The case involves judgment creditor Eitzen Bulk A/S seeking to enforce a $36 million judgment against Ashapura Minechem Ltd. by serving information subpoenas on Bank of India’s New York branch under New York CPLR §§ 5222 and 5224 to obtain details on the debtor’s accounts, wire transfers, and communications. The court granted the motion to compel full compliance, including documents from the bank’s Mumbai and other branches. The reasoning was that the creditor had a reasonable belief the bank possessed relevant information, the bank had waived sovereign immunity by partially responding without timely objection, and it could not limit responses to its New York branch alone.
This case is the last remaining wrongful death action from the September 11 attacks, brought by Mary Bavis against United Airlines and its security contractor Huntleigh for alleged negligence in allowing terrorists to board and hijack Flight 175, which crashed into the World Trade Center. The court addresses whether federal law preempts state law on the standard of care for airline security, what federal standard applies if preemption occurs, and the order and burdens of proof for trial. It holds that the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act creates a federal cause of action and, together with the Federal Aviation Act and related regulations, occupies the field of air safety, preempting inconsistent state law under implied preemption principles. The opinion applies New York wrongful death elements but substitutes federal standards from aviation safety and security regulations for the negligence component, setting these for jury instructions in the upcoming trial.
The case involved Swatch Group Management Services Ltd. suing Bloomberg L.P. for copyright infringement after Bloomberg, without authorization, accessed, recorded, and transcribed a live conference call between Swatch Group executives and invited securities analysts, then distributed the recording and transcript to paid subscribers. The court denied Bloomberg's motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court reasoned that the authorized audio recording qualified as an original sound recording fixed in a tangible medium because it was simultaneously recorded during live transmission, satisfying the statutory requirements for copyright protection under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 102(a), and that the claim was properly registered.
This case involved a jewelry designer, Eyal R.D. Corp., suing competitor Jewelex New York Ltd. for allegedly copying its Prinuette Trade Dress jewelry design, asserting five New York state-law claims: common-law unfair competition, unjust enrichment, trade dress infringement, dilution under General Business Law § 360-l, and deceptive acts under § 349. The court granted Jewelex’s motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. The core reasoning was that the claims either were preempted by the federal Copyright Act because they sought protection equivalent to copyright in the design’s shape and configuration, or failed to state a plausible claim under Rule 12(b)(6) due to insufficient factual allegations, such as lacking any pleaded public harm for the § 349 claim.
This interpleader case, pending since 2003, concerns ownership of approximately $2.5 million plus interest held in the court's registry, originally deposited by the Federal Directorate of Supply and Procurement (FDSP) of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). The claimants are Yugoimport SDPR J.P., as successor to the FDSP, and the Republics of Croatia and Slovenia, representing the successor states to the SFRY. The court granted summary judgment to the Republics and denied Yugoimport's motions, holding that the funds must be distributed to the successor states under the Succession Agreement, a multilateral treaty among the post-SFRY states that followed the Dayton Accords. The core reasoning is that the FDSP was an agency of the SFRY, and the unambiguous terms of the Succession Agreement direct that assets held by such agencies be allocated to the successor states rather than to any private or successor entity like Yugoimport.
This case involved a motion by Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel Napoli Bern under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to vacate a prior order appointing independent special counsel Noah H. Kushlefsky to advise 59 clients who had received recoveries from the Victim Compensation Fund but were also parties to the World Trade Center disaster site litigation settlements. The court had appointed the special counsel after determining that Napoli Bern faced conflicts of interest, as these clients’ eligibility for the settlement could affect payouts to other clients and the overall 95% participation threshold, and after Napoli Bern failed to secure its own independent advisor as promised. The court denied the motion, holding that the appointment was necessary to ensure conflict-free representation and that Napoli Bern must cooperate with and compensate the special counsel under court supervision.