Joanna Seybert

In this Lanham Act trademark case, Philip Morris USA sued defendants for selling counterfeit Marlboro cigarettes at retail stores, alleging violations of registered marks that caused consumer confusion. After defendants failed to answer the complaint or adequately respond to discovery, the court entered defaults and referred the motion for default judgment to a magistrate judge. The magistrate recommended, and the district court adopted, entry of a default judgment for $200,350 in statutory damages and costs, along with a permanent injunction barring future counterfeit sales and requiring cooperation with investigations, relying on the well-pled complaint allegations deemed true due to default and the need for deterrence.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee's appeal from a bankruptcy court order allowing debtors to claim a homestead exemption under New York CPLR Section 5206 for their vested remainder interest in the home where they resided with the life tenant (the debtor's mother), to whom they paid rent. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision. The court reasoned that the statute requires only that the property be "owned and occupied as a principal residence" without specifying the type of ownership interest, and that a remainder interest qualifies as ownership because it is descendible, devisable, and alienable. The debtors satisfied both the ownership and occupancy requirements, and the court rejected arguments that the statute's purpose or potential dual-homestead issues required a different result, noting the need to construe the exemption liberally.

property

In this bankruptcy appeal, the Chapter 7 Trustee of debtor Marine Risks, Inc. challenged the Bankruptcy Court's partial denial of leave to amend his adversary complaint against a former officer and director and the dismissal of the complaint under Rule 52; the defendant cross-appealed the partial amendment to conform to trial evidence and the lack of a fee award, while also seeking Rule 11 sanctions. The district court affirmed the Bankruptcy Order in full, dismissed both appeals, and denied sanctions. The decision rested on the conclusion that the Bankruptcy Court's factual findings and procedural rulings were supported by the record, the trustee's appeal lacked sufficient merit for reversal but was not so frivolous as to warrant sanctions, and no error occurred in handling amendments or costs.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Toussie v. County of Suffolk, plaintiffs who successfully bid on surplus county properties at public auctions challenged the Suffolk County Legislature's refusal to approve the sales and its alleged exclusion of them from later auctions, claiming violations of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 along with related state-law claims such as breach of contract and defamation. The district court consolidated two related actions and ruled on the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that plaintiffs failed to establish protected liberty or property interests supporting due-process claims, that auction participation did not constitute protected speech or intimate association under the First Amendment, and that certain individual defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the federal claims while some state claims survived.

civil rightspropertyprocedurefree speech

In United States v. Hatfield, the government moved for a preliminary order of forfeiture against defendants David H. Brooks and Sandra Hatfield after their convictions on counts including securities fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, upholding its prior decision that only the difference between the stock's fraud-inflated value and its value absent the fraud qualifies as forfeitable proceeds under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), rather than all revenue from the sales, and reserved judgment on specific amounts while requesting supplemental calculations and briefing. The court applied a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for forfeiture as part of sentencing and rejected the government's arguments for broader forfeiture based on controlling precedent and the statutory requirement that property be traceable to the offenses.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case concerns plaintiff James Ferrari's challenge to the temporary impoundment of his vehicle by Suffolk County after his arrest for driving while intoxicated at over 100 mph, with a prior DWI conviction and refusal of a chemical test. Following a post-seizure hearing under Suffolk County Code Chapter 270 and Krimstock v. Kelly standards, Ferrari sued the county and individual officials alleging due process violations in the hearing procedures, including improper burdens and findings. On defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court granted dismissal in part by dismissing claims against the individual defendants without prejudice but denied it as to the county, allowing those claims to proceed based on potential municipal liability. The reasoning centered on the distinction between individual and municipal liability standards, the sufficiency of allegations regarding the hearing's compliance with due process, and the inapplicability of certain defenses to the county.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedureproperty

In Rodriguez v. Almighty Cleaning, Inc., four employees sued their former employers, two cleaning companies and their owner, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York State Labor Law to recover unpaid wages. The district court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full after no party filed objections. It entered a default judgment against the defendants for failing to obtain new counsel or respond to court orders, awarding specific damages to each plaintiff and holding the defendants jointly and severally liable. The court also granted conditional certification of an FLSA collective action and authorized notice to potential class members.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a copyright infringement claim by Christopher Castorina and Steven Morse against Spike Cable Networks, Inc., alleging that the defendants' reality show "Pros v. Joes" copied protected elements from the plaintiffs' copyrighted treatment for a similar sports-themed show called "Two Left Feet." The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court reasoned that although both works share unprotectable general ideas, such as amateurs competing against professional athletes in various sports, there was no substantial similarity in the original, protectable expressions of those ideas, including differences in episode structure, judging methods, contestant selection, and overall format. As a result, the complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief.

propertyprocedure

In this case, a pro se plaintiff in Suffolk County custody sued the county and several John Doe corrections officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming Eighth Amendment violations from an assault by a known violent inmate and subsequent denial of medical care for resulting injuries, as well as separate issues with cell conditions. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). It allowed the claim against one officer to proceed based on allegations of deliberate indifference in refusing medical access after the assault, and permitted the municipal claim against the county to advance on the housing of violent inmates together despite known risks. The remaining claims were dismissed for insufficient pleading of deliberate indifference beyond negligence, failure to identify defendants properly, or lack of a shown municipal policy or custom.

criminal lawcivil rights

In this case, plaintiffs Perry Cohan and Rezvan Lahiji sued defendant Mordechay Movtady for defaulting on a $3,335,000 promissory note executed in 2007 that consolidated prior loans, as well as two additional loans of $1,350,000 and $200,000 made in 2007 and 2008. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on claims for the unpaid principal, interest, and fees. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that the promissory note was valid and enforceable with no genuine dispute over execution or default and that the Iranian plaintiff's standing was not barred by the Trading With The Enemy Act, while denying summary judgment on the other loans due to factual disputes over maturity dates, possible oral extensions, and statute of limitations issues. The decision applied the standard for summary judgment in promissory note actions, requiring no material questions on execution and default, and resolved ambiguities in favor of the non-moving party on contested defenses.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Hatfield, defendant David H. Brooks, facing trial on charges including securities fraud, conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, insider trading under 18 U.S.C. § 1348, obstruction of justice, and related counts, filed a Rule 29(a) motion for judgment of acquittal on Counts Three through Eleven and Fifteen, contending the government's evidence was insufficient, along with a renewed mistrial motion. The court granted the acquittal motion in part and denied it in part, while denying the mistrial request. On the insider trading counts, the court found the evidence sufficient for a rational jury to conclude that undisclosed facts about Brooks' control of TAP, DHB's payments and oversight, and inflated gross profit margins were material omissions under federal securities law, even if not required by GAAP, as materiality depends on both quantitative and qualitative factors and is generally a jury question; arguments that certain disclosures were adequate or that personal expense payments were non-predictive were rejected or limited in scope.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Anna Waldman filed a putative class action against New Chapter, Inc., alleging that the packaging of its Berry Green product misled consumers by listing the net weight only in grams rather than ounces and by including excessive empty space, or slack fill, inside the container. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. It dismissed the breach of contract claim for lack of privity between the indirect purchaser and the manufacturer under New York law, and it dismissed the common law fraud claim for failure to plead the required elements with particularity. The court allowed the claim under New York General Business Law § 349 to proceed on the slack fill theory because the packaging could plausibly be found materially misleading to consumers, while taking judicial notice of applicable federal regulations on slack fill.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved parents suing a school district and its former principal, alleging violations of their child's privacy rights under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) by disclosing his participation in a non-district art competition, along with claims of education discrimination under federal statutes, intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring or supervision. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that the complaint failed to state any plausible claims. FERPA does not create a private right of action enforceable by individuals, the discrimination references lacked a clear statutory basis or supporting facts, and the tort claims did not allege the required elements such as extreme conduct or the employer's knowledge of any propensity for harm.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involved an appeal by George Wynns, a non-attorney who operated a business preparing bankruptcy petitions, from a Bankruptcy Court order finding him liable for multiple violations of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court determined that Wynns failed to provide required disclosures to clients before preparing their petitions, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by advising on forms and corresponding with the court, and acted as a debt relief agency without written contracts, resulting in fines, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and an injunction. On appeal, the District Court affirmed the findings of violations for inadequate disclosures and lack of contracts, along with the associated fines and damages to the clients, but reversed the unauthorized practice of law determinations and the award of attorneys' fees to the U.S. Trustee, holding that certain actions did not constitute unauthorized legal practice under the statute and that the fee award lacked statutory basis. The core reasoning centered on statutory interpretation of 11 U.S.C. §§ 110 and 528, application of the facts to those provisions, and recognition that Congress prescribed mandatory remedies without discretion for reduction.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an appeal by Richard Smith, his wife Nelsi Smith, and his sister Carole Ann Caruso from a bankruptcy court order denying their motion to reopen Mr. Smith's converted Chapter 7 case. The Smiths sought to reopen the case years after its closure to bring claims against the Chapter 7 trustee, his counsel, and the trustee's bondholders, alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in failing to pursue state-court claims arising from the 1990 dissolution of Meadow Mechanical Corporation and collection on a related promissory note. The district court affirmed the denial, holding that the trustee had properly abandoned the claims to the debtor, that many claims were time-barred, that the trustee's business judgment in not pursuing them was entitled to deference, and that prior unappealed orders had become final and precluded relitigation. The court further found no privity existed to support malpractice claims against the trustee's counsel and that the bond could not be reached without a viable underlying claim against the trustee.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose after a jury trial in which plaintiff Moscarelli prevailed on her Title VII and NYSHRL sex/pregnancy discrimination claims with an adjusted award of $272,165.58, and plaintiff Todaro prevailed on her Equal Pay Act claim with an adjusted award of $16,178.50. Plaintiffs then moved for attorneys' fees, costs, prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, awarding $239,049.86 in fees and $9,757.34 in costs. The court reduced the requested fees after applying Eastern District of New York hourly rates per Second Circuit precedent, trimming hours for excessiveness and limited success, and it approved most costs after review while awarding prejudgment interest on compensatory damages as ordinarily required and post-judgment interest on the full award.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a pro se plaintiff's federal lawsuit against a village, its officials, police, a water authority, and various private parties, alleging constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 arising from a property dispute at 6 Union Street in Sag Harbor, New York, that was also the subject of a related state court action between the plaintiff and her sister. The district court referred motions to dismiss to a magistrate judge, who issued a report and recommendation (R&R) advising that the claims be dismissed for failure to state a viable claim. The plaintiff filed objections to the R&R, but the district court found them conclusory and therefore reviewed the R&R only for clear error rather than conducting de novo review. Finding no clear error, the court adopted the R&R in full, granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, and dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

The case involved a probationary junior high school math teacher who was denied tenure and terminated by the Lawrence Union Free School District in 2003 and 2004 after receiving mixed but mostly positive performance observations and appraisals. Plaintiff Michael D. Frank sued under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and NYSHRL, alleging discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate based on a disability or perceived disability. The court addressed defendants' summary judgment motion and plaintiff's sanctions motion concerning alleged spoliation of documents and emails, analyzing evidence such as lesson observations, annual appraisals, and whether any adverse actions were linked to protected status.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved plaintiffs Catcove Corp. and Dede Gotthelf suing the Town of Southampton, the New York DEC, and various officials for allegedly violating their civil rights by obstructing zoning approvals for two commercial development projects, claiming class-of-one discrimination, sex discrimination, due process violations, and conspiracy. The court granted the DEC's motion to dismiss entirely, partially granted the other motions to dismiss (dismissing most claims but allowing a gender discrimination claim to proceed against certain defendants), imposed $1,000 in Rule 11 sanctions on the plaintiffs for filing a conclusory amended complaint, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for fees. The reasoning centered on the failure to state plausible claims under the Iqbal standard, lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to ripeness issues, and the impropriety of the overly broad and unsupported allegations in the 70-page complaint.

civil rightspropertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a pretrial motion in a federal criminal prosecution of David Brooks and Sandra Hatfield on charges including accounting fraud, looting of DHB Inc. funds, obstruction, and related tax offenses. The government sought to introduce various "other acts" evidence either as direct proof or under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show intent, plan, or absence of mistake, while the defendants opposed most of the requests. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, admitting tax evidence, asset transfers, and salacious acts as direct evidence, allowing insurance fraud and family-member stock purchases under Rule 404(b), but excluding NASDAQ-related statements because they were separate incidents not inextricably intertwined with the charged conduct and risked improper propensity inferences. The court also granted unopposed admission of certain Giglio evidence. Its reasoning applied Rules 404(b) and 403 to assess relevance, timing, and potential prejudice for each category of evidence.

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory