James Thomas Foley

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this civil rights lawsuit, plaintiff Capozzi sued police officer Krasher and the City of Albany, with a jury returning a verdict in plaintiff's favor on claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, false arrest, false imprisonment, and abuse of process for $25,000 in damages, while finding against plaintiff on battery and malicious prosecution; the court had directed a verdict for the City on the § 1983 claim due to lack of proof of an official policy or custom. The opinion addresses plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 as the prevailing party. The court awarded fees and costs totaling $14,834.95 after applying the lodestar calculation of reasonable hours expended multiplied by reasonable hourly rates, considering the Johnson factors, and finding no basis for an upward adjustment or denial despite a contingency fee arrangement.

civil rightsprocedure

In Flowers v. Coughlin, an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility challenged his involuntary transfer from protective custody to the Assessment and Program Preparation Unit (APPU) and his continued confinement there without additional hearings or review, claiming violations of his Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Sixth, Eighth, and Thirteenth Amendment claims, finding those provisions inapplicable or the conditions insufficient to establish a violation. The court denied summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, reasoning that the plaintiff may possess a liberty interest in avoiding the APPU if it operates like protective custody, which could require procedural protections to justify his ongoing exclusion from the general prison population.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved two inmates at Great Meadow Correctional Facility who brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials, alleging multiple incidents of excessive force during 1975, including during removal from an Adjustment Committee hearing and compelled rectal examinations required before transfers. After a bench trial, the court dismissed all remaining claims, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove constitutional violations. The core reasoning was that the officers' use of force, such as arm and leg holds, was necessary and proportionate to overcome the inmates' resistance to prison regulations and maintain order, rather than malicious or excessive; the court credited the officers' contemporaneous reports and testimony over the plaintiffs' accounts in resolving factual disputes.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a federal habeas corpus petition by a state prisoner challenging his convictions from two trials on an indictment charging intentional murder, felony murder, attempted murder, and attempted robbery. In the first trial, the jury acquitted him of intentional murder, convicted him of attempted robbery, and deadlocked on the other two counts; he was then retried and convicted on the felony murder and attempted murder counts. The court granted the petition in part, holding that the retrial on the felony murder count violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because the attempted robbery conviction in the first trial barred successive prosecution on the greater included offense of felony murder. The attempted murder conviction was left undisturbed as it involved a separate victim and was not affected by the prior verdict. The court set aside the felony murder sentence and conviction while noting the petition was not barred as successive or delayed.

criminal lawprocedure

In Allen v. Coughlin, five inmates at Clinton Correctional Facility filed a purported class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal court, alleging that various policies, rules, and programs at the prison violated their constitutional rights. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, remove it from the jury calendar, and deny class certification. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the eighteen allegations were general and conclusory without specific facts, that the named defendants lacked personal involvement, and that class treatment was unnecessary because individual complaints could address the grievances. The decision relied on precedents emphasizing that federal courts do not supervise state prisons and must defer to prison officials on matters of institutional security and discipline.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a pro se lawsuit by an inmate at Onondaga County Correctional Facility against the acting warden under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming inadequate medical treatment for diabetes, including improper diet and cancelled appointments, and seeking $50,000 in damages. The defendant moved for summary judgment, supported by an affidavit and medical records showing the plaintiff received a diabetic diet, insulin access, and other care, though he had hoarded forbidden foods and insisted on self-administering medication. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding no personal involvement by the defendant in any alleged deprivation and that respondeat superior does not apply under § 1983, while the records demonstrated no deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's medical needs.

civil rightshealthcarecriminal law

The case concerned IRS efforts to enforce summonses issued to banks and to attorney Jeremiah Manning and his law firm for testimony and documents related to the preparation of the federal estate tax return for Katherine P. Gifford's estate. The court granted partial enforcement of the summons against Manning, ordering him to answer most of the questions posed and produce most of the requested documents while upholding attorney-client privilege for a specific list of questions and certain documents. The core reasoning applied the attorney-client privilege only to confidential communications intended to remain private, found the work-product doctrine and Fifth Amendment claims largely inapplicable or waived, and determined relevance under the standard of whether the information might shed light on the accuracy of the tax return.

taxesprocedure

This case involved a pro se complaint filed by a New York state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three correction officers, alleging lack of due process and a fair hearing in a prison disciplinary proceeding at Clinton Correctional Facility, as well as the malicious destruction of the plaintiff's legal materials and personal property. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that the plaintiff's answers to interrogatories revealed no viable claims against the named officers, who had no personal involvement in the alleged violations, and that none of them presided over the hearing. The court further reasoned that the exhibits attached to the complaint contradicted the due process allegations by showing compliance with procedural requirements, that the complaint violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) through its lack of specific facts, and that respondeat superior does not apply in § 1983 actions. The decision also referenced broader principles that federal courts do not supervise state prisons and must accord deference to prison officials on matters of internal order and security.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a federal habeas corpus petition filed by an inmate convicted in New York state court of sexual abuse in the first degree, challenging his 1977 conviction on three grounds: involuntary and coerced statements obtained under threat of parole revocation, prejudicial cross-examination about alleged prior conduct from 15 years earlier in violation of a pretrial order, and identification testimony tainted by suggestive procedures. The U.S. District Court denied and dismissed the petition in its entirety. The court reasoned that the claims failed to overcome procedural bars such as exhaustion of state remedies and waiver under precedents like Picard v. Connor and Wainwright v. Sykes, that state court factual findings were presumptively correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) absent clear contrary evidence, and that any evidentiary issues did not rise to a federal constitutional violation given the trial court's curative jury instructions and the overall fairness of the proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the IRS seeking court enforcement of summonses served on Sneeky Theef Records, Inc. and its president Johanan Vigoda for financial records and workpapers related to tax returns from 1974-1977. The court granted enforcement of the summonses, modifying the date range for bank records slightly, after rejecting defenses including lack of jurisdiction, improper service, Fifth Amendment privilege, and that the IRS already possessed some records. The reasoning centered on the statutory authority for district courts to enforce such summonses, the inapplicability of self-incrimination protections to corporate documents and accountant workpapers, and the lack of evidence that the investigation was duplicative.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

The plaintiff, an inmate at Attica Correctional Facility, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against New York State parole officials, claiming that the seizure of nude photos from his wife during a prison visit at Auburn Correctional Facility resulted in charges filed against him and parole rescission hearings that violated his rights under the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous, noting that the plaintiff had previously filed similar actions that were dismissed and that the current complaint avoided requesting release from confinement to circumvent Preiser v. Rodriguez. The core reasoning was that there is no constitutional right to conditional release on parole, state parole officials enjoy absolute immunity from § 1983 suits, collateral estoppel bars relitigation of issues already decided in state courts, and prisoners have limited Fourth Amendment protections compared to the general public.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved inmates in the Special Housing Unit at Clinton Correctional Facility challenging routine visual body cavity searches after contact visits as violations of their constitutional rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, brought via 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously issued a declaratory judgment limiting such searches to situations with reasonable cause and specific procedural safeguards. On a motion to modify the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) citing the Supreme Court's decision in Bell v. Wolfish, the court denied relief, reasoning that Wolfish does not authorize routine searches as per se constitutional but requires a balancing of security needs against personal privacy invasions, and the original findings that the searches were unreasonable remained valid without evidence of undue hardship warranting modification.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involves the IRS's petition to enforce an administrative summons served on a bank manager to produce records related to a taxpayer's income tax liabilities for 1974-1977. The taxpayer intervened, arguing the summons should be quashed as it resulted from an alleged unconstitutional interrogation violating his Fifth Amendment rights and improper internal disclosure of confidential tax information. The court granted the petition to enforce the summons, finding that the IRS satisfied the requirements for enforcement under United States v. Powell, that the Fifth Amendment privilege does not extend to third-party bank records, and that the disclosure claim was unsupported and likely permitted under statutory exceptions.

taxesprocedurecriminal law

In Redcross v. County of Rensselaer, plaintiff Rebecca Redcross sued Rensselaer County officials and agencies under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, alleging that investigators and prosecutors unlawfully detained her as a material witness without a court order under New York Criminal Procedure Law Article 620 following the 1978 murder of a Hell’s Angels member, violating her constitutional rights. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and alternatively for summary judgment. The court granted dismissal of the claims under §§ 1985(2), 1985(3), and 1986 for lack of supporting allegations but denied dismissal of the § 1983 and § 1988 claims, finding they stated viable causes of action. It also denied summary judgment, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the defendants’ involvement and good-faith qualified immunity.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure