Jhamaal J. Sykes

Associate

Jhamaal J. Sykes

Associate

Locations

Philadelphia, PA

Contact

Philadelphia, PA
F (215) 433-1501

Biography

Jhamaal is an associate with the Philadelphia office of Winget, Spadafora & Schwartzberg, LLP. His practice focuses primarily on disputes in the securities industry as well as the defense of professionals to include insurance agents, attorneys, architects, engineers and real estate agents. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Sykes practiced at a mid-sized regional firm where he handled special investigations and fraud matters, general liability, and insurance litigation. Before that, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Jordan B. Yeager of the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas.

Mr. Sykes earned his J.D. from the American University Washington College of Law, where he was a member of the Federalist Society and Intellectual Property Law Society. Outside of his professional pursuits, Mr. Sykes is an avid enjoyer of roller coasters and theme parks, as well as hiking and sightseeing in America’s great national parks.

Representative Decisions

Harrison v. Bloom Realty & Insurance, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, General Equity Part, Atlantic County, docket no. ATL-C-97-25, secured summary judgment on the eve of trial dismissing all claims with prejudice on behalf of his client, a New Jersey real estate brokerage and its principal in an action seeking $1.5 million in damages relating to the sale of real property. The plaintiff traced its claimed interest in the property to a handwritten “after-discovered will” that was never admitted to probate, and pleaded seven counts sounding in fraud, the Consumer Fraud Act, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and punitive damages.

The Court noted in its Order that Jhamaal’s briefing “meticulously address[ed] each of Plaintiff’s seven causes of action.” The Court found “the evidence is so one-sided that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The Order reflects prevailing law as to the scope of a broker’s duty to non-clients.

Associated Posts