William M. Skretny

In Ballard v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., plaintiff Diane Ballard, a former HSBC employee, sued under Title VII after the New York State Division of Human Rights found that HSBC had discriminated against her on the basis of race and retaliation, awarding her damages that were upheld on appeal; she sought a federal declaratory judgment that she was a prevailing party entitled to attorney’s fees after receiving an EEOC right-to-sue letter. HSBC moved to dismiss, arguing that no federal action for fees alone was permitted without a full federal merits lawsuit. The court denied the motion, holding that Title VII’s statutory scheme incorporates state administrative proceedings, that a right-to-sue letter authorizes a fees-only federal claim when the plaintiff has prevailed in those proceedings, and that federal jurisdiction exists for such an action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3).

civil rightslabor & employment

Plaintiff Desabio sued the manufacturers of a Trident ceramic hip prosthesis, a Class III medical device approved by the FDA through premarket approval, alleging state-law claims for negligent design and manufacture, breach of express warranty, and res ipsa loquitur after the device allegedly caused pain and grinding following implantation. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing the claims were preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to further amend the negligence claim to reference FDA standards and granted the motion to dismiss in full. It held that the state claims were expressly preempted under 21 U.S.C. § 360k because they would impose requirements on the device that were different from or in addition to the federal requirements imposed through the FDA's premarket approval process.

business & regulatoryhealthcaretorts & liability

This case involved New York homeowners who refinanced their mortgage and purchased title insurance from the defendant, alleging they were overcharged by $327 because they qualified for a 50% discount under the insurer's filed rate schedule but did not receive it. The plaintiffs brought claims for money had and received, unjust enrichment, a violation of RESPA § 8(b), and a violation of New York General Business Law § 349, seeking to proceed as a class action. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the RESPA claim, reasoning that the plaintiffs failed to allege any fee splitting between the insurer and a third party as required to state a claim under that provision. The court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this case, pro se plaintiff Ronald Davidson, an inmate at Elmira Correctional Facility, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous current and former New York State Department of Corrections employees. He asserted twelve claims alleging violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, primarily concerning alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs (such as pain management, allergies, asthma, vision, and diet), exposure to second-hand smoke, privacy issues during sick call, interference with inmate grievances, and related matters. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment. The district court conducted a de novo review and accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in full, granting the motion in part (dismissing claims against certain supervisory defendants for lack of personal involvement and other claims for insufficient evidence) and denying it in part (allowing remaining claims to proceed), while scheduling a status conference.

civil rightscriminal lawhealthcare

This criminal case involved charges against multiple members of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17, under a superseding indictment alleging one count of RICO conspiracy, one count of Hobbs Act extortion conspiracy, six counts of attempted Hobbs Act extortion, and RICO forfeiture. The defendants were accused of operating a criminal enterprise from 1997 to 2007 that used violence, threats, and intimidation to extort wages, benefits, jobs, and business decision rights from Western New York construction contractors and non-union workers. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the indictment, but the district court set aside that recommendation, granted the government's objections, and denied the motions to dismiss. The court reasoned that the indictment sufficiently alleged the elements of the offenses, that the charged conduct involved wrongful extortion not protected by labor exemptions under United States v. Enmons, and that challenges based on vagueness, strictissimi juris review, and other grounds lacked merit.

criminal lawlabor & employment

In United States v. Peters, the defendant moved for a partial stay of a criminal forfeiture order regarding an undeveloped parcel of land (Lot 26) pending his appeal. The court applied a four-factor test to evaluate whether to grant the stay: likelihood of success on appeal, potential depreciation of the asset, the asset's intrinsic value to the defendant, and maintenance costs. The first factor slightly favored a stay because the appeal was not frivolous, but the other three factors weighed against it due to risks of depreciation, lack of unique value to the defendant, and government expenses. Balancing these, the court denied the motion to stay the forfeiture.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

This case involves residents of Middleport, New York, suing FMC Corporation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and New York common law for alleged contamination from its pesticide facility, seeking injunctive relief, damages, and penalties. The court granted FMC's motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert witness and for summary judgment. The expert's opinions were deemed unreliable and inadmissible because they lacked a proper risk assessment and contained unsupported conclusions about arsenic contamination. Without admissible expert evidence demonstrating imminent and substantial endangerment or specific violations, the plaintiffs failed to raise genuine issues of material fact on their claims.

environmentprocedure

Elijah Turley sued his employer ArcelorMittal Lackawanna LLC (formerly ISG Lackawanna) and several managers for race-based employment discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Section 1981, Title VII, the New York Human Rights Law, and New York common law. The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss all claims, and the parties filed cross-motions to strike portions of opposing submissions on the grounds that they introduced new claims or evidence. The court examined the plaintiff's employment history as a Process Operator since 1995, the collective bargaining agreement's anti-discrimination provisions, multiple EEOC charges alleging ongoing discrimination and retaliation, and whether the plaintiff had shown an adverse employment action such as denial of promotion, termination, or significant change in responsibilities.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves a claim of race-based employment discrimination by plaintiff Dawn Riley, a white former employee of HSBC Bank USA, who alleged that her termination during a reduction-in-force violated Title VII and New York Human Rights Law. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting summary judgment in part by dismissing HSBC USA, Inc. as a defendant because it was not the proper employer, but denying summary judgment as to the Bank. The court found that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether the bank's actions were pretextual for discrimination, based on evidence including performance reviews, hiring decisions, and statements by supervisors. The case will proceed against the Bank following a status conference.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a pro se prisoner plaintiff who filed a § 1983 action alleging multiple constitutional violations, including Eighth Amendment claims over conditions in special housing units, repeated non-random urinalysis testing, denial of medical care, and First Amendment issues related to grievances, all arising from his time at Elmira and Southport correctional facilities. The defendants moved under Rules 8, 10, 12(b)(6), 12(e), and 12(f) to strike portions of the 40-page complaint, require a more definite statement or amended pleading, or dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion in full, finding the complaint's length and detail sufficient to give notice of the claims and that it adequately stated plausible causes of action. The District Judge accepted the Report and Recommendation in full after no objections were filed, resulting in denial of the defendants' motion.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves a dispute over a 2005 patent licensing agreement between Armstrong Pump, Inc. and patent owner Hartman, under which Armstrong received limited exclusive rights to use certain HVAC chiller sequencing technologies. Armstrong sued Hartman for breach of contract and anticipatory breach, alleging that Hartman's planned assignment of the patents to Optimum Energy violated exclusivity and improvement-offer provisions in the agreement; it also sued Optimum for tortious interference with contract. The court partially granted and partially denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, allowing claims based on sections 8 and 10.2 of the agreement to proceed while dismissing others. It denied Armstrong's motion for a preliminary injunction on the ground that Armstrong failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm, such as loss of exclusivity rights before the agreement's expiration around 2020.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

HealthNow New York Inc., a health services corporation primarily involved with ERISA employee benefit plans, sued the State of New York and its Attorney General to challenge the state's Anti-Subrogation Law, which bars benefit providers from enforcing subrogation or reimbursement rights against tort settlement proceeds in personal injury cases. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief on grounds of ERISA preemption and violations of the Due Process and Contracts Clauses. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the Eleventh Amendment immunizes the state from suit and that the Ex parte Young exception does not apply to the Attorney General because he has no authority to enforce the challenged law, rendering the other motions moot.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involved the U.S. Department of Justice suing Erie County and its officials under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) after a two-year investigation found that conditions at the Erie County Holding Center and Correctional Facility violated inmates' constitutional rights, including inadequate protection from physical and sexual abuse, insufficient medical and mental health care, and unsafe environmental conditions. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing primarily that CRIPA was unconstitutional as applied and that the pleading lacked sufficient detail. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that CRIPA permits the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief for patterns or practices of constitutional deprivations in correctional facilities and that the required pre-suit certifications had been properly made, though it directed the Justice Department to file an amended complaint clarifying the specific allegations against each defendant.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal power

In this case, plaintiff Craig Beatty, a diabetic pretrial detainee at the Erie County Holding Center, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying him adequate medical care, specifically insulin and monitoring, after his arrest on April 14, 2005. The defendants moved for summary judgment, but the court denied the motion. The court found genuine issues of material fact as to whether individual defendants were deliberately indifferent to Beatty's serious medical needs and whether Erie County had a policy or custom of failing to manage chronically ill inmates, train staff on diabetic care, or maintain procedures for medical needs when the medical department was closed, which could support municipal liability.

criminal lawcivil rightshealthcare

This case concerns plaintiffs' challenge to federal officials' approvals allowing the Seneca Nation of Indians to operate a casino on the Buffalo Parcel, which the tribe acquired in 2005; plaintiffs argue the land is not gaming-eligible Indian land under the IGRA, that the Seneca Nation Settlement Act violates the Tenth Amendment, that a prior tribal-state compact does not cover the parcel, and that the parcel is not within a reservation. The court addressed two pending motions: the government's motion to dismiss the first claim for relief and the Seneca Nation's motion to intervene. It granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part on grounds including timeliness, standing, and the scope of the Administrative Procedure Act's waiver of sovereign immunity, while denying intervention because the tribe's proposed limited waiver of sovereign immunity was insufficient. The decision rests on analysis of prior related lawsuits, statutory interpretation of the IGRA and related regulations, and procedural rules governing intervention and dismissal.

business & regulatoryfederal powerpropertyprocedure

This case involved a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act that the defendant hotel failed to maintain an accessible facility. After the court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs sought attorney fees, expert fees, and costs totaling $46,196.82. The court held that the plaintiffs qualified as prevailing parties eligible for reasonable fees under 42 U.S.C. § 12205 because they obtained a judicially sanctioned material change in the parties' legal relationship. It denied the plaintiffs' request to award the full unopposed amount without review, reasoning that the statute requires the exercise of discretion and that Second Circuit precedent mandates an independent determination of reasonableness, including application of local market rates rather than out-of-town rates. The opinion proceeds to evaluate the specific fee request under those standards.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by a New York state prisoner convicted of second-degree murder, seeking to challenge his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court dismissed the petition as untimely, finding that even after applying statutory tolling for state post-conviction motions and additional days under the prison mailbox rule, the filing exceeded the one-year limitations period under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act by hundreds of days. The district judge adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation after reviewing objections, concluding no error in the timeliness calculation and denying a certificate of appealability.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a civil rights lawsuit brought by a parent on behalf of her son, a student with Asperger’s Syndrome and other conditions enrolled in the Niagara Falls School District, alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and state law claims including assault, battery, and defamation. The plaintiffs claimed that between 2004 and 2006 the district denied the student a free appropriate public education by barring his attendance at school, failing to provide necessary services, and not developing an Individualized Education Program (IEP). Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing among other things that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA. The court, adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full, denied the motion, finding that summary judgment was inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact remained and that the exhaustion requirement did not bar the claims under the circumstances presented.

civil rights

This case is a wrongful death and product liability action brought by Mexican plaintiffs as heirs of three individuals killed in a 2006 helicopter crash in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. The helicopter was designed and manufactured in New York by defendant Schweizer Aircraft Corp., a U.S. company, and was being used by the Mexican government. After the case was transferred from Texas to the Western District of New York, the defendant moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing that Mexico was the more appropriate forum. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion after analyzing private and public interest factors, and the district court adopted that recommendation in full, dismissing the case. The core reasoning was that both the private interests of the parties and the public interests of the courts favored litigation in Mexican courts over New York.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, Robert Brown filed a petition for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2002 state court convictions in Monroe County for third-degree burglary, fourth-degree criminal mischief, and petit larceny, raising claims that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that he was denied the right to confront witnesses, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation concluded that the petition should be denied, finding that some claims were unexhausted, others were not cognizable in federal habeas review, and the ineffective assistance claim failed because counsel's performance met constitutional standards under Strickland. The district court adopted the Report and Recommendation in full after no objections were filed, denied the petition, and also denied a certificate of appealability. The core reasoning rested on exhaustion requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), deference to state court findings, and the absence of any showing that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.

criminal lawprocedure