District Court, N.D. New York — appointed by Harry S. Truman
Benedict v. Henderson
District Court, N.D. New York · 1989-10-10 · cited 2×
This case involves a habeas corpus petition challenging two separate New York state convictions: one for attempted murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, and another for burglary in the third degree. The petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of counsel in the first trial under the Sixth Amendment, due to counsel's handling of the petitioner's testimony, and a Fifth Amendment violation in the second trial from the prosecutor's selective use of immunity for witnesses. The court adopted the magistrate's report and denied the petition in full. It applied Strickland v. Washington to find that counsel's performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and caused no prejudice, while the immunity claim was either procedurally defaulted or failed on the merits due to lack of bad faith or misconduct by the prosecution under precedents like United States v. Turkish.
criminal lawprocedure
Smoot v. New York Susquehanna & Western Railway Corp.
District Court, N.D. New York · 1989-03-15 · cited 2×
This case involved a personal injury claim under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) brought by Gregory Smoot against the New York Susquehanna & Western Railway Corporation after he was injured operating a ballast regulator on the railroad’s tracks. Smoot was nominally employed by an independent contractor performing rehabilitation work for the railroad but alleged that railroad personnel exercised substantial control over his work. The railroad moved for summary judgment, arguing that Smoot was not its employee for FELA purposes and was estopped from pursuing the claim because he had received workers’ compensation benefits from the contractor. The court denied the motion, holding that genuine factual disputes existed regarding Smoot’s employment status under the standards set forth in Kelley v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., making summary judgment inappropriate and leaving the issues for a jury to decide.
labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability
Lane v. LeFevre
District Court, N.D. New York · 1989-02-01 · cited 4×
This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Warren Lane, a state prisoner convicted in 1981 of first-degree rape and sodomy in Albany County Court, challenging his conviction on grounds that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The magistrate recommended granting the writ and ordering a new trial within sixty days unless the indictment was dismissed. After de novo review of the record, an evidentiary hearing, and state court proceedings, the district court rejected the magistrate's recommendation. The court concluded that trial counsel's investigation and performance were adequate under prevailing standards, any claimed deficiencies would not have altered the outcome due to overwhelming evidence of guilt, and the petitioner received a fair trial, leading to denial and dismissal of the petition.
criminal lawprocedure
Brody v. McMahon
District Court, N.D. New York · 1988-04-27 · cited 8×
In Brody v. McMahon, a state prison inmate filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against members of the New York State Commission of Correction, alleging they knew of unconstitutional conditions at Clinton Correctional Facility, such as inadequate heat and limited privileges, but failed to act despite receiving numerous grievances. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing lack of personal involvement. The district court rejected the magistrate's recommendation to deny the motion and granted dismissal, holding that Commission members have no operational or supervisory authority over correctional facilities under New York Correction Law; their role is limited to independent oversight, grievance review, and non-binding recommendations. The court emphasized that § 1983 liability requires personal responsibility, which was not alleged here, as the Commission functions only as a watchdog agency without power to control facility policies or personnel.
criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure
Johnson v. Cuomo
District Court, N.D. New York · 1984-10-23 · cited 5×
The case involved a challenge by Sonia Johnson and Richard Walton, the 1984 Citizens Party nominees for President and Vice President, to four provisions of the New York Election Law that required 20,000 signatures with geographic distribution for independent ballot access. After obtaining only about 6,000 signatures and filing the petition after the statutory deadline, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction directing their placement on the November 1984 general election ballot, claiming the laws violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court denied the injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions with a balance of hardships in their favor, and that the unchallenged filing deadline made the constitutional claims moot. It found the signature and timing rules provided reasonable opportunity for new parties, consistent with Supreme Court precedent on ballot access.
electionsfree speechcivil rights
U.S. Industries, Inc. v. Norton Co.
District Court, N.D. New York · 1984-01-10 · cited 8×
This case involved a long-running patent-antitrust dispute in which the court had previously invalidated the patent at issue as obvious and unenforceable due to misconduct in the Patent Office, dismissed the plaintiffs' antitrust and unfair competition claims, and awarded attorney fees to the plaintiffs under 35 U.S.C. § 285 as an exceptional case. The present opinion addresses the plaintiffs' applications for attorney fees, disbursements, and costs totaling over $414,000, plus reimbursement for an expert witness. Following the lodestar method from Hensley v. Eckerhart and related Second Circuit precedents, the court set reasonable hourly rates, allocated fees between patent and antitrust claims on a 60-40 basis, approved most requested amounts after adjustments, and denied requests for interest on the fees and for full expert witness compensation beyond statutory costs.
business & regulatoryprocedure