This case involves a civil rights lawsuit by JWJ Industries and its officer against Oswego County, claiming that the county's Flow Control Law, part of its solid waste regulations, effected an unconstitutional taking of their private waste transfer station property without just compensation and violated other constitutional rights. The specific motion before the court addressed the claim that the Flow Control Law is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad on its face and as applied. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling the law invalid on vagueness grounds, and denied the defendants' cross-motion as moot. The reasoning centered on the law's failure to clearly define terms such as processing facilities, creating uncertainty in its application to preexisting private operations, in contrast to Supreme Court precedents like United Haulers that upheld public flow control measures.
In this case, plaintiff Gareth D. Wood sued Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Capital One Services, LLC, and NCO Financial Systems, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and New York General Business Law § 349 based on a "PRE-LEGAL NOTICE" letter regarding a delinquent consumer credit account that routed calls to a third-party debt collector. Capital One Bank and Capital One Services moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing all FDCPA claims against both moving defendants because neither qualified as a "debt collector" under the statute's affiliate and false-name exceptions, and dismissing the NYGBL § 349 claim against Capital One Bank because it did not send the letter. The court denied the motion as to the NYGBL § 349 claim against Capital One Services, holding that the complaint sufficiently alleged a materially misleading practice that caused the plaintiff non-pecuniary harms.
This case was a Federal Tort Claims Act action brought by Thomas Dockery and his wife against the United States after Dockery fell approximately ten feet from an unmarked retaining wall at a U.S. Military Academy paintball event site in September 2005, resulting in multiple fractures and other serious injuries. Plaintiffs claimed the government negligently failed to warn of or secure the hazard on its property, and after a bench trial the court entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The court awarded damages for past and future medical expenses, past and future pain and suffering, and loss of consortium, applying New York negligence standards to conclude that the unmarked wall created an unreasonable risk under the circumstances.
The case involved plaintiff Eileen Malay suing the City of Syracuse, its police chief, and officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law after police responded to a gunfire report at her apartment building on March 17, 2007; she alleged that officers fired explosive rounds and deployed CS gas into her apartment without warning, then detained and questioned her for hours without medical treatment for gas exposure or guidance to safety. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing Fifth Amendment claims because the Amendment applies only to federal actors, dismissing official-capacity claims against individual defendants, and dismissing New York Constitution claims, while denying the motion as to the remaining federal constitutional and state tort claims on the grounds that they were adequately pleaded under the applicable standards. The court also retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims because the federal claims survived.
This case involved plaintiffs Thunder Island Amusements, Inc., and its owners suing IRS Special Agent Kelly Ewald and other federal agents under Bivens for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment and New York Constitution stemming from searches of their business and residence in connection with a tax investigation. The investigation, which concluded without charges, involved undercover operations and search warrants based on statements made by one plaintiff about tax matters. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims. It reasoned that the search warrants were supported by probable cause under the totality of circumstances, and any alleged inaccuracies or omissions in the warrant affidavit were not material to that finding.
Plaintiff Angelita Kercado-Clymer, the only female officer in the Amsterdam Police Department and of Puerto Rican national origin, sued the City and Police Chief Brownell under Title VII for gender, national origin, and religious discrimination creating a hostile work environment, as well as retaliation for her complaints about Brownell's alleged offensive comments and unequal discipline; she also asserted §1983 claims for violations of due process, free speech, religion, and association, plus state human rights law claims. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, finding triable issues on certain Title VII and Monell municipal liability claims based on evidence of Brownell's conduct and the City's response, while dismissing others for lack of sufficient factual support or legal grounds.