District Court, W.D. New York — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Terrance v. CITY OF GENEVA, NY
District Court, W.D. New York · 2011-06-28 · cited 3×
The case involved plaintiff Danny Terrance, a level three sex offender no longer under probation or parole, challenging the City of Geneva's Chapter 285 municipal code, which permanently barred level two and three sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools or 500 feet of parks, playgrounds, or daycare centers. Terrance sought a declaration that the ordinance was unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement after being notified it applied to his new residence. The court ruled that the ordinance was preempted by New York State's comprehensive and detailed scheme under SORA and related laws governing sex offender registration and residency restrictions, which established the state's intent to occupy the field exclusively without local variation. As a result, the ordinance was declared invalid and without effect, the federal constitutional claims were not addressed, and the city's motion to dismiss was denied as moot.
criminal law
Tailored Lighting, Inc. v. Osram Sylvania Products, Inc.
District Court, W.D. New York · 2011-05-16
In this patent infringement lawsuit, Tailored Lighting, Inc. alleged that Osram Sylvania Products, Inc. infringed its U.S. Patent No. 5,666,017 for a daylight lamp with a special spectral light distribution. The court had previously ruled the patent invalid due to lack of enablement and found no infringement by Sylvania. On motions for reconsideration, attorneys' fees, and to amend the judgment, the court denied reconsideration and fees but granted the amendment, holding that the asserted claims, including dependent ones, were invalid for lack of enablement because the formula could not be practiced without undue experimentation. The reasoning emphasized that the plaintiff's evidence had already been considered and did not alter the prior conclusions.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Salazar-Martinez v. Fowler Brothers, Inc.
District Court, W.D. New York · 2011-03-15 · cited 2×
This case involved a lawsuit by a Mexican migrant farm worker employed under the H-2A visa program against his employer, Fowler Brothers, Inc., on behalf of himself and similarly situated workers, alleging violations of the FLSA and New York labor laws. The plaintiff claimed that pre-employment travel, visa processing, and recruitment expenses he paid were unreimbursed kickbacks that reduced his first week's wages below the minimum wage between 2003 and 2010. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that such expenses were not legally reimbursable and that minimum wage requirements were met, and also sought dismissal of claims from years the plaintiff did not work for lack of jurisdiction. The court denied summary judgment, holding that these expenses are reimbursable under federal and state wage laws if they bring compensation below the minimum, following the Eleventh Circuit's Arriaga decision and recent DOL guidance, while granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss.
immigrationlabor & employment
SOLSBEE v. Astrue
District Court, W.D. New York · 2010-08-23 · cited 4×
In Solsbee v. Astrue, plaintiff Yvette J. Solsbee challenged the denial of her application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits, claiming the ALJ's finding that she was not disabled due to conditions including fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, and Crohn's disease was unsupported by substantial evidence. The district court reviewed the administrative record under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and applied the five-step sequential evaluation process for disability claims. The court concluded that the ALJ erred in determining the plaintiff's residual functional capacity for sedentary work, as the evidence showed her impairments prevented even unskilled sedentary work. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, reversed the Commissioner's decision, and remanded solely for calculation and payment of benefits.
federal powerhealthcare
Wolf Concept S.A.R.L. v. Eber Bros. Wine & Liquor Corp.
District Court, W.D. New York · 2010-08-17 · cited 5×
The case concerned a French vodka producer's claims against a New York wine and spirits distributor and related parties, alleging violations of New York's Donnelly Act through conspiracy to restrain trade, tortious interference with contract, fraud, and breach of contract, all arising from an exclusive distribution agreement for Petrossian Vodka that ended after the distributor failed to meet sales targets of 2500 cases by December 31, 2005, causing the underlying licensing agreement to lapse. The court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings in part, dismissing the first four causes of action under the Donnelly Act, tortious interference, and fraud, while denying the motion as to the fifth cause of action for breach of contract, which remains pending against Eber Bros. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to allege the required elements of a Donnelly Act claim, failed to plead wrongful means for interference or particularity for fraud, and that the fraud claim was duplicative of a contract claim, whereas the breach of contract claim was adequately stated based on the agreement's terms.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability
Patterson v. Xerox Corporation
District Court, W.D. New York · 2010-08-02 · cited 5×
The case involved an employee at Xerox who sued the company and her supervisor under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law, alleging harassment, hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation based on her race, gender, and national origin, along with a common-law negligence claim for retaining the supervisor. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of individual liability under Title VII, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, insufficient pleading, and that negligence claims were barred by workers' compensation law. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the Title VII claims against the individual supervisor, certain HRL claims, and all negligence claims, while denying it in part to allow the hostile work environment and retaliation claims against Xerox under Title VII and against both defendants under the HRL to proceed. The core reasoning applied federal pleading standards for employment claims, noted that HRL claims are analyzed under the same framework as Title VII, recognized that Title VII does not impose individual liability on supervisors, and applied the exclusivity provisions of New York's workers' compensation law to bar the negligence claims.
labor & employmentcivil rights