Jacob Mishler

Lynn Tewksbury sued private physicians Frank Dowling and Thomas Aronson after her involuntary psychiatric commitment at St. John's Episcopal Hospital under New York Mental Hygiene Law § 9.37, claiming violations of her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights along with state-law claims of medical malpractice, false imprisonment, and assault and battery. The defendants moved for summary judgment, while Tewksbury cross-moved to strike their qualified immunity defense. The court denied the defendants' motions and granted Tewksbury's cross-motion, ruling that the private physicians were not entitled to qualified immunity even if they qualified as state actors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The decision rested on Supreme Court precedent in Richardson v. McKnight holding that private actors do not automatically receive qualified immunity, and on the finding that a cited state case addressed privilege rather than immunity from suit.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involves an action by the State of New York under CERCLA to recover cleanup costs at the Blydenburgh Landfill from National Service Industries, Inc. (NSI), based on NSI's alleged status as the corporate successor to Serv-All Uniform Rental Corporation, which had arranged for illegal disposal of hazardous PCE waste at the site in 1978. NSI moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims, arguing it was not Serv-All's legal successor, while the State cross-moved for partial summary judgment to strike NSI's successor-liability defense and for a declaratory judgment of successor status. The court denied NSI's motion and granted the State's, applying the Second Circuit's "substantial continuity" test for CERCLA successor liability and finding that NSI (via its acquisition of Initial Service Investments) had purchased substantially all of Serv-All's assets, continued its business operations, retained key personnel and customer contracts, and assumed the same liabilities in a manner that made it a substantial continuation of the predecessor entity.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

Plaintiff Gerald Rafferty, a commodities floor broker and member of the New York Mercantile Exchange, sued the NYMEX Long-Term Disability Income Plan and its insurer under ERISA after his claim for benefits due to a lumbar spine condition was denied. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plan was not an ERISA "employee benefit plan" as Rafferty was not an employee of NYMEX. The court granted the motion, holding that Rafferty was not an employee because he paid his own premiums, performed no work for NYMEX during the 1990s when the policy was in effect, and his membership in the exchange did not establish an employment relationship under ERISA's definitions or common-law tests. The court further ruled the plan was not governed by ERISA and denied any remand to state court since the action had been originally filed in federal court rather than removed.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a dispute among members of Kathleen's Bake Shop, LLC, a limited liability company formed to expand a famous Southampton bake shop business. Plaintiffs Robert and Kevin Weber, who own two-thirds of the LLC, sued defendant Kathleen King (the one-third owner) and others for breach of contract, interference with business relations, and related claims arising from alleged efforts to disrupt the company's operations and force a default on promissory notes used to purchase their interests. The court addressed whether the LLC itself was an indispensable party under procedural rules requiring its joinder. The court determined that the LLC was indispensable because the claims concerned harms to the company and its assets, in which members hold no direct ownership interest under New York LLC law, and the action could not proceed without it as the real party in interest. Accordingly, the action was subject to dismissal for failure to join the LLC.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a town employee suing his supervisor and the town for sexual harassment under Title VII and state law, defamation from a false police report, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and various federal civil rights violations, based on allegations that the supervisor threatened his job to continue an intimate relationship after he ended it and engaged in hostile conduct including an altercation at a work site. The court granted the supervisor's motion to dismiss the Title VII claim, the emotional distress claim, and certain federal civil rights claims under §§ 1981a, 1983, 1985(3), and 1988, but denied dismissal of the state sexual harassment claim under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 and the defamation claim. The rulings rested on review of the amended complaint and incorporated fact-finder's report, determining that some claims failed to state a viable cause of action while others sufficiently alleged actionable conduct.

civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved Santana Products, Inc. suing Sylvester & Associates, Ltd. and Frederick E. Sylvester for alleged violations of the Sherman Act, Lanham Act, and New York Donnelly Antitrust Act. Santana claimed the defendants conspired with others to exclude its high-density polyethylene toilet partitions from the market by spreading false information about fire hazards and by distributing misleading advertising materials comparing products. The court granted the defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings while denying the rest of the motions, including requests for a more definite statement. The core reasoning addressed the statute of limitations for antitrust claims based on acts outside the statutory period and the insufficiency of allegations regarding conspiracy to monopolize or shared monopoly under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

business & regulatory

This case arose from a personal injury lawsuit filed in New York state court by Kwan-Ho Lee and his wife against multiple companies after granite slabs fell from a truck and struck Lee. The action was removed to federal court on diversity grounds, but after additional foreign defendants were added, the court examined whether it had subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over claims against the alien corporate defendants Hanjin, Yang Ming, and Translink because the presence of aliens on both sides of the case violated the complete diversity requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, even though Article III permits minimal diversity in alienage cases. It reasoned that foreign corporations retain their alien citizenship status and that permanent resident plaintiffs are treated as citizens of their state of residence, but these rules could not create the required diversity among all parties. The court therefore dismissed the claims against those three defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).

procedurefederal powertorts & liability

The case involved Mister Softee franchisees who purchased existing truck routes and sought to continue operating under prior Dealer Franchise Agreements, but the franchisor required them to sign new agreements with updated terms. Plaintiffs alleged Sherman Act violations based on tying arrangements that restricted purchases of supplies like ice cream mix to approved sources and refused to approve assignments without new contracts. They moved for a preliminary injunction to block termination of their franchises, alleged harassment, and interference with alternative suppliers. The court denied the motion, holding that plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions for litigation, and could avoid claimed harm by executing the new agreements.

business & regulatory

Bedford Affiliates filed a supplementary proceeding under Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a) and N.Y. CPLR § 5227 seeking to compel Home Insurance Company to pay the balance of a judgment against Richard Sills for CERCLA remediation costs at a dry-cleaning site, plus additional expenses, based on two commercial general liability policies covering 1980-1986. Home moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the court denied the jurisdictional motion but ultimately dismissed the petition. The court held that the policies' pollution exclusion barred coverage because the discharge of perchloroethylene was continuous and ongoing as part of normal business operations rather than sudden and accidental, and the policies were also void due to Sills' intentional concealment of the contamination. Sills was granted reimbursement for certain legal fees incurred while Home provided a defense.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee's appeal from a bankruptcy court order denying his motion to reopen a closed case under 11 U.S.C. § 350(b) so that he could administer a personal injury claim listed in the debtors' schedules. The bankruptcy court had denied the motion on grounds that the trustee lacked standing and that filing a report of no distribution constituted a conscious abandonment of the claim. The district court reversed, holding that the finding of conscious abandonment was clearly erroneous because the no-asset report was filed inadvertently and the case was closed under the mistaken assumption that the estate had been fully administered. The court remanded the matter for a hearing on the distribution of the $210,000 settlement proceeds from the personal injury action and related issues.

procedureproperty

The plaintiff, Gary Della Vecchia, filed this action seeking to reopen a prior federal case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and to obtain additional attorney's fees for work done in state administrative and court proceedings related to his employment termination by the Town of North Hempstead. In the original case, the court had found a due process violation and awarded minimal damages and fees, while state proceedings resulted in his reinstatement and backpay under New York Civil Service Law. The Town moved to dismiss the new complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion, holding that 42 U.S.C. § 1988 does not authorize fees for services rendered in proceedings to enforce state law rights, even if connected to the federal civil rights action, as such services were not part of enforcing the federal statute.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

Wilhemenia Francis, a black Hispanic woman with degenerative arthritis in her knees, sued the U.S. Postal Service after her 1991 dismissal from a limited-duty part-time distribution clerk position, alleging the termination was due to her race, sex, and physical handicap rather than the stated reason that she had misrepresented her disability status. The Postal Service countered that it had legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds for the action, including evidence from surveillance videotapes showing Francis engaging in normal physical activities such as walking dogs and shopping on days she claimed total disability. The court made detailed findings of fact regarding Francis's work history, repeated injury claims, workers' compensation benefits, and the videotape evidence that contradicted her reported limitations. Applying standards from employment discrimination precedents, the court evaluated whether the employer's proffered reasons were pretextual and whether any prohibited factor was a motivating element in the decision. The opinion addresses jurisdiction over related reasonable accommodation claims under the Rehabilitation Act.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved the Portee family suing Hastava Real Estate, its owner, and an employee for racial discrimination in housing under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982, the Fair Housing Act, and New York Executive Law after the employee allegedly allowed Mrs. Portee to sign a lease and take keys but then revoked the arrangement upon meeting Mr. Portee and realizing he was Black. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs. The court denied the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case of discrimination and to show pretext, and denied a new trial on grounds including the weight of the evidence and counsel conduct. It vacated the jury's $280,000 compensatory damages award as excessive and granted a new trial limited to determining compensatory damages.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

Donald Binder sued his former employer Long Island Lighting Company alleging that his termination and the company's failure to place him in other available positions violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and New York Executive Law by discriminating against him on the basis of age. After a jury returned a verdict for Binder, the court granted the employer's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new trial. The court held that Binder failed to present legally sufficient evidence that age played any role in the decisions, as the positions at issue were eliminated or filled through neutral posting and ranking processes without proof of age-based motive, leaving the verdict unsupported except by surmise. The court further found the damages award unsupported by the evidence.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved the Environmental Protection Agency seeking civil penalties against M. Genzale Plating, Inc. and its owners for failing to comply with an administrative order granting access to their facility for investigation of potential hazardous waste releases under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The court had previously determined that the defendants unreasonably failed to comply with the EPA order for 20 days. After considering factors such as the defendants' bad faith, the potential injury to the public, and the need for deterrence, the court assessed a civil penalty of $2,000 per day, totaling $40,000, and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting future interference with EPA access to the site.

environment

Shamrock Technologies sued Medical Sterilization, Inc. and former employee Robert Luniewski for patent infringement of two patents related to radiation processing of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition based on breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of an employment contract that restricted disclosure of confidential information. The court had previously granted partial summary judgment finding the patents valid and infringed, a ruling affirmed on appeal, leaving the trade secret and contract claims for trial. After a bench trial, the court made findings detailing Shamrock's development of its PTFE processing methods using blenders and radiation, Luniewski's prior work at Radiation Dynamics, his 1980 employment agreement with Shamrock containing confidentiality and non-claim provisions, and the subsequent use of similar processes by the defendants. The decision addresses whether the processes constituted protectable trade secrets and whether Luniewski's actions violated his contractual and fiduciary obligations, leading to an award of damages and injunctive relief.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentproperty

The case involved the United States seeking to collect unpaid federal corporate income taxes from Red Stripe, Inc. for fiscal years 1975 through 1979, along with claims that asset transfers to its sole stockholder, George Asher, constituted fraudulent conveyances making him liable as a transferee. The court entered judgment in favor of the government against both defendants for specific tax amounts totaling over $458,000 plus interest and penalties. The core reasoning was that Red Stripe had stipulated to improper tax deductions and credits related to limited partnership investments, the assessments were valid and timely, the reorganization agreement with Beatrice did not relieve Red Stripe of these tax liabilities, and the transfers to Asher left the corporation insolvent and unable to pay its debts.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a challenge by New York City Council Member Carolyn Maloney to the City of New York's award of three contracts for interim sludge management services without competitive bidding under N.Y. General Municipal Law § 103, seeking to invalidate them on grounds that no applicable exception existed and required procedures were not followed. The matter was removed to federal court under the Ocean Dumping Ban Act and referred to a magistrate judge, who recommended dismissal after finding the contracts qualified as "special case" exceptions under New York City Charter § 312(b)(1) due to the need for an integrated sludge disposal system to comply with a consent decree. Following de novo review of the petitioner's procedural and substantive objections, the court adopted the magistrate's conclusions that the RFP process was appropriate, the City reasonably followed applicable procedures, and there was insufficient evidence of impropriety. The court therefore dismissed the petition and upheld the contracts as valid and binding.

business & regulatoryenvironmentprocedure

This case concerns a dispute between the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and the court-appointed Independent Receiver for New York Guardian Mortgagee Corporation (NYGMC) over the interpretation and performance of a 1990 agreement transferring servicing rights for a large mortgage portfolio back to FNMA after the failure of NYGMC's affiliated bank. The agreement provided for a purchase price payment to NYGMC offset by certain liabilities and expenses, with FNMA required to provide good-faith estimates and a final account reconciliation. FNMA brought an action seeking recovery related to servicing deficiencies and offsets, while the Receiver sought enforcement of the agreement and payment of the remaining balance. The court dismissed FNMA's complaint without prejudice, directed FNMA to submit a Preliminary Account Statement within 20 days, and ordered payment of any balance owed to NYGMC with interest, reasoning that FNMA had failed to disclose material offset categories like extraordinary servicing fees during negotiations and had not fulfilled its accounting obligations under the contract.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Helen Katz appealed the Secretary of Health and Human Services' final determination that she could not deduct losses from an S corporation when calculating her net earnings from self-employment for Social Security retirement benefit purposes, resulting in work deductions for exceeding allowable earnings in 1985 and 1986. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report after reviewing the procedural history of the Secretary's inconsistent prior determinations on the issue. The court affirmed the Secretary's calculation of Katz's 1986 net earnings from self-employment as $15,128 without the S corporation loss deduction. It reversed the 1985 determination and remanded the case to the Secretary to recalculate using net earnings of $10,993.05 based on an earlier consistent agency position.

federal powerlabor & employment