Edward Raymond Neaher

The case concerned whether Starrett City Associates' policy of capping the percentage of black and Hispanic tenants at its Brooklyn housing complex violated the Fair Housing Act. The government brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 3604, alleging that the policy amounted to racial discrimination in rental decisions, advertising, and availability statements. The district court granted summary judgment to the United States and issued a permanent injunction barring the defendants from using race or national origin in tenant selection. The court held that the defendants had openly admitted to treating black and Hispanic applicants differently from white applicants on the basis of race, which directly contravened the statute regardless of any integrative purpose.

civil rights

This case challenged the constitutionality of the New York City Board of Estimate under the one-person, one-vote principle, as each of the five borough presidents received an equal vote despite large population differences among the boroughs. Plaintiffs, residents of Brooklyn, argued that the allocation violated equal protection due to a 132.9% population deviation between Staten Island and Brooklyn. Following remand, the court applied the Abate v. Mundt framework and determined that this deviation exceeded permissible limits and created a prima facie case of discrimination, shifting the burden to defendants to justify the structure with valid policies and interests. The court concluded that defendants failed to meet this burden with sufficiently precise and supported justifications, rendering the voting allocation unconstitutional.

electionscivil rights

This case involves plaintiffs' claims that two New York psychiatric centers failed to provide constitutionally adequate treatment to mentally ill patients, focusing on the right-to-treatment claim remanded by the Court of Appeals. The district court held hearings to assess whether the lack of JCAH accreditation at Mid-Hudson and Bronx Psychiatric Center established a violation under Youngberg v. Romeo standards. The court decided that absence of accreditation does not automatically prove inadequate care or shift the burden to defendants, and plaintiffs must affirmatively demonstrate constitutional defects to obtain injunctive relief. The core reasoning is that JCAH accreditation serves only as prima facie evidence of adequacy, while the Court of Appeals opinion requires plaintiffs to document specific deficiencies rather than relying solely on accreditation status.

civil rightshealthcare

This case involves consolidated § 1983 civil rights actions brought by a plaintiff convicted of second-degree murder after multiple trials, alleging that the Kings County District Attorney, an assistant DA, and an investigator conspired to suborn perjured testimony from a witness to secure his conviction. The court dismissed the complaints after the plaintiff exhausted state remedies. It held that prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity under Imbler v. Pachtman for actions like the alleged use of perjured testimony, which are intimately associated with the judicial phase of criminal proceedings. Even apart from immunity, the complaints failed to state a claim for malicious prosecution because they disclosed independent probable cause for the prosecution based on other witness testimony and circumstantial evidence, and New York law bars such claims following an affirmed conviction.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case concerned the calculation of prejudgment interest on a $68,000 jury verdict for economic and noneconomic losses in a federal civil rights action, along with the plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The court held that prejudgment interest would apply to the full award, including the emotional distress portion, at the adjusted prime rate under 26 U.S.C. § 6621, and it granted fees after reducing the requested hours by 25% plus specific deductions for time on unsuccessful claims, res judicata issues unrelated to the federal case, travel, and duplicative work. The core reasoning was that federal question cases leave interest rates to the district court's discretion absent a statutory directive, prior procedural opportunities to raise objections had passed, and fee awards under § 1988 require compensation only for time reasonably spent on matters where the plaintiff prevailed.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves seven shareholders of the bankrupt Teltronics Services, Inc. suing Ericsson and affiliated defendants, alleging a conspiracy to bankrupt the company after failed takeover efforts through manipulation of loan agreements, security interests in equipment leases, and related financing terms. The court dismissed the claims, finding that the allegations and facts were identical to those in a prior related action (Teltronics Services, Inc. v. Anaconda-Ericsson) that had already been rejected on the merits. The reasoning emphasized that any asserted fraud or RICO violations lacked legal foundation, that Teltronics' bankruptcy settlement barred derivative claims, and that plaintiffs' attempts to relitigate the same issues were unsupported by new evidence or applicable law.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved retail newspaper distributors suing the publisher of the New York Post for alleged antitrust violations under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, claiming the Post engaged in illegal price fixing through suggested home delivery prices and a 60/40 revenue split. After the plaintiffs presented their evidence, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b). The court found that the Post's pricing was merely suggestive, not coercive, as the dealers had charged higher prices and customers complained accordingly, and there was no concerted illegal activity. The decision rested on the lack of evidence showing coercion or agreement to fix prices beyond permissible suggestions.

business & regulatory

The case involved a commercial dispute arising from the failed shipment of seed potatoes purchased by a Venezuelan buyer from a New York seller and transported on a vessel owned by a Danish company; the cargo rotted due to erwinia bacteria and was dumped at sea after the buyer declined to unload it in Venezuela. The shipowner sued the seller and buyer for demurrage and related expenses, the buyer counterclaimed against the shipowner and cross-claimed against the seller for the spoilage losses and failure to obtain proper insurance, and the seller counterclaimed against the shipowner for a freight refund. Following a bench trial, the court held that the shipowner prevailed on its claim against the seller but not the buyer, the buyer's cross-claim against the seller succeeded while its counterclaim against the shipowner was dismissed, and all of the seller's claims were dismissed. The decision rested on findings that the potatoes had a pre-existing inherent defect from erwinia that prevented the risk of loss from shifting under the CIF sales contract, that the buyer bore no responsibility for discharge delays or the lack of refrigeration, and that the seller had not procured adequate insurance or shown mitigation of damages.

business & regulatory

Eazor Express, a trucking company, sued the United States under the Extension of Admiralty Act and Suits in Admiralty Act, claiming that the Army Corps of Engineers negligently allowed an independent contractor to dredge Newtown Creek in a way that removed lateral support from bulkheads, causing subsidence damage to Eazor's adjacent terminal property. The court dismissed the complaint, holding that the Corps' decisions regarding channel maintenance and dredging constituted discretionary functions for which the government had not waived sovereign immunity. The court further ruled that the independent contractor exception barred liability, as the dredging was performed by Weeks Dredging & Contracting Co. without direct government control or supervision. The opinion relied on precedents interpreting the discretionary function doctrine and independent contractor rules under admiralty and tort claims statutes.

torts & liabilityfederal powerproperty

This diversity action involves a dispute over alleged breaches of contracts for printing services in connection with a 1981 magazine sweepstakes mailing, where plaintiff Consumers Subscription Center claimed that Ballantine Litho-Sales acted as agent in securing printing from defendants including Web Letter Co., Tri-State Envelope Corp., and ICS Corp. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing among other things that the statute of frauds barred enforcement due to the absence of writings signed by the parties to be charged. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants except ICS, holding that the unsigned or inadequately signed documents did not satisfy the UCC requirement for a memorandum of the contract, and that the complaint alleged only direct breach of contract without separate claims such as inducement of breach against the agent Ballantine. As to ICS, the case was set for trial with specific discovery and pretrial deadlines. The decision rested on the lack of enforceable contracts under the statute of frauds and the limited scope of the pleadings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) seeking to amend its complaint against Michael Pappadio and related defendants to add new claims alleging fraudulent conveyances of real property and mortgages, which were discovered after the original suit was filed in 1983. The original action sought to recover on an unpaid judgment stemming from Michael Pappadio's guarantees on loans to certain companies. The court granted the motion to amend, ruling that the new claims of actual fraud were not time-barred under New York's six-year statute of limitations measured from discovery of the fraud, regardless of whether they related back to the original filing date under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c). The court rejected objections regarding potential impacts on mortgage payments by third parties as premature and speculative, noting that the proposed amendments sufficiently alleged a scheme to hinder creditors.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved the United States suing Starrett City Associates for alleged racial discrimination in apartment rentals under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, specifically challenging Starrett's policy of limiting minority tenants to maintain racial balance. Starrett moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the government's failure to intervene in a prior related lawsuit (Arthur v. Starrett City Associates) judicially estopped the current suit. The court denied the motion, reasoning that judicial estoppel did not apply because the government was not a party to the prior action, did not take inconsistent positions, and showed no intent to mislead the court.

civil rightsprocedure

The case concerns Gilbert Abramson's challenge to an IRS penalty assessment of over $35,000 under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 for unpaid withheld employee income and social security taxes owed by his bankrupt advertising company, Hargil Associates, Inc., where he served as Secretary-Treasurer and 30% owner. After a bench trial, the court addressed whether Abramson qualified as a 'responsible person' with significant authority over tax payments and bill payments. Evidence showed that President Harold Weiss exclusively managed finances, signed checks, and controlled disbursements, while Abramson handled sales and only signed checks occasionally in Weiss's absence for major creditors. The court concluded that Abramson lacked the requisite control and thus was not liable under the statute.

taxesfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This consolidated Title VII action was brought by four black civilian employees of the Navy Resale System and Supply Office alleging racial discrimination in employment decisions, including promotions. After a trial de novo, the court evaluated each plaintiff's claims individually based on the evidence presented. Regarding plaintiff Gloria Verdell, the court concluded that she was not denied a promotion due to race, as the selected white candidate possessed superior qualifications and the selection process was not shown to be pretextual. For at least one other plaintiff, the court found that deviations from standard procedures, pre-selection, and disregard of affirmative action policies established a violation of Title VII, warranting relief such as retroactive promotion and backpay.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involves the FDIC, as receiver for the insolvent Franklin National Bank, suing defendants including Robert Borne on three promissory notes tied to financing for a real estate development project that used a letter of credit. The court addressed the FDIC's motion for summary judgment and Borne's motion to amend his answer. It granted summary judgment on Counts I and II in full, granted it on Count III against defendant Chizner but denied it against Borne, and allowed the amendment to add a counterclaim limited to a set-off against any liability on Count III. The reasoning centered on the absence of factual disputes or integration with the letter of credit for Counts I and II under UCC principles, while Count III raised a triable issue regarding an alleged oral waiver of a written termination requirement in a guaranty.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

This case involves the FDIC, acting as receiver and corporate successor to the insolvent Franklin National Bank, seeking to enforce a personal guarantee executed by the defendant and her husband for obligations of H&S Restaurants, Inc., including a $195,000 promissory note from 1974. The defendant moved for summary judgment asserting the statute of limitations and laches, while the FDIC cross-moved on the merits of its claim under the unambiguous guarantee language. The court denied both motions, determining that a factual issue existed as to whether the bank relied on the guarantee due to a document listing no guarantors, that the action was timely under New York law because the claim accrued upon the loan, and that laches does not apply to this contract action at law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Bertha Rogers, a Black teacher, who sued an apartment cooperative under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fair Housing Act, alleging racial discrimination in the rejection of her application to purchase an apartment despite her substantial net worth. A jury found in her favor on both claims, awarding compensatory and punitive damages, based on evidence that the cooperative's stated financial concerns were pretextual and that race was a motivating factor. The court addressed post-verdict issues, including the availability of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 despite restrictions in the Fair Housing Act provision, citing decisions from other circuits that permit recovery through the more liberal statute when both claims succeed. The court also issued an injunctive order requiring the cooperative to maintain detailed applicant flow logs tracking race and reasons for rejection, notify rejected minority applicants, and submit compliance reports, while retaining jurisdiction for two years.

civil rightsproperty

In Campbell v. McLean Trucking Co., former employees sued their employer and union under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, alleging wrongful discharge, breach of the duty of fair representation, and blacklisting after their terminations for leading an unauthorized work stoppage. The court dismissed the hybrid § 301 claims as untimely under the six-month statute of limitations established in DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which the Second Circuit applied retroactively in Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., and dismissed the blacklisting claim as preempted by federal labor law under the Garmon doctrine because the conduct was arguably subject to the National Labor Relations Act. The reasoning centered on the filing date falling outside the limitations period and the NLRB's jurisdiction over the underlying dispute, which barred parallel court action even where the plaintiffs sought additional remedies.

labor & employmentprocedurefederal power

This case concerns a challenge by Brooklyn residents to the structure of New York City's Board of Estimate, alleging that the equal voting power given to each borough president violated the one-person, one-vote principle under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because the boroughs have significantly different populations. After the Second Circuit held that the Board is subject to the one-person, one-vote rule and remanded the case, the district court addressed the first stage of the bifurcated proceedings by selecting the methodology from Abate v. Mundt to measure malapportionment. Applying that approach to the 1980 census data for the five boroughs, the court determined that the maximum population deviation among the boroughs was 132.9 percent. The decision focuses solely on quantifying the deviation and does not yet address whether any state interests justify it.

electionscivil rights

In this case, a federal prisoner filed a motion under Rule 35(a) to correct his seven-year sentence plus five-year special parole term, arguing it constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment because the special parole provisions in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) failed to specify consequences for violations. The court denied the motion, rejecting reliance on a contrary district court decision and holding that the sentence was lawful. The court reasoned that 21 U.S.C. § 841(c) expressly authorizes revocation of the special parole term upon violation, with the imprisonment term increased by the parole period and without credit for time on parole, thereby providing the required statutory sanction.

criminal lawprocedure