024

Janet Kljyan Appointed Vice President of Hudson River Housing Board of Directors

Hudson River Housing
February 21, 2024

Janet Kljyan and Charles Martin Author New York Law Journal Article on Yellowstone Injunctions and Commercial Lease Disputes

New York Law Journal

April 2, 2025

Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganization Group Wins “Law Firm of the Year”

M&A Advisor 19th Annual Turnaround Awards
Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganization Group Wins “Law Firm of the Year” teaser
March 12, 2025

Janet Kljyan and Kathryn Rattigan Co-Author Article on Potential for Predatory Lawsuits in the Restaurant Industry

Food and Beverage Magazine
January 13, 2025

Robinson+Cole Elects New Partners and Counsel for 2025

November 26, 2024

Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganizations Group Wins Two 23rd Annual M&A Advisor Awards

M&A Advisor
Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganizations Group Wins Two 23rd Annual M&A Advisor Awards teaser
March 19, 2024

Janet Kljyan Appointed Vice President of Hudson River Housing Board of Directors

Hudson River Housing
February 21, 2024

Janet Kljyan and Charles Martin Author New York Law Journal Article on Yellowstone Injunctions and Commercial Lease Disputes

New York Law Journal

Events


Past

"Show Her The Money" Film Screening + Conversation

Aug 18 2025
City Winery NYC
Past

Defending Against Predatory Lawsuits: Strategies for Small and Mid-Size Businesses

Sep 19 2024
R+C-Hosted Webinar
Past

"Show Her The Money" Film Screening + Conversation

Aug 18 2025
City Winery NYC
Past

Defending Against Predatory Lawsuits: Strategies for Small and Mid-Size Businesses

Sep 19 2024
R+C-Hosted Webinar
Past

New York City Family Court Volunteer Attorney Program

Oct 12 2022
Pro Bono Volunteer Training Program
Past

New York City Family Court Volunteer Attorney Program

Oct 12 2022
Pro Bono Volunteer Training Program