Michael B. Mukasey

The case involved Susan Lindauer, who was charged with conspiring to act and acting as an unregistered agent of the Iraqi government, as well as engaging in forbidden financial transactions with that government between 1999 and 2004. Multiple mental health professionals determined that Lindauer was mentally incompetent to stand trial due to delusions of grandiosity and paranoia. The government moved under Sell v. United States to compel administration of psychotropic medication to restore her competency, but Lindauer opposed the motion. After a hearing, the court denied the motion, finding that the government had not met its burden by clear and convincing evidence to show that involuntary medication was substantially likely to succeed in rendering her competent without interfering side effects, and possibly that important government interests were at stake.

criminal lawprocedure

In Laurent v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, former employees sued their employer alleging that the company's cash balance pension plan violated ERISA by improperly calculating lump-sum distributions, accrued benefits, and engaging in age discrimination. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the first claim but granted the motion as to the second, third, and fourth claims, dismissing those. The court reasoned that the plan did not violate ERISA's requirements for benefits after normal retirement age because participants continued to receive pay and interest credits without forfeiture, and certain statutory provisions did not apply or were not breached.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves ongoing federal litigation over insurance coverage for the destruction of the World Trade Center complex on September 11, 2001. The insured parties filed a state court declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that their Conceptual Framework redevelopment agreement would not adversely affect recovery rights under the property insurance policies or constitute an impermissible assignment. Royal Indemnity Company moved in federal court to enjoin the state action under the All Writs Act, claiming it would interfere with the federal proceedings and pending summary judgment motions and appraisal. The court denied the motion, ruling that the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits federal injunctions against state proceedings except in three narrow exceptions, none of which applied, and that concurrent jurisdiction over related claims does not alone justify interference. The opinion stresses that doubts should be resolved in favor of permitting state courts to proceed.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether a new redevelopment agreement for the World Trade Center, known as the Conceptual Framework, would impact the plaintiffs' rights to recover under property insurance policies for the site's destruction on September 11, 2001. The plaintiffs filed suit in New York state court seeking a declaratory judgment that the Framework did not constitute an impermissible assignment reducing their insurance recovery. The defendants removed the case to federal court under the jurisdictional provisions of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that the action did not fall within the limited subject matter jurisdiction granted by that federal statute.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryproperty

In this case, plaintiff Carlo Novella sued Westchester County and the New York Carpenters’ Pension Fund alleging that the fund violated the terms of its pension plan by calculating his disability pension using two different benefit rates based on a break in covered service. The court had previously granted Novella summary judgment on his claim that this practice was an arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the plan. On the pending motion for class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, the court found that the proposed class of disability pensioners affected by the dual-rate calculation satisfied the requirements of commonality, typicality, adequacy, and Rule 23(b)(1), and after resolving a discovery dispute and balancing factors including geographic dispersion, financial resources, and ability to pursue individual suits, also met the numerosity requirement, leading the court to certify the class.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves insurers seeking a declaratory judgment that they owe no coverage under Media Special Perils policies for a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against defendants in California federal court. Defendants moved to dismiss or stay the New York action in favor of a related pending California action or to transfer it there. The court granted dismissal without prejudice, finding that plaintiffs filed the action to preemptively secure New York law by racing to the courthouse before defendants were aware of the coverage dispute. The decision rested on the timing and purpose of the filing rather than on the merits of coverage or the underlying copyright claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves cross-motions for partial summary judgment in an ongoing appraisal proceeding to determine insurance amounts recoverable for the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The Silverstein Parties and other Insureds sought declarations regarding the inclusion of tenant improvements in replacement cost calculations under various insurance policies, while the Appraising Insurers sought limits based on financial interest or other restrictions, and also disputed the definition of actual cash value (ACV) in the Travelers policy form. The court granted the Silverstein Parties' motion to include the full appraised value of tenant improvements in replacement cost and denied the Insurers' related cross-motions. On the ACV issue, the court denied the Insurers' request to apply the broad evidence rule and granted the Silverstein Parties' cross-motion to base ACV on the policy's plain language without incorporating market value. The rulings rested on interpretations of the specific policy provisions governing replacement cost endorsements and ACV definitions in the binder policies.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In 1986, Freedom NY, Inc., a government contractor, sued the United States alleging that the Defense Logistics Agency violated procurement laws by awarding an MRE assembly contract to Cinpac, Inc., instead of Freedom, claiming Cinpac was ineligible under the Walsh-Healey Act and that the government colluded to falsify eligibility documents. Chief Judge Motley dismissed the action without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 19, finding Cinpac a necessary and indispensable party whose absence would impair its interests and potentially lead to inconsistent obligations for the government. Twenty years later, Freedom moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) to vacate or correct the judgment based on newly cited evidence of government misrepresentations. The court denied the motion, holding that the additional facts would not have altered the Rule 19 analysis and that the request was untimely.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a federal securities class action brought in the Southern District of New York by plaintiff K.J. Egleston on behalf of purchasers of Collins & Aikman Corporation securities, alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 (plus Section 20(a) control-person claims) based on the company's allegedly false public disclosures about its financial results, accounting for supplier rebates, revenues, contracts, and internal controls; the company, headquartered in Michigan, later filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Michigan, where the company's bankruptcy proceeding and a related state-law securities action were already pending. The court granted the transfer motion, holding that the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of justice strongly favored Michigan because the company and most potential witnesses and documents were located there, two related cases were already pending in that district, and only the plaintiff's choice of forum slightly favored New York.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved an inmate, Sri Clyde Collins, suing New York prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after he was allegedly denied photocopies of a court order needed to serve an Article 78 petition challenging his disciplinary sanctions, resulting in the petition's dismissal; he also raised claims of property deprivation without due process and retaliation. The court converted the defendants' motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment on exhaustion issues under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and granted summary judgment on some allegations while dismissing two access-to-courts claims and the due process claim for failure to state a violation. It denied the motion as to one access-to-courts claim and the retaliation claim, finding that the grievance satisfied notice requirements and that exhaustion was not barred. The court also granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to name a specific defendant.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

Sherdic Law challenged the Social Security Administration's denial of his application for SSI disability benefits, asserting he was disabled due to lower back pain, leg pain, hepatitis C, hypertension, and hyperthyroidism since 1999. The district court reviewed the ALJ's decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) after cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court vacated the SSA's determination and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the ALJ had not properly developed the record on Law's chronic leg pain despite ample objective medical evidence. The court declined to consider post-decision medical records as grounds for remand because they were not material to the ALJ's prior determination.

healthcareprocedure

The case involves Samantha Richards and her children suing the City of New York, law enforcement personnel, the Administration for Children's Services, and Little Flower Children's Services under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. Plaintiffs claimed wrongful arrest and prosecution of Richards without probable cause after a shooting in their home, deprivation of custody of the children, failure to protect the children in foster care, and related torts including false arrest, emotional distress, and malpractice. Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing probable cause existed, qualified immunity applied, and there was insufficient evidence of deliberate indifference or policy violations by the agencies. The court granted the motions in part, dismissing claims such as breach of contract against LFCS, certain malpractice claims, emotional distress claims against some defendants, and state claims against ACS, but denied them in part as to other § 1983 and state claims where factual disputes remained.

criminal lawcivil rightsfamily lawtorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Jonathan Jung suing his former employer Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom for alleged discrimination on the basis of race and national origin and retaliation, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Skadden moved to compel arbitration and stay the litigation under the Federal Arbitration Act, based on a mutual arbitration agreement that Jung had signed as part of his employment application and that covered all claims of discrimination and violations of federal or state law. The court granted the motion, holding that Jung's claims fell squarely within the agreement's scope and that Skadden had not waived its arbitration right by first filing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, because that step did not cause prejudice to Jung under Second Circuit precedent. The parties were directed to proceed to arbitration under the agreement's terms, with the action stayed pending the outcome.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

In Durante v. United States, Edward A. Durante, after pleading guilty to securities fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and related offenses and entering into a sentencing agreement that reduced his guidelines range to 121-151 months in exchange for waiving appeal and collateral attack rights, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 121-month sentence. He claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise a coercion defense or Booker arguments and alleged court errors in applying sentencing enhancements and his criminal history category without jury findings. The court denied the petition, holding that the waiver in the sentencing agreement was enforceable, that Durante's coercion claims were refuted by his plea allocution and lacked legal merit, and that Booker does not apply retroactively to final convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

Riverside Marketing sued Signaturecard and iDine for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and related claims arising from a 1995 marketing agreement under which Riverside promoted Signature's dining rewards program in exchange for commissions, later modified and supplemented by a 1997 restaurant agreement. After Signature sold the program assets to iDine in 1999, Riverside alleged that the defendants continued to benefit from its secured members without providing compensation and that iDine assumed or ratified the contracts. The court granted summary judgment to both defendants and dismissed the complaint, holding that the Member Agreement's renewal clause created a contract terminable at will by Riverside alone, that Riverside had already received all compensation due through the termination date, and that claims against iDine for assumption, conversion, and unjust enrichment lacked merit because no independent duty or conferred benefit was shown.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved defendant Esteban Gonzalez, who was convicted by a jury of possessing a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and later challenged his representation and sentence through post-conviction motions. After an initial sentencing below the guidelines range was vacated on appeal, Gonzalez filed motions before Judge Knapp claiming ineffective assistance of counsel due to his trial lawyer's alleged ties to the same drug organization, along with Brady violations and other claims; Judge Knapp denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. The case was reassigned to Judge Mukasey, where Gonzalez sought recusal of the judge and prosecutor, and to set aside the prior denial under various Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court denied all motions, finding no proof of an actual conflict of interest, no professional errors meeting Strickland standards, no jurisdiction or competency issues with the prior ruling, and that purported new evidence was neither newly discovered nor outcome-determinative. The matter was set for resentencing in accordance with the appellate remand.

criminal lawprocedureguns

The case involved plaintiff Alexandra Silva Keane, an Ecuadorian national, who sued the Secretary of Homeland Security and a BCIS district director after her application for adjustment of status to permanent resident was denied as abandoned when she missed a scheduled interview; she sought a court order rescinding the denial and requiring the agency to reschedule the interview, plus attorney fees. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It held that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not confer jurisdiction, the Mandamus Act requires a clear nondiscretionary duty which was absent because adjustment of status decisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) are discretionary, and the APA does not apply to actions committed to agency discretion by law nor provide an independent basis for jurisdiction here.

immigrationprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Louis Anemone's motion for reconsideration of a prior court decision that dismissed his free speech and due process conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and its employees, based on the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff had not identified any overlooked controlling decisions and that the doctrine properly applied. The reasoning centered on Second Circuit precedents endorsing the doctrine in civil rights conspiracy cases under related statutes, its extension by district courts to § 1983 claims, and the principle that employees acting within the scope of their employment for a single entity cannot form the required agreement between separate actors. The court also noted that plaintiffs retain other remedies, such as direct individual claims and Monell claims against the entity.

civil rightsfree speechprocedure

The case involved beneficiaries of a trust suing LaSalle Bank and related entities, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment after the bank converted trust assets from common trust funds to its own Rembrandt mutual funds in 1993, which generated fees for the bank but allegedly underperformed and caused tax issues. The plaintiffs sought class certification and partial summary judgment, while defendants moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss the complaint in full, finding that claims by Dion and Hal Hughes were barred by the statute of limitations, and claims by Holly Hughes were similarly time-barred on fiduciary and interference counts while her unjust enrichment claim failed due to her consent to and ratification of the conversion. The reasoning centered on the passage of time without action by the plaintiffs and Holly Hughes's authorization and failure to disaffirm the investment change despite available information.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In Acosta v. Potter, a U.S. Postal Service employee sued the USPS and Postmaster General for violating a collective bargaining agreement by failing to place her in a new duty assignment within 28 days and by not providing out-of-schedule pay, and sued her local union for breaching the duty of fair representation by allowing the delay and refusing to file a grievance. The district court granted summary judgment in part to the USPS and the local union on certain aspects of the claims while denying it on others, and granted the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add the national union as a defendant. The court analyzed the CBA's bidding and grievance procedures, the respective roles of the local and national unions in handling grievances at different steps, and the elements required to prove employer breach and union fair representation violations in a hybrid action under federal labor law.

labor & employment