In Melo v. United States, petitioner Manuel Melo filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 130-month sentence after convictions for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, and aiding and abetting firearm possession in furtherance of the robbery attempt, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to communicate a plea offer, objecting to certain jury instructions on aiding and abetting and interstate commerce elements. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the petition in full. Applying the two-part Strickland test, the court found that Melo failed to demonstrate either that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that any alleged deficiencies caused prejudice to the outcome of the trial or sentencing. The court also addressed procedural matters, such as the waiver of attorney-client privilege when raising ineffectiveness claims and the timeliness of certain arguments.
The case involved a dispute over insurance coverage under a Builder’s Risk policy issued by Continental Casualty to 1765 First Associates for a Manhattan construction project. After a tower crane collapsed on the site in 2008, Continental paid for certain direct damages and cleanup but refused to cover costs from resulting construction delays, citing the policy’s Faulty Workmanship Exclusion. First Associates sought a declaratory judgment that the exclusion did not apply to these delay losses. The court granted the request, holding that under New York law the exclusion covers only defects in the quality of the insured property itself and does not reach losses from equipment accidents during construction; a later motion for reconsideration was denied on the ground that the issue was one of pure contract interpretation.
Universe Antiques sued William Vareika and his gallery for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and related claims arising from an unpaid balance of $560,000 on a consigned painting that the gallery sold to a buyer who later defaulted. The defendants counterclaimed for fraud in the inducement, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment based on a separate transaction in which Universe sold them a stained glass window that it had represented as an authentic 1896 Tiffany Studios piece but that evidence showed was actually created around 1904 by another artist. After a bench trial, the court found Universe liable for fraud by clear and convincing evidence and awarded the Vareika parties damages of $1,227,122, while holding the Vareika parties liable for the $560,000 contract balance on the painting; the net result was a judgment in favor of the Vareika parties. The decision rested on historical documents, expert testimony, and other evidence establishing the window's true origin and the misrepresentations made during its sale, along with stipulations regarding the painting consignment and payments.
This case involved plaintiffs Hounddog Productions and The Motion Picture Group suing defendant Empire Film Group for breach of a 2008 distribution agreement for the film Hounddog and for willful copyright infringement after the agreement's termination. The court had previously entered a default judgment against Empire and denied its motion to vacate, then referred the matter for an inquest on damages. The magistrate judge recommended awarding $400,000 in compensatory damages plus interest for the contract claim, $150,000 in statutory damages for copyright infringement, declaratory relief terminating the agreement, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. The district court adopted the report in full, finding no clear error in its findings or recommendations after Empire filed no objections. The ruling was based on the defendant's default and the evidence supporting the damages calculations under contract and copyright law.
The case involves a Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) negligence claim by plaintiff Perry Pitter against Metro-North Commuter Railroad for an eye injury sustained while working as a trainee signalman, where the parties disputed the admissibility of evidence concerning Pitter’s employment progress and the withdrawal of his job application after the injury. The court ruled on the defendant’s motion in limine by denying six of seven requests to exclude witness testimony, deposition transcripts, wage and benefits documents, and party admissions, while granting exclusion of the plaintiff’s Notice to Admit as cumulative. The core reasoning was that FELA’s relaxed causation standard permits recovery for consequential economic damages, such as lost wages from discharge, if employer negligence played any part in causing the injury, making related evidence relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Plaintiff Aubrey Chisholm sued his former employer Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and supervisors for unlawful retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, claiming he was fired after workplace complaints. Following a jury verdict awarding him back pay of $233,290.32, front pay, and $1 million in punitive damages against one supervisor, the court addressed post-trial motions on the remaining damages issues. The court awarded front pay of $102,545.62 plus interest, reasoning that evidence of workplace friction and management changes made it unlikely Chisholm would have remained employed until retirement age. It granted a new trial on punitive damages unless Chisholm accepted remittitur to $50,000, finding the original award excessive. The court also awarded pre-judgment interest on the back pay award, following standard practice for such compensation.
