Denis Reagan Hurley

This case involves advertisers suing Newsday, Hoy, their distributor, and various employees, alleging a scheme to inflate reported circulation numbers by up to 50% through false submissions to the Audit Bureau of Circulation, which allowed defendants to charge higher advertising rates. Plaintiffs asserted RICO claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d), RICO conspiracy, and state-law claims for unjust enrichment, fraud, and violations of New York General Business Law § 349. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the fourth amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), applying the plausibility standard from Twombly and evaluating whether the pleadings sufficiently alleged predicate acts, enterprise conduct, and conspiracy agreements. Some individual defendants, such as Brennan, faced surviving RICO claims based on specific allegations of directing fraudulent activity, while others, such as Halfmann, had all claims dismissed for lack of particularized allegations.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case concerns plaintiffs Field Day LLC and AEG Live LLC, who sought to stage a large music festival in Riverhead but had their mass gathering permit application denied by Suffolk County and faced additional requirements from the Town of Riverhead and its police chief, leading to claims of First Amendment free speech violations along with tortious interference, prima facie tort, and negligence. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment by Riverhead, Police Chief Hegermiller, and the plaintiffs. It denied the motions in most respects, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether arbitrary prerequisites like an estimated need for 200 officers and intermunicipal agreements improperly blocked the event, but granted dismissal of the prima facie tort claim against those two defendants as a matter of law. The reasoning centered on the summary judgment standard requiring denial where rational jurors could differ on the facts, while concluding that the specific tort claim failed legally regardless of disputed facts.

free speechcivil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

The case arose from Field Day LLC's efforts to secure a mass gathering permit and other approvals from Suffolk County and the Town of Riverhead to stage a two-day music festival in June 2003, after entering a licensing agreement with a local development agency; the application was denied based on the local police chief's statement that traffic control could not be adequately managed. Plaintiffs sued the County, various individual officials, the Town, and others, alleging unlawful interference with their ability to hold the event, including possible influence from a competitor. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied plaintiffs' motion in full and denied the County defendants' motion except for dismissing claims against two individual defendants and the prima facie tort claim. The core reasoning focused on the existence of disputed factual issues regarding the permitting process, the validity of the traffic-related denial, and whether certain requirements like intermunicipal agreements were properly imposed or applied.

free speechcivil rightsbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a discovery dispute in an employment lawsuit where defendants sought production of two April 2003 draft memos authored by plaintiff Lara Curto on a company laptop. A magistrate judge ruled that the memos were protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, and defendants objected to that ruling. The court found that plaintiff's act of attaching the memos as unsealed exhibits to her opposition papers on the public docket waived any applicable privilege or protection. As a result, the court deemed defendants' objections moot and directed further proceedings on remaining discovery and summary judgment issues.

procedurelabor & employment

In Bucalo v. Shelter Island Union Free School District, plaintiff Stephanie Bucalo sued the defendant school district under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII, and the New York State Human Rights Law, alleging she was denied a Library Media Specialist position in 2003 due to her age and in retaliation for a prior EEOC charge. The case proceeded to a four-day jury trial, after which the jury returned a verdict for the defendant, finding that Bucalo had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that age or retaliation motivated the decision not to interview or hire her. Bucalo then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial under Rule 59. The court denied the motion, holding that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence presented and that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework did not require the result urged by the plaintiff in a jury-tried case.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves Hispanic former residents of a multi-family apartment building in the Incorporated Village of Farmingdale who sued the Village under the federal Fair Housing Act, alleging discriminatory housing practices that displaced them through targeted redevelopment efforts and enforcement actions. The plaintiffs claimed these steps, including revival of the Secatogue Avenue Redevelopment Project after a 2004 election, stricter parking rules, and approval of building permits for renovations, were motivated by anti-Hispanic sentiment toward day laborers in their neighborhood. The Village moved for summary judgment, asserting no discriminatory plan existed and its actions were legitimate. The court denied the motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact on whether the Village's conduct violated the FHA, including evidence of disparate impact and intent tied to the area's demographic changes and tenant displacement.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

This case involved plaintiff Circuito Cerrado, Inc. suing a restaurant and its owner for intercepting and publicly displaying a closed-circuit telecast of a 2009 soccer match without obtaining the required license, in alleged violation of sections 605 and 553 of the Federal Communications Act. After the defendants defaulted, the district court referred the matter for an inquest on damages; the magistrate judge recommended awarding statutory damages and costs totaling $20,350 against the corporate defendant only, finding insufficient grounds for individual liability against the owner. The district court adopted the report and recommendation in full after finding no clear error and no objections from either side. Judgment was therefore entered solely against the restaurant for that amount, the default against the individual defendant was vacated, and the case was closed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a products liability suit in which plaintiff Jeffrey Leibstein claimed third-degree burns from using portland cement manufactured by defendant LaFarge North America, Inc., with his wife asserting a loss of consortium claim; after a jury awarded him $125,400, plaintiffs moved under Rule 59 for a new trial. They alleged that two jurors had failed to disclose during voir dire that a family member had been burned by similar cement and that one juror had been a defendant in a civil suit, potentially tainting deliberations and leading to a compromise verdict. The court denied the motion in full. It first noted that a high-low agreement reached during deliberations, under which plaintiffs were guaranteed at least $100,000 and defendants would pay no more than $400,000, appeared to treat the verdict as a final settlement not subject to post-trial attack. Even reaching the merits, the court held that the evidence consisted only of triple hearsay, failed to satisfy the McDonough standard for establishing prejudicial juror nondisclosure, and did not warrant further evidentiary proceedings or a new trial.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involves plaintiff Janet Solnin suing under ERISA to recover long-term disability benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan after her claim was initially approved but later subject to review and potential denial by the insurer defendants following a change in the policy's disability definition. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the claim was properly handled based on medical reviews, surveillance, and procedural compliance. The court denied the motion, finding unresolved issues regarding the timeliness of the administrator's decisions, application of regulatory deadlines and tolling provisions under pre-2000 ERISA claims procedures, and whether substantial compliance occurred with requirements for notifying claimants and obtaining necessary information.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

In Hirschberg v. Bank of America, N.A., plaintiff Deborah Hirschberg, a long-serving Branch Manager born in 1956, sued her former employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and New York State Human Rights Law, alleging that her October 2007 termination was motivated by age bias from new supervisors. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that the termination stemmed from repeated audit failures at the East Rockaway branch, including violations of account-opening procedures and a Code of Ethics breach involving falsified documents. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case, finding no direct evidence of discriminatory animus, that Hirschberg was not similarly situated to younger comparators who received different treatment, and that the bank's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons were not shown to be pretextual under the McDonnell Douglas framework or the but-for causation standard. The decision emphasized undisputed performance deficiencies and the absence of evidence linking age to the employment action.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved several music publishers and copyright owners suing a restaurant (Cabo Mexican Restaurant) and its operator for unauthorized public performances of five copyrighted musical compositions without an ASCAP license. After the defendants failed to respond to the complaint, the district court entered a default judgment and referred the matter to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation on damages and injunctive relief. The magistrate reviewed evidence of repeated unlicensed performances and recommended statutory damages of $15,000, attorneys' fees of $4,795, costs of $1,001.75, and a permanent injunction against further infringements of ASCAP-repertory works; the district judge adopted these recommendations in full after finding no clear error and no objections from the parties.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case concerns plaintiff Jose Pereira's action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability benefits. After the district court reversed the denial and remanded for further proceedings, the plaintiff moved for attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The magistrate judge recommended awarding fees for 45.1 hours of work at separately calculated 2009 and 2010 rates plus $566.34 in costs, finding the hours reasonable and the costs supported despite the Commissioner's objections to the amount. With no objections filed to the report, the district court reviewed for clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, and directed the plaintiff to submit a recalculated affidavit for entry of the final award.

healthcareprocedure

This case is a class action challenging strip searches performed without reasonable suspicion on individuals arrested for misdemeanors or non-criminal offenses upon admission to the Nassau County Correctional Center. Defendants conceded liability for the unconstitutional searches, prompting the court to certify a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) for both liability and general damages after a Second Circuit remand. Following a bench trial on general damages, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, determining that the searches occurred in a common manner in the facility's clothing rooms and caused an inherent affront to human dignity warranting compensation per search, while reserving individual special damages for later proceedings. The core reasoning centered on the absence of reasonable suspicion, lack of institutional policies or training, and the predominance of uniform dignity harms suitable for class treatment.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved property owners in Southampton challenging the town's enforcement of zoning and rental ordinances on their residential properties, including searches, code violations for unapproved basement living spaces, and state court actions seeking temporary restraining orders and injunctions; plaintiffs also claimed these enforcement efforts constituted retaliation for MacPherson filing an earlier federal lawsuit contesting the constitutionality of the town's seasonal rental permit law. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and (6). It dismissed claims barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because they effectively challenged the effect of state court orders, dismissed equal protection claims for failure to allege similarly situated comparators, and dismissed corporate plaintiffs' retaliation claims due to lack of protected activity, but allowed MacPherson's First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed based on allegations of protected speech followed by enforcement actions that could chill speech.

civil rightsfree speechpropertyprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Kiera Talley, a Caucasian teacher applicant and daughter of a school board president, sued the Brentwood Union Free School District and several board members under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments, alleging that the defendants retaliated against her by abstaining from votes required to approve her probationary teaching contract—pursuant to a nepotism policy—and ultimately terminating her employment, due to their disagreements with her father's board votes and their desire to favor minority candidates. The court had previously dismissed several claims, including substantive due process, conspiracy, and certain equal protection claims, but allowed the First Amendment intimate association claim and one equal protection claim against some defendants to proceed. On the present motions, the court denied the defendants' request to dismiss the remaining claims on qualified immunity grounds, reasoning that the defense's applicability depends on facts yet to be established and that the allegations of retaliation for protected association prevent a finding of objective reasonableness at the pleading stage. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to reassert the conspiracy claims.

civil rightsprocedurefree speechlabor & employment

The case involved former Hofstra University students who worked multiple on-campus positions as undergraduate or graduate assistants and alleged they regularly exceeded 40 hours per week without receiving minimum wage or overtime compensation under the FLSA and New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action on behalf of similarly situated assistants. The court denied the university's objections to the magistrate judge's order conditionally certifying a class of all such assistants within the past three years who did not receive required wages, finding sufficient preliminary evidence from affidavits and employment handbooks that plaintiffs and potential class members were subject to common policies and practices. However, the court granted the objection regarding the proposed notice, requiring it to align precisely with the certified class definition.

labor & employment

In Getlin v. Zoll, the plaintiff sued police officer Zoll and the Village of Hempstead under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by shooting him during a traffic stop and then dragging, kicking, and punching him after he had surrendered. The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claim against the village but denied summary judgment on the excessive force claim against the officer. The core reasoning was that material facts were disputed regarding the events immediately before the shooting and afterward, requiring the court to view the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff; under that version, the officer lacked probable cause to believe the plaintiff posed an imminent threat of serious injury once the vehicle had stopped and the plaintiff had his hands raised, and the post-shooting force was also unreasonable. The court further held that qualified immunity could not be decided at summary judgment because the same factual disputes prevented a determination of whether a reasonable officer would have known the conduct was unlawful.

civil rights

In this case, defendant Rodney Morrison was convicted of a RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) for selling cigarettes without New York tax stamps in violation of N.Y. Tax Law § 471 and the federal Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2342(a). The court granted the defendant's motion for reconsideration of its prior denial of his due process challenge to Count Two and dismissed that count. The basis for reconsideration was the Second Circuit's decision in City of New York v. Golden Feather Smoke Shop, Inc., which held that the applicability of New York's cigarette taxation scheme to reservation sellers remained unsettled pending further state court rulings. The court concluded that this created ambiguity in the law, so the defendant lacked fair notice that his conduct was illegal, violating due process. The government argued that the Second Circuit decision was not controlling and did not apply to the version of the tax law at issue, but the court rejected that position.

criminal lawtaxes

This case involves Harold Harris seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his disability benefits claim after an ALJ found he could perform light work. Following a prior remand for further administrative proceedings, the plaintiff moved for attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court granted the motion in full, awarding $7,458.00 to be paid to counsel. It determined that the plaintiff was a prevailing party, the government's position was not substantially justified, and no special circumstances justified reducing the fees despite the plaintiff's rejection of an earlier remand offer, as that rejection was not unreasonable given the timing after significant work had been done and the non-frivolous arguments presented; the court also approved the requested hourly rates based on the local CPI-U and directed payment to counsel pursuant to an assignment.

federal powerprocedure

In Hyek v. Field Support Services, Inc., plaintiff Audra Hyek, a former employee promoted multiple times with salary increases at a company providing services on Plum Island under a DHS contract, sued her employer under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law alleging gender discrimination through disparate treatment in work conditions, termination, and a hostile work environment. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's claims of unequal treatment and harassment lacked evidentiary support beyond her own deposition statements, that the employer had legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions including documented performance issues like record discrepancies and a safety incident, and that there was no showing of pretext or gender-based motivation. The opinion also noted the plaintiff's failure to oppose certain arguments or develop evidence on her hostile environment claim.

civil rightslabor & employment