Phone: 215-735-8700
Email: abelli@kcr-law.com
Following his graduation magna cum laude from Temple University School of Law, Mr. Belli served as a law clerk for the Honorable Franklin S. Van Antwerpen of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Mr. Belli then gained significant litigation experience as an attorney at the City of Philadelphia Law Department, where he represented the City in a number of matters, including contract and bid disputes, construction litigation, real estate litigation, Section 1983 litigation, and attacks on the authority of City officials. Immediately prior to joining KCR, Mr. Belli was an associate at Pepper Hamilton LLP, where he focused on antitrust matters and complex commercial litigation.
Represented real estate developers in actions against multiple financial institutions alleging fraud and breach of contract after their failure to honor a multi-million dollar term sheet
Represented a local business in multi-jurisdictional litigation involving claims of fraud and breach of contract arising out of alleged misrepresentations made during the sale of that business by a major private equity company
Achieved, on behalf of a major real estate developer, pretrial dismissal of a foreclosure action filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Achieved favorable settlements of mortgage foreclosure actions on behalf of numerous commercial and residential debtors
Successfully obtained pretrial dismissal of numerous civil rights cases filed against the City of Philadelphia and its employees in both the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas
Successfully defended the City of Philadelphia against a contractor’s attempt to obtain a preliminary injunction which would have significantly disrupted City operations, and obtained pretrial dismissal of the underlying litigation, which challenged the City’s procurement process
Achieved, on behalf of the Prothonotary for the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, pretrial dismissal of a Mandamus action challenging the propriety of the FJD’s discovery court procedures