Charles J. Siragusa

The case involved a church that sued the Village of Canisteo under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) after local zoning boards denied its requests to rezone or grant a variance for building a new church facility in a light industrial district where such uses were prohibited. The church argued that the denial substantially burdened its religious exercise by preventing expansion due to inadequate current facilities. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the complaint failed to plausibly allege a substantial burden because the church had not purchased the property, was aware of the zoning restrictions from the outset, had other available sites in the village, and created its own hardship by pursuing a non-permitted location. The decision noted that RLUIPA did not override the zoning code in this context and that the church declined an opportunity to amend its complaint to allege unique suitability of the site.

religious libertyproperty

This diversity case arose from a franchise agreement between FLB, LLC and @Wireless Enterprises, Inc. for operating a retail cellular services shop, with claims of breach of contract and related state-law torts against individual defendant Craig Jerabeck and successor entity 5Linx. The court granted summary judgment to both defendants, denied plaintiffs' motion to strike an affidavit, granted Jerabeck's Rule 11 motion, and dismissed the action. It found no basis for personal liability against Jerabeck, who was not a party to the agreement, and no viable claims against 5Linx, while determining that plaintiffs' pursuit of unsupported claims violated Rule 11 and warranted an admonition to counsel. The underlying facts involved @Wireless's breaches of its separate agreement with Verizon Wireless and the franchise agreement's terms regarding independent contractor status and approved suppliers.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute over a commercial property in Rochester, New York, that Ridge Seneca Plaza, LLC purchased from First Allied Shopping Center, L.P. in 2001 under a contract specifying an 'as is, where is and with all faults' sale with explicit waivers of claims related to the property's environmental or physical condition. Ridge Seneca later brought claims against First Allied for mutual mistake, negligence, equitable indemnification, and restitution, alleging issues with undisclosed environmental contamination. The court granted First Allied's motion for summary judgment and dismissed those causes of action. The core reasoning was that the purchase agreement contained no representations about the premises' condition, placed the burden of inspection on the buyer, and included broad release provisions that barred post-sale claims regardless of any alleged mistake by the seller.

propertyenvironmentbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerned a plaintiff who alleged she was sexually abused and raped by a treatment counselor while serving probation sentences for DWI convictions that required court-ordered alcohol counseling and Treatment Court participation. She brought state-law tort claims for negligent hiring, training, and supervision as well as constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Livingston County and related entities, asserting they failed to protect her despite prior complaints about the counselor. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, holding that the counselor was employed by a nonprofit or by the state Office of Court Administration rather than the County during the relevant periods, that the complaint failed to allege any County policy or custom or obvious need for supervision that would support municipal liability under § 1983, and that the tort claims likewise lacked a basis for County responsibility. The plaintiff's cross-motion for attorney's fees was denied.

criminal lawcivil rightstorts & liability

In this bankruptcy appeal, debtors Keith and Marylou Morgan challenged a bankruptcy court ruling that monthly annuity payments Mrs. Morgan received from a 1981 medical malpractice settlement were not exempt from their Chapter 7 estate. The district court reversed, holding that the payments qualified for exemption under New York Debtor and Creditor Law § 282 and Insurance Law § 3212(d)(1), which protect annuity benefits and proceeds due to the annuitant. The court relied on Second Circuit precedent in In re Baker, which confirmed that a debtor who settled a personal-injury claim is treated as having paid the consideration for the annuity even if the insurer owns the contract, and that exemption statutes are to be liberally construed in the debtor’s favor. The matter was remanded for the bankruptcy court to decide, under § 3212(d)(2), whether any portion of the payments should be directed to creditors.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by the father of Rosemary Infante, who died from a prescription drug overdose in 2006. The plaintiff alleged that Monroe County medical examiners violated his daughter's constitutional rights by classifying her death as a suicide without adequately investigating her medical history or considering evidence suggesting an accidental overdose. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. It reasoned that a deceased person has no constitutional rights that can be violated by post-death actions such as an autopsy or manner-of-death determination, and therefore no viable Section 1983 claim existed. The court expressed no view on the actual cause of death.

civil rights

This ERISA case concerned a widow's claim for accidental death and dismemberment benefits under a group insurance policy provided by her late husband's employer after he died from electrocution in his home workspace. The insurer paid the life insurance benefits but denied the AD&D claim under a policy exclusion for losses caused or contributed to by intentionally self-inflicted injury, based on the circumstances described in police and medical examiner reports. The court granted the insurer's motions to strike and for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's cross-motion, concluding that the denial was not arbitrary and capricious given the plan administrator's discretion and the supporting evidence.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

This case under the Federal Tort Claims Act involved a motor vehicle collision in which a U.S. Postal Service employee driving a van failed to yield the right of way while exiting a parking lot and struck the front passenger side of plaintiff Renee Hahnel's car. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, ruling that the USPS driver was negligent as a matter of law because she did not see the oncoming vehicle until the moment of impact and her speculation about the plaintiff's speed was unsupported. Both parties' motions were denied in part on the issue of whether the accident caused a serious injury under New York law, such as the plaintiff's claimed disc herniation requiring surgery, because medical experts offered conflicting opinions on causation and pre-existing conditions. The court therefore allowed the case to proceed to trial on damages and the extent of any injury attributable to the accident.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

This case concerns environmental contamination at a commercial property in Gates, New York, where plaintiff Emerson Enterprises alleges that prior tenants and operators, including Clark Witbeck under defendant Brodie's ownership, disposed of industrial cutting oil containing PCBs into a dry well, violating federal CERCLA and RCRA statutes as well as New York environmental and navigation laws. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, granting plaintiff's motion in full while granting Brodie's motion in part and denying it in part. The decision rests on factual findings regarding the timing and responsibility for the dumping activities, the elements of public nuisance under New York law, and distinctions between claims for waste and implied indemnification. The opinion applies established precedents on liability for contributing to contamination and the availability of equitable relief.

environmentpropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns environmental contamination at a commercial property in Gates, New York, stemming from the routine dumping of cutting oil containing PCBs into a dry well by employees of prior tenants Clark Witbeck and its successors from the 1960s through the 1980s. Plaintiff Emerson Enterprises brought claims under CERCLA, RCRA, New York Environmental Conservation Law, and Navigation Law, seeking damages and also insurance coverage from defendant Travelers Indemnity Co. for remediation costs. The court granted Travelers' motion for summary judgment and terminated it from the action. The core reasoning was that the policies' pollution exclusion applied because the discharges were intentional and systematic rather than sudden and accidental, as shown by witness testimony describing the dumping as standard procedure for discontinued or leaking barrels.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves foreign workers recruited through the H-2B visa program who sued their U.S. employer, Trugreen Landcare LLC, for unpaid wages under the FLSA and New York and New Hampshire minimum wage laws, claiming the employer failed to reimburse recruitment fees, visa costs, and travel expenses that reduced their effective wages below the legal minimum. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint under FRCP 12(b)(6). The core reasoning is that under FLSA anti-kickback regulations, expenses primarily benefiting the employer must be reimbursed and cannot be deducted from wages, and the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged facts supporting this claim despite the employer's arguments based on prior agency interpretations and case law.

labor & employmentimmigration

This diversity personal injury case arose after plaintiff Louis Bloom was injured using a Roman chair exercise machine manufactured by ProMaxima and sold by M-F Athletic, when a foot restraint T-bar came loose. Plaintiffs settled with M-F Athletic during trial, and a jury returned a verdict finding ProMaxima not liable, specifically determining that any defect from failure to warn was not a substantial factor causing the accident. M-F Athletic then sought to discontinue its cross-claims for contribution and indemnity against ProMaxima without prejudice, while ProMaxima moved for summary judgment to dismiss those claims with prejudice. The court granted ProMaxima's motion and denied M-F Athletic's, holding that res judicata principles from the Restatement (Second) of Judgments barred relitigation because the jury had exonerated ProMaxima and further proceedings could produce inconsistent results or allow indirect recovery against the exonerated party.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves an African-American employee who sued multiple related companies and individuals for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the New York Human Rights Law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging that a supervisor used racial slurs, that management ignored complaints, and that the employee was not recalled to seasonal snowplowing or paving work after participating in a discrimination hearing. The court ruled on the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to file an amended complaint. It granted both motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing certain claims and defendants for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, untimely filing, or insufficient allegations while allowing others to proceed based on the scope of the EEOC charge and the facts alleged regarding recall and retaliation.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerns allegations by a parent that her blind child was not receiving appropriate public education from the Honeoye school district and associated entities like BOCES and Walker, raising claims under the IDEA, Rehabilitation Act, ADA, various torts, and §1983. On defendants' motion to dismiss, the court dismissed the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring and supervision, and §1983 violations due to insufficient pleading under the Twombly/Iqbal standard, but allowed the education-related federal claims and negligent infliction of emotional distress to continue. Plaintiff's request for attorney fees was denied.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a veteran plaintiff who alleged that improper ophthalmology treatment at a VA clinic caused his blindness in one eye, bringing FTCA claims against the United States and Department of Veterans Affairs along with state-law medical malpractice claims against the University of Rochester and the treating physician. The court granted the United States' motion to dismiss the FTCA claims for lack of jurisdiction and the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It dismissed the University of Rochester and the physician from the action entirely. The FTCA claims against the United States may proceed only on the narrow allegation that VA employees were negligent in failing to reschedule an ophthalmology appointment. The core reasoning was that the contract between the VA and the University established the physician as an independent contractor rather than a federal employee, placing her actions outside the scope of the FTCA, combined with jurisdictional barriers such as failure to exhaust administrative remedies for other claims.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

This case involved a former employee of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester who alleged hostile work environment employment discrimination based on sex, retaliation under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law, and a state common-law claim for assault and battery against her supervisor and a parish pastor. The court considered the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the federal and state statutory claims. It granted the motions, finding insufficient evidence to support the discrimination and retaliation allegations after reviewing the plaintiff's reporting of incidents, the employer's policies, and contradictions in her statements. The court then dismissed the remaining assault and battery claim under supplemental jurisdiction principles.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involves homeowners who sued their insurer after their home was destroyed by fire, seeking additional living expenses under the policy following disputes over the home's replacement cost versus actual cash value. The court addressed the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on the additional living expenses claim. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding triable issues on whether the insurer's alleged underpayments and refusal to follow the appraisal process breached good faith obligations and prevented timely rebuilding, while limiting recovery to the policy's 12-month period for such expenses.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involves Worlklis Luna Aponte, a lawful permanent resident from the Dominican Republic, who was ordered removed after convictions for drug possession and robbery. He has been detained for about 39 months without a bond hearing while his appeal to the Second Circuit is pending under a forbearance policy that stays his deportation. He filed a habeas petition arguing that his prolonged detention violates the INA and Fifth Amendment due process. The court denied the petition, finding that detention is mandatory under INA § 236(c) for criminal aliens, that such detention is constitutional under Supreme Court precedent, and that there is no significant likelihood that removal will not occur in the foreseeable future.

immigrationcriminal lawcivil rights

This employment discrimination case involves a female deputy sheriff jailor who sued Monroe County after witnessing a graphic sexual act by a visitor at the jail in December 2007, hearing lewd comments from male coworkers, and then complaining about the incident and comments to management in January 2008. She alleged hostile work environment claims under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law, retaliation under the same laws, an equal protection violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and additional constitutional claims. The court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings in part and denied it in part, dismissing all claims except the third and fourth causes of action for retaliation. The retaliation claims were allowed to proceed because the complaint sufficiently alleged protected activity followed by adverse actions such as denial of leave and threats of discipline, while the other claims failed to state viable causes of action based on the facts alleged and applicable legal standards.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This ERISA case involved a beneficiary's claim for accidental death benefits under a group insurance policy after the insured died in a snowmobile crash while intoxicated. The insurer denied the claim on grounds that the death was not accidental because it was a foreseeable result of operating the vehicle at high speed while drunk, and because the policy excluded losses caused by driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the action, holding that the insurer's interpretation of the policy terms was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. The court further determined that a snowmobile qualified as a motor vehicle under the exclusion, rejecting the plaintiff's arguments that state vehicle laws or policy definitions of "auto" should control.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure