Mary Johnson Lowe

In this Fair Labor Standards Act case, a conditionally certified class of aluminum factory workers at Alcoa's Massena West facility alleged that the company failed to pay them for time spent arriving early for shift changes, donning and doffing protective gear on the premises, walking from the locker room to the worksite, and showering after shifts. Alcoa moved for summary judgment, arguing these activities were not compensable. The court granted the motion, holding that the disputed activities were not integral and indispensable to the employees' principal duties under the FLSA, particularly because employees could don and doff gear at home and showering was not required to perform their work. The decision relied on precedents distinguishing preliminary and postliminary activities from compensable principal activities.

labor & employment

This case involved former Discovery Zone employees suing Blockbuster and Viacom for sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII and New York Human Rights Law, alleging the defendants were liable as integrated employers due to partial ownership and a management services agreement. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants after limited discovery on the employer issue. The core reasoning was that the companies were not a single integrated enterprise, as Blockbuster provided only limited administrative services such as payroll and some legal support under the agreement without exercising centralized control over Discovery Zone's labor relations or day-to-day operations.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Wahad v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, the plaintiff, a former Black Panther Party leader whose 1973 attempted murder conviction was later vacated, sought to amend his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) to add a damages claim for due process violations under Section 6 of Article I of the New York State Constitution. The alleged violations involved municipal defendants suborning perjurious testimony, withholding exculpatory evidence, and fabricating physical evidence during his criminal trial, which were already the basis for federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court denied the motion to amend, holding that the proposed amendment could not withstand a motion to dismiss because New York law does not recognize an implied private right of action under the state due process clause. Drawing on Brown v. State of New York, the court reasoned that Section 1983 provides an adequate alternative remedy for the alleged violations, precluding the need to imply a state constitutional cause of action even if the federal remedy offers less comprehensive relief than a direct constitutional claim would.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case arose from the 1986 arrest and prosecution of plaintiff Doris Sassower for resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and theft of services following a restaurant dispute in White Plains, New York; her convictions were later vacated on appeal. She brought a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim against the city and police officers, alleging violations of her constitutional rights. The municipal defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Sassower could not establish the required post-arraignment deprivation of liberty. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether required court appearances and interference with her travel plans constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure under precedents like Albright v. Oliver and Murphy v. Lynn.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In Daniels v. Loizzo, plaintiff William Daniels brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendant police officers used excessive force during his 1987 arrest, resulting in permanent injuries. The court addressed his motion in limine to exclude evidence of his extensive prior criminal history, including convictions for assault, weapons offenses, escape, and drug conspiracy. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, ruling that evidence of an outstanding parole warrant was admissible under Rule 404(b) to show motive to resist arrest, while excluding details of unrelated incidents and older convictions under Rules 403 and 609 due to undue prejudice and lack of relevance to credibility or the issues in the case; more recent felony convictions were deemed admissible for impeachment subject to balancing. The decision applied the inclusionary approach to other-acts evidence while requiring limiting instructions and weighing probative value against prejudice.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involved a federal prisoner's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate part of his sentence for supervised release violations. The petitioner had been resentenced to imprisonment plus a new term of supervised release under a statute enacted after his original conviction, which he argued violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. The court granted the motion, finding that the retroactive application of the new law was unconstitutional and that the claim was not procedurally barred due to ineffective assistance of counsel or actual innocence of the sentence. The decision rested on the principle that a statute increasing punishment cannot be applied to offenses committed before its enactment.

criminal lawprocedure

In Smith v. Planas, plaintiff Ronnie Smith, a Black employee at Gracie Square Hospital, sued his employer under Title VII and Section 1981, alleging race discrimination in the denial of promotions to higher cook positions, harassment through false disciplinary actions and threats of termination, and related violations. The district court granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The court reasoned that Smith failed to establish a prima facie case because the higher positions were temporary assignments filled by strict seniority rules under the collective bargaining agreement, disciplinary measures were based on documented performance issues rather than race, and no evidence supported an inference of racial animus. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas framework and standard summary judgment rules despite the plaintiff's pro se status, finding the record insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

civil rightslabor & employment

Larry Weisman, proceeding pro se, filed a tax refund suit against the IRS seeking recovery of overpaid 1983 withholding taxes that the agency had denied as untimely. The government moved under Rule 12(c) to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Weisman submitted no opposition. The court granted the motion, ruling that the claim was barred by the jurisdictional timing rules in 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a) and (b)(2)(A), which require a refund claim to be filed within three years of the date the tax is deemed paid (here, April 15, 1984) and bar suits where the tax was paid more than three years before the claim.

taxesprocedure

This case involves a securities fraud action filed by Washington National Life Insurance Company of New York and Washington National Insurance Company in the Southern District of New York against Morgan Stanley and other defendants, alleging violations of federal securities laws, RICO, and various state claims related to their purchase of taxable municipal bonds issued by the Nebraska Investment Finance Authority. The bonds' proceeds were invested in Guaranteed Investment Contracts with Executive Life Insurance Corporation, whose subsequent downgrade contributed to the bonds' loss in value. After the case was consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the Eastern District of Louisiana via multidistrict litigation and most related cases settled, the plaintiffs moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the action to the District of Nebraska. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a sufficient change in circumstances, such as the availability of key witnesses, to justify reconsidering prior decisions that had returned the case to New York rather than transferring it to Nebraska.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Garcia v. Keane, petitioner Fernando Garcia sought a federal writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after his 1985 New York state conviction for first-degree manslaughter and related state appeals, raising claims of due process violations from an ex parte proceeding and jury instructions, as well as ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court also considered his request for appointed counsel. The district court denied both the petition and the request for counsel. The decision rested on procedural grounds under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, including the one-year filing deadline, failure to exhaust claims properly in state court, and lack of merit in the ineffective assistance allegation sufficient to warrant further review or appointment of counsel.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned claims brought under ERISA and the Taft-Hartley Act by a pension plan participant alleging that a plan amendment's non-ratable social security offset violated ERISA accrual rules and fiduciary duties, that the offset was not solely for participants' benefit, and that the plan paid insufficient interest on retroactive benefit adjustments. The district court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff and the plan trustees. The court granted each motion in part and denied each in part, holding that certain claims for benefits and equitable relief were viable under ERISA sections 502(a)(1)(B) and 502(a)(3) while dismissing extra-contractual interest demands and finding no violation of the exclusive-benefit rule.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Tineo v. United States, petitioner Jesus Tineo filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence after pleading guilty in 1990 to conspiracy and possession charges involving 211 grams of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. The court denied the motion in full. It found the guilty plea voluntary based on Tineo’s statements at the plea allocution confirming his participation in the drug sale as part of a business arrangement with a co-conspirator, his acknowledgment that no one was forcing him to plead, and his satisfaction with counsel. The court also upheld a two-level sentencing enhancement for Tineo’s leadership role, determining that the government had proven it by a preponderance of the evidence through Tineo’s admissions and reliable hearsay testimony from a special agent, while rejecting claims that the evidence was unreliable or insufficient.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves plaintiffs seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the FBI for an allegedly unconstitutional investigation, including claims to enjoin further probes and the release of related files. Plaintiffs moved to reconsider a July 1996 order that upheld limits on discovery requests in connection with the defendants' summary judgment motion, specifically regarding the timeframe of investigations and materials from secret filing systems. The court denied the motion for reconsideration, ruling that the plaintiffs' arguments were new and had not been raised in their original filings. The court further determined that such arguments would not have materially influenced its prior decision upholding the magistrate judge's narrowed discovery rulings under the relevant legal standards for reconsideration.

civil rightsprocedure

This case concerns a motion by plaintiff St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company to reargue or clarify a prior ruling granting summary judgment to defendant Heath Fielding Insurance Broking Ltd. on a negligent misrepresentation claim arising from negotiations over a reinsurance contract. The underlying dispute involved allegations that Heath's brokers made false statements to induce St. Paul's underwriter to accept the contract on behalf of St. Paul, after earlier negligence claims had been dismissed for lack of duty. The court denied the motion, concluding that its prior dismissal of related negligence claims constituted the law of the case and that no special relationship existed between the parties to support a duty, as they negotiated at arm's length with Heath performing only conventional broker duties and no contract directly binding the two. The decision relied on New York precedent requiring a relationship of privity or near-privity for such claims and found no evidence that Heath assumed extra obligations.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case concerned a pension plan participant's claims against the plan's trustees for alleged ERISA violations in calculating and denying his benefits based on a break in service from 1975-1977. The plaintiff had previously lost a similar lawsuit (Action One) on summary judgment and had a Rule 60(b) motion denied, then filed this second action purportedly on behalf of the plan. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that res judicata applied because the two actions involved the same parties and arose from the same underlying facts and claims, even though the plaintiff asserted a representative capacity in the second suit.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved produce sellers who sought to recover payments under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) trust provisions from entities that purchased accounts receivable from their buyer, Western Growers, Inc. The court had previously ruled that Merrill Lynch was a bona fide purchaser and dismissed claims against it, but for defendant BFG, which bought the receivables at a discount with constructive knowledge of the PACA trust, the court found it had notice of the breach and was not a bona fide purchaser. BFG argued that PACA was unconstitutional for lacking a mechanism for direct public notice of trust filings, but the court rejected this, holding that PACA provides reasonable notice through inquiry to the debtor and aligns with due process by protecting those without actual notice via traditional trust principles. The court denied BFG's motion for summary judgment.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

The case involved holders of convertible subordinated debentures issued by Wherehouse Entertainment who sued the company, its officers, underwriters, and related entities after a 1987 board-approved merger with WEI Acquisition Corp., claiming the prospectus and registration statements had misrepresented their contractual right to tender the debentures at a 106.25% premium upon a merger not approved by independent directors. Plaintiffs asserted federal claims under Sections 11, 12(2), and 10(b) of the securities laws, plus state-law claims for breach of contract and fraud, arguing the tender right was illusory in friendly acquisitions. On motions for summary judgment, the court performed a de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granted defendants' motion in part and denied it in part, and dismissed plaintiffs' partial summary judgment motion as moot, primarily addressing the indenture's no-action clause, timeliness of claims, and recoverability of damages.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a beneficiary's claim under ERISA for accidental death benefits from two employer-sponsored insurance plans after her husband's death in a van accident. The court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide timely notice of the claim directly to the insurer AIG, as notice to the employer did not suffice since no agency relationship was shown. The court also held that the plans' three-year limitations period applied rather than ERISA's six-year period, barring the action as untimely, and that the insurer had preserved its late-notice defense through reservation of rights language in denial letters. Additionally, the request for a jury trial was deemed moot due to the time-bar.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In this shareholder derivative action, plaintiff Henry Stern, representing the estate of Philip Stern, sued General Electric Company and its directors, alleging that corporate expenditures to administer and solicit contributions for GE's political action committee (GE/PAC) constituted waste of corporate assets under New York law, in violation of the PAC's articles of association. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion. The core reasoning was that the expenditures had been upheld as lawful under the Federal Election Campaign Act by the FEC and federal courts, and the plaintiff failed to show that the PAC's contribution patterns or operations amounted to waste of assets.

electionsbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a New York-licensed physician who suffered from mental illness and was charged with professional misconduct for practicing medicine while impaired. After administrative hearings, a state review committee found him guilty on one specification of practicing while impaired in June 1985 and recommended revocation of his license, which the Commissioner of Health ordered in 1990. The physician sued under the Rehabilitation Act and state law, moving for summary judgment to challenge the revocation; the defendant cross-moved. The district court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendant's, holding that the record supported the finding of impairment and that revocation was warranted because no reasonable accommodation could eliminate significant risk to patients. The court noted that the decision did not address potential future reinstatement claims.

civil rightshealthcareprocedure