Abraham David Sofaer

Philip Rastelli petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus after the U.S. Parole Commission revoked his mandatory release parole for associating with persons having criminal records, a violation of his release conditions; he challenged the revocation on grounds including lack of evidence, vagueness of the condition, and improper procedures in an original jurisdiction case. The court held that the Commission's regulation allowing up to 119 days for appeals in original jurisdiction cases conflicts with the statutory 60-day requirement under 18 U.S.C. § 4215(b), rendering the exhaustion process invalid in this context, and further found insufficient evidence that Rastelli had "associated" with such persons as defined. The court granted the habeas petition but stayed issuance of the writ for 30 days to allow the Commission to initiate new revocation proceedings or otherwise justify continued detention. The decision turned on statutory interpretation of parole procedures and review of the administrative record showing no adequate factual basis for the revocation.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case centered on a 78-count RICO indictment charging 24 defendants with participating in a criminal enterprise (a "crew") involved in 80 alleged racketeering acts, including 26 murders, bribery, extortion, narcotics trafficking, and other offenses spanning 1972 to 1983. Defendants filed an omnibus motion and individual challenges seeking dismissal of counts or striking of acts on grounds such as statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3282, preindictment delay, insufficiency of the RICO theory and joinder, and various evidentiary issues. The court organized its rulings into four parts covering jurisdictional bars, the government's use of RICO for theory and joinder, particular counts or acts, and miscellaneous motions, with reasoning that superseding indictments timely preserved charges, RICO conspiracy requires an agreement to commit at least two racketeering acts (without needing an overt act), and due process or associational concerns did not bar prosecution of the alleged criminal agreement.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Castellano, the government moved to disqualify attorney Gerald L. Shargel from representing defendant Richard Mastrangelo in a multi-defendant RICO prosecution alleging an organized crime enterprise led by Roy DeMeo. The court disqualified Shargel, finding that evidence of his receipt of cash payments from the alleged enterprise for the legal fees of multiple co-defendants was relevant and admissible to prove the enterprise's existence and structure under RICO. Although acknowledging Mastrangelo's Sixth Amendment interest in counsel of his choice, the court held that Shargel's potential testimony created a conflict that could prejudice his client and that the public interest in the testimony outweighed that right.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves the government's motion to disqualify attorney Gerald L. Shargel from representing defendant Richard Mastrangelo in a criminal trial, citing Shargel's invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege before a grand jury regarding his relationships with defendants, the possibility that Shargel might be called as a witness, and ethical concerns involving former clients. The court did not rule on the disqualification but instead ordered further proceedings to develop a record on potential conflicts, including risks of perjury or obstruction, Shargel's role as a witness, objections from former clients, and the defendant's waiver of conflict-free representation. The reasoning emphasizes the defendant's constitutional right to counsel of his choice, requiring the government to demonstrate convincingly that disqualification is necessary and that less intrusive measures, such as stipulations or in camera reviews, cannot suffice, in light of precedents like Flanagan v. United States and United States v. Cunningham.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved National Survival Game, Inc. suing competing entities and their officers, the Fogals, for allegedly misusing confidential information from failed dealership talks to launch a similar game called Skirmish and for disseminating false advertising that misappropriated NSG's goodwill, in violation of the Lanham Act, unfair competition, and related state laws. The Fogals moved to dismiss the claims against them personally under Rule 12(b)(6), contending their actions were solely in their corporate capacities. The court denied the motion, ruling that corporate officers who personally participate in tortious or illegal conduct may be held jointly and severally liable with the corporation under both federal precedent and New York law, and that the complaint adequately alleged such participation. The court also sanctioned the defendants' attorneys under Rule 11 for filing a motion unsupported by any cited authority.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, the trustee of a bankrupt corporation sued to recover computer assets allegedly transferred fraudulently to a spin-off entity before the bankruptcy filing, invoking federal bankruptcy law on fraudulent transfers and New York fraudulent conveyance statutes, while also bringing malpractice claims against two law firms and an attorney involved in the transaction. The defendants moved to withdraw the malpractice claims from the bankruptcy court and dismiss them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim. The district court held that it possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the malpractice claims under principles of pendent jurisdiction because they arose from the same facts as the core fraudulent transfer claims and shared a federal nexus with the bankruptcy proceeding. The court further reasoned that the malpractice claims were premature and dependent on the bankruptcy court's resolution of whether the transfer was fraudulent, as no injury to the estate would occur if the assets were recovered, leading it to deny the motion to dismiss, retain jurisdiction, and close the case without prejudice pending the bankruptcy court's determination.

business & regulatoryprocedurepropertytorts & liability

Plaintiff Joseph Arancibia sued New York City police officers Berry and McGoldrick under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging they seized him without probable cause and beat him on May 23, 1981, and that other officers refused hospital transport unless he agreed not to report the incident; he also sued the City on theories of respondeat superior, gross negligence in hiring and supervision, and a municipal policy or custom of brutality and cover-ups. The officers had been dismissed after departmental disciplinary proceedings found Arancibia’s account credible. The City moved for summary judgment, which the court granted on the federal claims, holding that Monell v. Department of Social Services bars municipal liability based solely on an employment relationship and that Arancibia presented no facts showing an express policy, custom, or deliberate indifference by the Department. The court also dismissed the state-law claims against the City, declining to exercise pendent-party jurisdiction. The case against the individual officers was allowed to proceed.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a libel lawsuit brought by Ariel Sharon against Time, Inc., over an article that allegedly implied Sharon encouraged or condoned the massacre at the Sabra and Shatilla camps during the Lebanon war. The court ruled on Sharon's motion to strike several proposed expert witnesses from Time's list, whom the magazine sought to call to bolster its "substantial truth" defense by establishing that Sharon's decision to allow Phalangists into the camps amounted to encouragement of the massacre. The court denied the motion to strike but ordered strict limits on the extent and nature of the expert testimony. It reasoned that the proposed evidence could be relevant to showing substantial truth beyond the conclusions of the Kahan Commission Report, including inferences about Sharon's knowledge and intent, though it must avoid being cumulative or prejudicing the jury.

free speechproceduretorts & liability

The case involved ACLI suing Banque Populaire Suisse, Advicorp, and Nahas for fraud, claiming the defendants conspired to use nominee accounts to evade ACLI and Comex position limits on silver futures trading, resulting in over $28 million in defaults that ACLI had to cover. The court considered motions to dismiss or for summary judgment on claims including fraudulent inducement in a settlement agreement with Nahas, as well as a request for a separate trial. It held that triable issues existed on whether ACLI reasonably relied on alleged misrepresentations about Nahas's solvency and whether those statements were false, denying summary judgment on that claim while deferring a ruling on bifurcation.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Sharon v. Time, Inc., former Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine for libel over a paragraph in a February 1983 article discussing the Kahan Commission's report on the Sabra and Shatilla massacres during Israel's 1982 Lebanon operation; the paragraph suggested Sharon had discussed the need for Phalangist revenge with the Gemayel family and implied the Commission possessed secret evidence contradicting his testimony. Time moved for summary judgment or dismissal, arguing the act of state doctrine barred jurisdiction, the First Amendment immunized criticism of officials, due process was violated by Israel's refusal to provide evidence, actual malice could not be proven with convincing clarity, and Sharon had no compensable damages. The district court denied the motion without prejudice, finding that factual issues remained on falsity and actual malice, that the act of state doctrine did not apply, and that Sharon was not barred from pursuing the claim despite evidentiary challenges that could affect the trial outcome.

free speechtorts & liabilityprocedure

In this diversity case applying New York law, plaintiff Cyrus Hashemi sued attorney Thomas Shack and his firm for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging they failed to protect his interests in three New York state court actions, resulting in defaults, and later refused to provide an affidavit without a release. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. It held that no attorney-client relationship was formed, as shown by the parties' correspondence in which Hashemi acknowledged that the firm was only seeking authorization from Iran to appoint counsel rather than representing him directly. The court further ruled that Hashemi was collaterally estopped by the state courts' rulings on the defaults and that no fiduciary duty existed, so neither malpractice nor a private claim for an alleged ethics violation could be maintained.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned a stockholder challenge to a money-market mutual fund's adoption of a Rule 12b-1 distribution plan, which authorized reimbursements to securities dealers for administrative and sales-related costs in distributing fund shares. The court upheld the plan's legality and denied the plaintiff's motion to void it based on a prior settlement agreement, while granting the defendants' motion to dismiss. The decision rested on findings that the plan, approved by independent directors, did not breach the earlier settlement in Meyer I, violate sections 12(b) or 36(b) of the Investment Company Act by imposing unfair compensation, or conflict with other ICA or securities law provisions. The court noted that the plan helped retain accounts and maintain competitive yields without evidence of unfairness to the fund or shareholders.

business & regulatory

WPIX, Inc., a television station that syndicates national news programming to smaller stations, sued the League of Women Voters and the major broadcast networks, claiming that the League's requirement of pooled camera coverage for the 1984 presidential and vice-presidential debates violated WPIX's First and Fifth Amendment rights by denying it direct access to the events. WPIX sought a preliminary injunction to allow its own cameras inside the debate venues. The court denied the motion. It reasoned that the request came too late to be equitably granted, that granting access would create security and logistical uncertainties, disrupt the candidates' negotiated arrangements, and potentially affect other media outlets, and that last-minute judicial intervention in media coverage decisions was inappropriate.

free speechelectionscivil rights

This case is a libel action brought by three U.S. officials stationed in Chile during the 1973 coup, who alleged that the book 'The Execution of Charles Horman' and the film 'Missing' falsely accused them of involvement in the murder of American Charles Horman. The court denied director Costa-Gavras's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that his multiple trips to New York to work on the screenplay and related meetings established sufficient contacts under the state's long-arm statute and due process requirements. It granted summary judgment to publisher Hearst, finding no evidence that Hearst exercised control over the film's production or republished the book with actual malice. The decisions rested on analysis of the defendant's New York activities and the absence of authority or knowledge of falsity by the publisher.

torts & liabilityprocedurefree speech

This case involved shareholders who purchased units in Oryx Communications, Inc., a company formed to acquire and distribute video rights, suing the company and its underwriters under sections 11 and 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. The plaintiffs claimed that an error in the June 1981 prospectus overstated the company's sales and earnings for the eight months ending March 31, 1981, and that this caused the subsequent decline in the stock price. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the section 11 claims, finding that the stock's decline resulted from other market factors rather than the misstatement, which precluded recovery of damages under section 11(e). It also held that section 12(2) claims could proceed only against defendants in direct privity with each plaintiff, as there was no basis to extend liability to non-sellers as co-conspirators or aiders and abettors. The court allowed one additional plaintiff to intervene but deferred ruling on class certification pending further evidence on numerosity.

business & regulatory

The case involved the United States suing the City of Yonkers, its officials, and state civil service entities over hiring practices for the Yonkers Police Department, including written exams from 1972-1977, physical agility tests, and a former height requirement. The complaint alleged these facially neutral criteria created a pattern of discrimination against minority and female applicants under Title VII and related federal statutes. The court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to establish a prima facie case, ruling that the government's statistical evidence, primarily from an expert witness, sufficiently demonstrated disparate impact on protected groups to shift the burden to the defendants. The decision noted that while anecdotal evidence was limited and some data issues existed, the overall showing met the threshold for proceeding, without requiring mathematical certainty.

civil rightslabor & employment

Rex Cauble sued Mabon Nugent & Co. and its partners for wrongful liquidation of his commodities trading account and related claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and state law, including fraud, negligence, conversion, and interference with business relations. The court granted summary judgment dismissing five counts, finding insufficient evidence that Mabon tortiously interfered with Cauble's attempts to open a new account or that the liquidation proximately caused his delayed re-entry into trading. For the remaining claims involving the account closure, the court determined that damages should be calculated based on a two-trading-day period rather than the extended time claimed by Cauble, due to lack of evidence linking the broker's actions to his difficulties reopening an account, which were more attributable to his criminal conviction.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved the United States suing the City of Yonkers, its officials, and New York state civil service entities over alleged discriminatory hiring practices for the Yonkers Police Department, including written exams, physical tests, and a height requirement that the complaint claimed violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related federal statutes by discriminating on race and gender grounds. The defendants moved for summary judgment, challenging the Attorney General's authority to initiate the suit under the Reorganization Act due to a legislative veto provision, the constitutionality of the Act's delegation of power, failure to meet administrative prerequisites, timeliness, and other issues including whether the state was an employer under Title VII and Eleventh Amendment immunity for a crossclaim. The court denied the motions for summary judgment, ruling that the Attorney General had properly brought the case against all defendants, that the challenges to the suit's propriety failed, and that the Yonkers crossclaim against the state defendants must be dismissed, while deferring a full assessment of the prima facie case of discrimination to a later order after further proceedings.

civil rightsfederal powerlabor & employment

In this case, prisoner Thomas Morrison and his wife Madeleine sued New York prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that guards planted contraband in his property in retaliation for his jailhouse lawyering and reform advocacy, resulting in his segregation, transfer without a hearing, loss of property including legal papers, and his wife's false arrest and trial on related charges. The court found that certain defendants had indeed planted the evidence and acted with malice, violating Morrison's due process rights and leading to the deprivations. It awarded Thomas Morrison $50,000 in compensatory damages (with joint and several liability on defendants Flecha, Daverso, Panarello, Sullivan, and Keenan) and Madeleine Morrison $25,000 in compensatory damages plus $5,000 in punitive damages each from three defendants. The decision rested on trial evidence including duty rosters and testimony establishing the planting of contraband and retaliatory motive, while dismissing some claims and defendants for lack of involvement or jurisdictional reasons.

civil rightsprocedureproperty

This case involved New York egg producers and a retailer challenging state and city laws enforcing minimum weight standards for eggs sold to consumers, arguing that federal USDA inspection and labeling under the Agricultural Marketing Act preempted such regulations and violated the Commerce Clause. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the claims. It reasoned that federal law permits states to enforce equivalent standards to protect consumers without preemption, as the state laws aim to maintain federal requirements throughout distribution rather than impose stricter ones, and do not unduly burden interstate commerce. Additionally, no federal rights were violated to support claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.

business & regulatoryfederal power