Michael Anthony Telesca

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this patent case, Tailored Lighting, Inc. sued Osram Sylvania Products, Inc., alleging that Sylvania's automobile headlamps infringed claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,666,017, which describes a lamp with a special coating to produce light approximating daylight. The court granted Sylvania's motion for summary judgment, finding no infringement because TLI failed to show that Sylvania's bulbs conformed to the specific formula in the patent claims. Additionally, the court held the patent invalid for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, as the specification did not provide a workable method to determine the transmittance levels without undue experimentation, since key variables could not be measured directly.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves a 62-year-old plaintiff who applied for a substitute teaching position with the Palmyra-Macedon Central School District but was not hired, leading him to sue for age discrimination under federal and state law, libel, prima facie tort, First Amendment retaliation, and punitive damages. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), 12(c), and 56, while denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for discovery. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead or show that his speech was constitutionally protected or a motivating factor in any adverse action, as the district's decision predated the alleged protected conduct, and other claims lacked sufficient basis.

civil rightslabor & employmentfree speechtorts & liability

This case was a class action securities fraud lawsuit brought by investors against Hardinge Inc. and its executives, alleging that the company failed to disclose its plans to transition from using independent distributors to a direct sales force in various regions and made misleading statements about its sales strategy during the class period from January 2007 to February 2008, leading to inflated stock prices and subsequent losses. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6), as well as the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs failed to plead with sufficient particularity the required elements of a securities fraud claim, including scienter, and that the defendants had no affirmative duty to disclose their internal strategic decisions regarding sales channels.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Bausch & Lomb sued Lexington Insurance seeking a declaration of coverage under umbrella liability policies for thousands of product liability claims arising from alleged injuries caused by ReNu brand contact lens solutions. The court granted Lexington's motion for summary judgment and denied Bausch & Lomb's cross-motion, holding that each claim constituted a separate occurrence under the policies. As a result, Lexington was not required to provide coverage or a defense unless the per-occurrence retained limits were met in individual cases. The court reasoned that the policies' grouping provisions did not apply because the alleged injuries occurred at different times and places, involved different solutions and infections, and did not stem from exposure to the same or substantially similar harmful conditions. The decision was based on New York case law interpreting similar insurance policy language regarding what qualifies as a single occurrence.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, petitioner Carlos Garcia, a native of the Dominican Republic and lawful permanent resident with multiple criminal convictions, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging a final removal order and seeking bond release plus a custody transfer, based on a claim of derivative citizenship through his father's 1996 naturalization when Garcia was seventeen. The court dismissed the petition after determining that Garcia failed to establish derivative citizenship under the applicable pre-Child Citizenship Act statute, as the parents' divorce decree granted legal custody to his non-naturalized mother and no amended decree or sufficient evidence showed otherwise. The court further ruled it lacked jurisdiction to order a change in detention location, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) which bars review of the Attorney General's discretionary decisions on custody transfers under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1).

immigrationcriminal lawfederal power

In Christian v. Town of Riga, the plaintiff sued the Town of Riga and various officials alleging that they improperly delayed or denied building permits for a wind turbine tower on his property through misapplication of zoning rules, imposition of a moratorium, and other actions, asserting claims including trespass, fraud, RICO violations, and constitutional deprivations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, finding the allegations conclusory, insufficiently pled, barred by absolute legislative immunity for certain acts, and lacking the required elements for federal claims such as RICO predicate acts or conspiracy. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion to amend as moot and dismissed the action in its entirety.

propertycivil rightsprocedure

In Hall v. Conway, petitioner Brandon Hall sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after pleading guilty in New York state court to two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder for the 1998 shootings of two individuals, resulting in concurrent life sentences without parole. Hall challenged the constitutionality of the plea statute, alleged double jeopardy violations from the dual convictions, claimed ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and argued prosecutorial abuse of subpoena power. The district court denied the petition, holding that the guilty plea waived most claims, that the double jeopardy and ineffective assistance arguments lacked merit under AEDPA review standards, and that remaining issues were either procedurally defaulted or unexhausted. The decision relied on precedents establishing that voluntary pleas bar collateral attacks on most constitutional issues and that lesser-included offenses do not trigger double jeopardy protections.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a patent infringement action in which Degelman Industries alleged that Pro-Tech Welding infringed its utility patent (the '576 Patent) for a materials moving blade with a strengthening gusset designed to both reinforce sidewalls and shed snow or debris, along with three related design patents. In this Markman proceeding, the court construed the disputed claim terms of the utility patent by relying on intrinsic evidence from the patent specification and prosecution history, defining terms such as 'substantially planar' to include a flat surface, 'contiguous' to mean touching along a line, and 'gusset' as a triangular reinforcing piece with specific attachment points. For the design patents, the court declined to provide detailed verbal descriptions and instead construed each as the overall visual impression of the ornamental design shown in the patent drawings. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to strike or file a sur-reply.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a class-action securities fraud lawsuit brought by investors against Bausch & Lomb and related defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Plaintiffs alleged that the company overstated its net income from 2003 to 2005 due to accounting irregularities at foreign subsidiaries and made false or misleading statements about the safety of its ReNu with MoistureLoc contact lens solution amid reports of fungal infections, causing stock price drops when the issues were disclosed. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The decision rested on findings that the complaint failed to plead with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter, that many alleged misstatements were either immaterial puffery or contradicted by incorporated documents and public information, and that no actionable false statements were adequately alleged regarding the product or internal controls.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves a Rochester-area chiropractor suing a national franchisor and its local franchisee for trademark infringement, cybersquatting, unfair competition, and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act and New York common law, based on the defendants' use of the "HealthSource Chiropractic" mark and the domain www.healthsourcechiro.com. The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction barring the defendants from using that domain or similar marks in his local market. The court found the plaintiff to be the senior user with established common-law rights in Monroe County and five contiguous counties due to his continuous use since 2003, advertising, and market penetration, while noting the defendants' agreement to cease using the mark in that area. The decision applies the standards for preliminary injunctive relief and the statutory factors for bad-faith intent in cybersquatting claims.

business & regulatory

This case involves plaintiff Lucille McAuliffe seeking judicial review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner's denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits, based on claimed impairments including a heart condition, diabetes, ankle problems, and spinal issues that prevented her from working since 1998. The ALJ had found her not disabled after determining she could perform her past relevant work as a secretary. The court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for calculation and payment of benefits. The core reasoning was that the ALJ's determination lacked substantial evidence because it relied on vocational expert testimony that was inconsistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and failed to properly account for the combined effects of the plaintiff's visual impairments with her ability to sit and stand.

procedurehealthcare

This case involves plaintiff David Morseman challenging the Social Security Administration's denial of his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, based on a claimed inability to work since 2003 due to a back injury. The district court reviewed the ALJ's application of the five-step disability evaluation process, which found the plaintiff capable of sedentary work despite severe impairments, and determined that the ALJ had made multiple errors in assessing residual functional capacity. These included misstatements about the plaintiff's ability to perform light versus sedentary work, incorrect summaries of medical opinions on lifting and standing/walking limits, and failure to consider treating physician views on shifting positions and stooping. The court concluded that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). It granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, reversed the denial of benefits, and remanded the matter for calculation and payment of benefits.

federal powerhealthcare

The case involved plaintiff Ruth Rapport's appeal of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of Medicare coverage for skilled nursing facility care she received after direct admission without a prior three-day hospital stay. The plaintiff was enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, but the plan had not elected under federal regulations to cover post-hospital SNF services without the standard qualifying hospital stay requirement. The court reviewed the administrative record and found substantial evidence that the plan did not waive the three-day stay rule or elect the optional coverage. As a result, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted the Secretary's cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint, holding that the denial of coverage was supported by substantial evidence and correct as a matter of law.

healthcare

This case concerns a patent infringement dispute in which Izzo Golf alleged that King Par's golf bags infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,042,704 on a dual-strap carrying system designed to distribute weight across both shoulders while also allowing single-shoulder use. After previously granting partial summary judgment on infringement, the court addressed King Par's motion for summary judgment seeking to invalidate claims 1, 2, 7, and 14 of the patent as obvious in light of prior art references. The court denied the motion, holding that the claims were not obvious because the prior art did not teach or suggest the specific combination of features allowing both dual- and single-shoulder carry along with retrofitting to existing bags. It also granted the plaintiff's motion to strike undisclosed prior art references that had not been identified during discovery.

business & regulatoryproperty