Lawrence E. Kahn

This case concerns a dispute between the law firm Bond, Schoeneck & King and the Oneida Indian Nation over the scope of attorney's fees owed under a retainer agreement from prior land claim litigation against New York counties. The court reviewed a magistrate judge's report recommending that the firm receive only $5,174.54 from the $57,494.54 monetary damages recovered, and addressed the firm's objection seeking a larger fee based on the value of a casino and other benefits derived from the legal principle established in the case. It denied a motion to strike the firm's objection for not being filed under seal, finding the filing error accidental and without bad faith. The court concluded that the retainer agreement limited fees to the monetary amount recovered in the judgment and rejected the firm's expansive interpretation that would include non-monetary benefits such as business operations or trust land decisions.

propertyprocedurecivil rights

This case involved The Ayco Company, a financial services firm, seeking a preliminary injunction against two former employees, Wolfgang Frisch and Stefan Oglevee, who resigned in May 2011 to join competitor UBS Financial Services. Ayco alleged that the defendants breached non-compete clauses in their employment agreements, misappropriated confidential client information and trade secrets, and engaged in unfair competition. The court granted the preliminary injunction, enforcing the ninety-day non-compete periods and prohibiting use or disclosure of Ayco's confidential information through August 2011. The decision rested on findings that Ayco was likely to succeed on the merits of its contract and trade secret claims under New York law, that the non-compete clauses were reasonable and enforceable, and that the balance of equities favored injunctive relief to protect Ayco's client relationships and proprietary data.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a patent infringement suit by Canadian trust Advanced Fiber Technologies against Wisconsin corporation J & L Fiber Services, alleging that J & L's V-Max screen cylinders used in pulp screening infringed AFT's reissued U.S. Patent No. RE 39,940 (a reissue of the earlier '072 patent) directed to screen plates and manufacturing methods. J & L denied infringement, asserted invalidity and unenforceability of the patent, and sought declaratory judgment, while both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement and validity along with a motion for claim construction. The court construed disputed terms such as "screening medium," "wedgewire," "means for releasably connecting," and attachment methods like riveting or shrink-fitting, then applied those constructions to find certain dependent claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and to grant summary judgment of non-infringement on the remaining claims due to absence of literal infringement or equivalence. Core reasoning rested on the patent specification, prosecution history, prior art references such as the Johnson Screens Brochure and Gillespie patent, and the requirement that claims must be definite and supported.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a challenge by Grace Cornell to the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, based on her multiple medical conditions including hernias, respiratory issues, musculoskeletal problems, and mental health disorders. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court vacated the Commissioner's finding of no disability and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The decision was based on the determination that the administrative law judge's analysis improperly overlooked treating physician opinions, conducted a flawed credibility assessment, and failed to adequately account for the combined effects of the plaintiff's impairments by not consulting a vocational expert.

labor & employmenthealthcare

In Johnson v. Astrue, plaintiff Marc W. Johnson sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his application for Disability Insurance Benefits, claiming disability due to severe hearing loss and tinnitus that prevented him from continuing his work as a music teacher. The court vacated the Commissioner's determination that Johnson was not disabled and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. The core reasoning was that the ALJ failed to properly establish at step five that Johnson had transferable skills for other work or the residual functional capacity for medium work, particularly not accounting for his nonexertional limitations and advanced age in the vocational analysis.

labor & employmentprocedure

James Roat brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his application for disability insurance benefits based on alleged mental impairments including depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full and remanded the Commissioner's decision for further administrative proceedings. The court found that the ALJ had not adequately considered the medical opinions and other record evidence concerning the severity of Roat's impairments, his credibility, or his residual functional capacity, and that additional development of the record on his mental health conditions was required before a final determination.

federal powerhealthcare

The case concerns motions for preliminary injunctions brought by multiple public employee unions against New York Governor David Paterson, the state legislature, and other officials, seeking to block emergency appropriation extender bills that would alter terms of existing collective bargaining agreements with state workers. The court had previously granted temporary restraining orders and now addresses whether those bills unconstitutionally impair the contracts under the Contract Clause. The opinion reviews the factual background of the CBAs under the Taylor Law, the content of the challenged legislation, and precedents such as Buffalo Teachers Federation and Baltimore Teachers Union, concluding that the impairments here are more severe, lack adequate legislative findings of necessity, and do not meet the standards for reasonableness applied in those cases.

labor & employment

This case involves plaintiff Loretta Mortise's challenge under the Social Security Act to the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits, based on alleged disability from a back impairment and depression with an onset date in 2002. After multiple hearings and ALJ decisions finding her not disabled, which became the final agency decision, Mortise sought judicial review in district court. The magistrate judge issued a Report-Recommendation finding legal errors in the ALJ's analysis, including improper evaluation of medical evidence and opinions. The district court adopted the report in full without objection or plain error, remanding the case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for calculation and award of benefits.

healthcare

This case involved three former co-owners of Tougher Industries suing their company's accounting firm, TBC, and CPA Drislane for professional malpractice, fraudulent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and civil RICO conspiracy. The claims arose from alleged inaccuracies in financial statements and audits that plaintiffs said they relied on when entering indemnity agreements and allowing bonding for construction contracts, leading to personal liability exposure. The district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the fraud-related claims, the RICO claim for lack of a sufficient pattern of racketeering activity, and part of the malpractice claim as time-barred under the statute of limitations, while allowing the non-time-barred malpractice portion to proceed.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case is an appeal by debtor James W. Hawkins from a bankruptcy court order granting sanctions against him under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011 for filing a contempt motion. The district court affirmed the sanctions in full, finding no abuse of discretion by the bankruptcy court in determining that the motion lacked factual or legal basis given multiple prior rulings on the estates and that it caused unnecessary delay in the trustee's administration. The underlying bankruptcy proceedings involved joint Chapter 11 cases of several related entities, a court-approved compromise of claims including a residence sale, and ongoing disputes over property rights and plan modifications, but the sanctions focused specifically on the objective unreasonableness of the contempt filing. The court also upheld the award of reasonable attorney's fees to the trustee as an appropriate deterrent under the rule.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryproperty

The case involved plaintiff Christy Spadaro, a white female employee at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, who was terminated from her newly created Administrative Action Administrator 2 position while on maternity leave in May 2007. She sued her supervisors and the state under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging her discharge resulted from unlawful discrimination based on pregnancy and race. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. It applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and found that Spadaro failed to establish a prima facie case or raise a genuine issue of material fact showing that the stated reasons for termination were pretextual.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this case, an inmate at Shawangunk Correctional Facility sued several physicians, including prison doctors and a private surgeon, alleging that they denied him constitutionally adequate medical care and equal protection after he underwent coronary bypass surgery. The plaintiff claimed issues with post-operative work restrictions, follow-up care, and pain medication. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full after de novo review. It granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, finding that the provided medical treatment complied with discharge instructions, involved appropriate equivalent medications, and showed no deliberate indifference or personal involvement by certain defendants. The court noted that work assignments and consultations were handled consistently with medical recommendations.

civil rightshealthcarecriminal law

This case involves a pro se prisoner plaintiff who brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation, discrimination, harassment, and various constitutional violations by prison officials at Cayuga Correctional Facility stemming from his participation in the Inmate Liaison Committee and complaints about prison conditions. The magistrate judge recommended granting defendants' summary judgment motion and dismissing the complaint for failure to state or support viable claims and lack of personal involvement by several defendants. The district court reviewed the objections, which merely reiterated prior arguments without specific challenges, applied the clear error standard, found no error, and adopted the report and recommendation in full. The court therefore granted summary judgment to defendants and dismissed the entire complaint.

civil rightscriminal law

In this case, a 17-year-old plaintiff in state custody at a youth correctional facility alleged that detention aides assaulted him after he did not immediately stop performing push-ups, breaking his arm, and then denied him prompt medical care, leading to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as state-law negligence and assault and battery. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for dismissal of various claims and parties. The court denied summary judgment on exhaustion grounds, finding evidence that a report of the incident had been made; granted summary judgment for one defendant and dismissed all claims against the state, its agencies, the facility, and certain officials on grounds including sovereign immunity; dismissed several constitutional and other causes of action in full or as to specific defendants; and allowed the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim regarding delayed medical treatment to proceed against the individual detention aides, as the allegations sufficiently suggested intentional denial of care for a serious injury.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In this case, New York prison inmate Nathan Brown brought a pro se § 1983 action against several Department of Correctional Services employees, alleging First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment violations stemming from a March 2007 cell-cleaning dispute, a misbehavior report, keeplock confinement, and an alleged assault after he complained of sexual misconduct by a corrections officer. Defendants Artus and Minogue moved for partial summary judgment, arguing lack of personal involvement, insufficient evidence of retaliation, and qualified immunity, while Brown cross-moved for Rule 11 sanctions. Following de novo review of the magistrate judge’s Report-Recommendation and the parties’ objections, the district court approved and adopted the report in full. It granted summary judgment in part by dismissing the retaliation claim against Artus, denied the balance of the defendants’ motion, and denied Brown’s sanctions motion.

civil rightscriminal law

The case involves plaintiff Billy J. Ryan's challenge to the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, based on alleged disabilities from dysthymia, generalized anxiety disorder, and schizoaffective disorder. The district court reviewed the administrative law judge's decision, which found the plaintiff not disabled, after the magistrate judge recommended upholding it. The court adopted the report and recommendation in full, granting the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. It reasoned that the Commissioner's determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record and applied the correct legal standards, as required under the Social Security Act for such reviews.

federal powerhealthcare

In this case, three plaintiffs who had applied in 2001 to adjust their status from asylees to permanent residents sued the Department of Homeland Security and related officials after their applications remained unprocessed for over seven years despite submission of requested evidence. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act barred review of agency inaction on immigration applications. The district court denied the motion, holding that federal question jurisdiction combined with the APA and the Mandamus Act provided authority to hear the claim. The court reasoned that while agencies have discretion over the ultimate decision on applications, they lack discretion to refuse to act or to delay unreasonably, and plaintiffs had no other adequate remedy. It therefore concluded that courts may compel the agency to adjudicate the applications within a reasonable time.

immigrationprocedurefederal power

This case involves a breach of contract dispute under a 2002 Supply and Distribution Agreement between medical device companies AngioDynamics and Biolitec. AngioDynamics sued Biolitec for failing to defend it in third-party patent infringement suits brought by Diomed and VNUS, while Biolitec filed counterclaims seeking reimbursement for $1.6 million in defense costs it had already paid and indemnification for fees in the current litigation. The court granted in part and denied in part AngioDynamics's motion to dismiss the counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6). It dismissed the Second Counterclaim but allowed the First, part of the Third, and the Fourth to proceed, reasoning that the SDA's indemnification provisions (particularly Sections 7.2, 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3) cover both third-party and first-party claims, and that Biolitec's allegations were sufficient to state plausible claims for relief.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

In United States v. Pabon, defendant Rafael Pabon, a convicted felon on parole, was charged with unlawful firearm possession under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) after police recovered a handgun from an apartment and arrested him at another apartment based on a parole violation warrant. Pabon moved to suppress statements he made to officers about his residence and the evidence seized from his person, arguing violations of his Miranda rights and Fourth Amendment protections. The court denied the motion in full. It held that routine pedigree questions during booking fell under the booking exception to Miranda and did not constitute interrogation. It further ruled that the arrest and seizure were valid because Pabon’s parole conditions permitted warrantless searches, third-party consent authorized entry, and he lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the third-party apartment where he was found.

criminal lawprocedureguns

In this case, plaintiff Mark Lyman, an activist with SNAP protesting outside Holy Cross Church in Albany, New York, challenged his 2006 arrest for violating a temporary restraining order that barred protests within 100 feet of the church and the subsequent search of his vehicle. After earlier dismissals left only a Fourth Amendment claim against Detective Pizzola regarding the post-arrest vehicle search, the court addressed the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's cross-motion for recusal and reconsideration. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding no genuine issues of material fact because the plaintiff failed to comply with local rules requiring specific responses to the defendant's statement of facts, resulting in those facts being deemed admitted, and the arrest and search were supported by the record. It also denied the cross-motion, holding that no exceptional circumstances justified reconsideration of prior dismissals of First Amendment, conspiracy, and other claims. The remaining claim was dismissed with prejudice.

civil rightsfree speechcriminal lawprocedure