Nina Gershon

The case involved a kosher deli and its owners challenging New York Agriculture and Markets Law provisions that require sellers of kosher food to label it as such and disclose information about their kosher certifier, claiming violations of the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses as well as vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the statutes form a neutral labeling and disclosure regime with a secular purpose that neither advances nor inhibits religion and avoids excessive government entanglement with religious matters. The court further concluded that the laws give adequate notice to those regulated and do not create a risk of arbitrary enforcement, so they are not unconstitutionally vague.

religious libertybusiness & regulatorycivil rights

This case arose after Fannie Mae sued Olympia Mortgage Corporation for breach of contract, prompting Olympia (later in receivership) to file cross-claims against the relatives of its former president for allegedly fraudulent transfers made while Olympia was insolvent. The Donner Relatives moved for summary judgment to dismiss the cross-claims under New York Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273 (constructive fraud) and 276 (actual fraud), while Olympia cross-moved for summary judgment on the § 273 claim. The court denied the Donner Relatives’ motion and granted Olympia’s, finding the transfers lacked fair consideration because the relatives provided no services to Olympia and the payments were not part of the president’s documented compensation. It awarded Olympia specific damages against each relative plus prejudgment interest calculated from reasonable intermediate dates based on the timing of the transfers.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In United States v. Apazidis, the defendant was convicted by a jury of three counts of making false statements to a federally insured credit union to obtain a loan under 18 U.S.C. § 1014 and of twenty counts of engaging in monetary transactions over $10,000 involving criminally derived property under 18 U.S.C. § 1957, based on the use of loan proceeds. The defendant moved for judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions, and also sought a reduction in the $800,000 forfeiture amount. The court denied the motion, explaining that the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the government and that a rational jury could find each element proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on the loan documents and related testimony from the government's case-in-chief. The court further held that the jury's forfeiture finding was supported and that the defendant's own testimony, if considered, would not alter the outcome.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case involves Fannie Mae suing various parties, including Samuel Pinter, over fraud and breach of contract by Olympia Mortgage Corporation, a mortgage lender that Olympia’s receiver had already addressed via consent judgment. Fannie Mae moved for summary judgment under Rule 56 to pierce Olympia’s corporate veil and impose personal liability on Pinter, a major shareholder and founder who provided loans and guarantees but observed few corporate formalities. The court examined undisputed facts about Olympia’s undercapitalization, lack of records or meetings, overlapping operations with Pinter’s other entities including a religious nonprofit, and Pinter’s daily involvement and check-signing authority despite claims of limited knowledge. It addressed disputes over whether Pinter was a passive investor or exercised operational control, while noting Olympia’s insolvency and related criminal fraud by other officers. The opinion analyzes these elements to determine if veil-piercing is warranted on the motion.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved ACORN and its affiliates challenging a series of 2010 appropriations provisions that barred them from receiving any federal funding, on the ground that the measures constituted an unconstitutional bill of attainder. After consolidating the parties' motions for summary judgment, the court held that the challenged provisions violated the Bill of Attainder Clause. The court reasoned that Congress had specifically identified ACORN, determined its guilt for alleged wrongdoing such as fraud and election-law violations, and imposed punishment by cutting off funding, all without the protections of a judicial trial. Although Congress may legitimately safeguard taxpayer dollars from misuse, the opinion explained, it may not do so by legislatively adjudicating guilt in violation of the constitutional prohibition.

federal powercriminal law

The case involves plaintiff Sunil Parikh, an American of Indian descent employed as an engineer by the New York City Transit Authority, who alleged race and national origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, age discrimination under the ADEA, and related state law claims after being passed over for promotions to construction manager positions in favor of other candidates. The defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims, presenting evidence of the plaintiff's performance issues and the qualifications of the selected candidates. The court analyzed the undisputed facts regarding interviews, evaluations, and reorganization, finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory animus or pretext in the promotion decisions while noting the potential viability of the retaliation claim. It also rejected certain evidentiary proffers by the plaintiff that failed to meet procedural requirements under Rule 56.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved ACORN and its affiliates challenging a provision in a continuing appropriations resolution that prohibited them from receiving any federal funding, claiming it was an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The court granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the provision violated the Bill of Attainder Clause of the Constitution. The reasoning centered on the fact that Congress singled out a specific named organization for punishment by barring it from federal funds without a judicial trial, which the Constitution prohibits, even though Congress has the authority to prevent fraud and waste in federal spending. The decision did not address the merits of the allegations against ACORN regarding fraud or election violations.

federal power

In this diversity jurisdiction case, plaintiff Icebox-Scoops, Inc. sued defendants Finanz St. Honoré, B.V. and Dana Classic Fragrances, Inc. for breach of a licensing agreement granting exclusive worldwide rights to the TINKERBELL trademark for cosmetics and related products, as well as related tort claims, alleging issues including trademark ownership disputes with third parties like Disney and failures to maintain the license. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, applying Pennsylvania law per the agreement's choice-of-law clause and evaluating the sufficiency of the allegations regarding contract formation, performance obligations like minimum sales and royalties, termination procedures, and tort claims such as misrepresentation. Core reasoning focused on whether the complaint stated plausible claims based on the agreement's terms, including merger clauses and notice requirements, while noting that Dana was not a signatory but administered the license.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved trustees of union benefit funds suing an employer under ERISA to compel an audit of its payroll records and recover any delinquent contributions owed under a collective bargaining agreement, along with interest, damages, and fees. After the defendant failed to respond to the complaint, the court entered a default judgment and referred the matter for an inquest on damages. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's unopposed report, ordering the defendant to submit to an audit within 30 days or face an award of estimated damages totaling $42,157.80 plus attorneys' fees, costs, and audit fees if records were inadequate. The reasoning centered on the defendant's default and breach of its obligations under the agreement and ERISA, with estimates based on prior remittance reports when an actual audit could not proceed.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Husain v. Springer, students affiliated with a college newspaper sued the president of the College of Staten Island under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that her nullification of a 1997 student government election in response to the newspaper's endorsement of candidates violated their First Amendment rights. The Second Circuit agreed that the president's action violated the First Amendment but remanded the case after finding factual issues regarding qualified immunity; on remand, only claims for nominal damages remained after other claims for relief were dismissed or waived. The district court granted the defendant's motion for entry of judgment against herself, awarding plaintiffs a total of nine dollars in nominal damages without any admission of liability, on the ground that this satisfied the sole remaining claim and no trial was needed.

free speechcivil rightselections

The case concerns plaintiff Robert Alfano's claims against NGHT, Inc., NGC Network U.S., LLC, and Corbis Corporation under New York Civil Rights Law § 51 for using a photograph of him assisting John Gotti without consent in advertisements and materials promoting the documentary 'Inside the Mafia.' The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the use qualified for the incidental use exception because the program was newsworthy. The court analyzed the undisputed facts, including that the image was taken during Gotti's trial and related to events depicted in the documentary, and applied precedents holding that advertising for newsworthy media does not violate the statute when the image bears a real relationship to the content. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on both counts, finding no genuine issue of material fact that the use was protected.

free speechtorts & liability

In Sparks v. Seltzer, psychiatric patients at Creedmoor Psychiatric Center and a law clinic challenged the hospital's policy of supervising certain patient visits, claiming it violated their First Amendment rights by chilling speech and infringed on a Fourteenth Amendment 'zone of privacy.' The policy requires physician orders for supervision based on clinical or safety reasons, such as risks of violence or contraband, and allows guards or video monitoring during visits without restricting topics or recording conversations. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that plaintiffs failed to show a concrete chilling effect on protected speech under precedents like Laird v. Tatum, and that the policy did not compel disclosure or otherwise implicate recognized privacy interests under the Fourteenth Amendment.

free speechcivil rights

This case involves thousands of plaintiffs, including U.S. and foreign nationals who were victims or family members of victims of suicide bombings and other attacks in Israel, suing Arab Bank PLC under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and Alien Tort Claims Act (ATS) for allegedly providing banking services to designated terrorist organizations. Arab Bank responded by filing third-party complaints against several other banks, seeking contribution toward any damages if it were found liable, on the basis that those banks had processed some of the relevant funds transfers and had equal or greater knowledge of the organizations' terrorist ties. The court granted the motions to dismiss the third-party complaints. Its core reasoning was that neither the ATA nor the ATS creates a statutory right to contribution, and traditional tort principles do not permit contribution claims by intentional tortfeasors.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involves Caroline Westbrook, an African-American woman formerly employed by the City University of New York (CUNY), who sued CUNY and three individual employees alleging race-based discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted the motion in full, finding that Westbrook failed to present evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, that the employer's stated reasons for its actions were not shown to be pretextual, and that the individual defendants lacked the personal involvement required for liability under the relevant statutes. The court also noted that individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII and that certain procedural or due process arguments were unsupported.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involves pro se plaintiff Felipe Oteze Fowlkes, an incarcerated individual, suing New York state and county officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for alleged constitutional violations and a conspiracy, including retaliation based on his race and membership in the Five Percenters religion, false arrests, and an erroneous sex offender risk level designation under SORA related to a 1996 conviction. Defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and to transfer venue to the Northern District of New York. The court accepts the complaint's allegations as true for purposes of the motions, details the plaintiff's history with the defendants including prior litigation and interactions at Arthur Kill Correctional Facility, reviews SORA's registration procedures for incarcerated offenders, and notes that the Troy City Court ultimately handled the risk level determination rather than the facility.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involves parents suing a doctor, hospital system, and state child services commissioner, alleging improper medical examination, false child abuse diagnosis, unauthorized detention of their infant, and related investigations that violated federal and state laws, including due process rights to pursue their profession. The court granted the commissioner's motion to dismiss all claims against him but denied the medical defendants' motion to dismiss in full. The core reasoning addressed whether the medical providers qualified as state actors due to their role in child protective custody and reporting, the sufficiency of allegations regarding lack of good faith or gross negligence to overcome statutory immunity, and the viability of due process and malpractice claims based on the facts alleged.

civil rightsfamily lawhealthcaretorts & liability

In Marcoux v. American Airlines, Inc., flight attendants sued their employer American Airlines and their union APFA, alleging hybrid claims for breach of the duty of fair representation along with violations of the Railway Labor Act stemming from post-9/11 labor concessions that reduced compensation and altered working conditions under the 2001 collective bargaining agreement. The company had sought $340 million in annual savings from the flight attendant group as part of broader cost-cutting, and the union negotiated a Restructuring Participation Agreement after reviewing the airline's finances. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment in full, dismissing all remaining claims against both the company defendants and the union, while denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and finding their class certification motion moot. The decision rested on the absence of evidence that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in its negotiations and ratification processes, and on the determination that the Railway Labor Act claims failed as a matter of law because the union was the exclusive bargaining representative and no individual right of action existed for the asserted violations.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case involves claims by plaintiff workers against Atlantic Maintenance Corp. for alleged violations of wage and hour laws, including motions for contempt and sanctions, dismissal on mootness grounds, and certification of a collective action under federal law. The district court held that the defendant's objections to the magistrate judge's fifty-six page Report and Recommendation were not specific enough under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) to preserve review and were therefore waived. The court reviewed the R&R for clear error and found it thorough and well-supported, leading to adoption of its recommendations in full. These included denying the contempt motion but granting sanctions against the defendant, denying the motion to dismiss the lead plaintiff's claims as moot, and granting the motion to certify the case for collective action notice with specific directives for providing employee information and revising the notice form.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns John Hancock Life Insurance Company's effort to rescind a $1 million life insurance policy issued to Laryssa Vasserman after her death, on grounds that the application contained material misrepresentations about her income, occupation, and other existing policies, while the estate's administratrix counterclaimed that beneficiary Eugene Perchikov obtained the policy with intent to murder Vasserman and that John Hancock negligently caused the death. The court addressed John Hancock's motion for summary judgment on the rescission claim, reviewing facts about the application process, Perchikov's involvement, Vasserman's limited English proficiency, and questions over whether she personally provided the inaccurate information or whether the application was attached to the policy as required by New York law. The court identified genuine issues of material fact regarding the source of the misrepresentations and compliance with attachment requirements, which prevented resolution of the rescission claim on summary judgment.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure

In Gardner v. Fisher, petitioner Jermaine Gardner, appearing pro se, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his New York state convictions for second-degree murder and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, for which he received a sentence of 25 years to life as a second violent felony offender. He argued that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, citing conflicting eyewitness testimony, and that his due process rights were violated by the prosecutor's delayed disclosure of exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland and the trial court's refusal to impose sanctions or give a related jury instruction. The magistrate judge construed the weight-of-the-evidence claim as a federal sufficiency challenge, found that it and most Brady claims were procedurally defaulted due to failure to object at trial, and determined that the remaining claim regarding the jury instruction lacked merit because the trial court's ruling was proper. The district judge adopted the report and recommendation in full, denied the petition, and denied a certificate of appealability. The decision rested on principles of procedural default under federal habeas review and the absence of a constitutional violation on the preserved claim.

criminal lawprocedure