The case concerned a construction worker injured when a steel beam he was standing on collapsed at a site owned by Ace Hardware, causing him to fall despite wearing a safety harness attached to the beam. Plaintiff Agricultural Insurance, as assignee of the injured worker, moved for partial summary judgment on liability under N.Y. Labor Law § 240(1) against the property owner and contractors. The court granted the motion, holding that an accident investigation report prepared by the general contractor was admissible as a party admission and that the undisputed facts established a violation of the statute's requirement to provide adequate safety devices for work at elevated heights.
This case involved plaintiffs seeking court enforcement of three provisions in a 1998 settlement agreement resolving a class action lawsuit alleging systemic failures in New York City's child welfare system, which had been overseen by the state Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS). The disputed provisions concerned the State Central Register's screening of abuse and neglect reports, OCFS's case record reviews of the city's Administration for Children's Services, and development of the CONNECTIONS computer system. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion as to the first two provisions, finding that OCFS had made reasonable good-faith efforts to comply during the settlement period. The court granted the motion as to the computer system provision, extending its jurisdiction and ordering semi-annual progress reports because the agreement's language preserved ongoing enforcement authority. The decision rested on principles of contract interpretation applied to the unambiguous terms of the settlement agreement and the evidence presented.
The case concerns plaintiff Beth Cline's claims that defendants infringed her registered service mark "1-800-PLUMBING" for plumbing services by using the similar toll-free number "1-888-PLUMBING" and registering related domain names, in violation of the Lanham Act, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, and related state laws. Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment and to amend their pleadings to add a counterclaim seeking cancellation of the mark on grounds of genericness. The court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in full, denied defendants' motion to amend because the mark is not generic, and granted defendants' summary judgment motion in part while denying it in part due to disputed issues of material fact on the trademark claims.
In this case, petitioner Peter Monsanto sought to vacate his conviction for operating a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) under 21 U.S.C. § 848 via a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, arguing that the trial court's jury instructions were erroneous because they did not require the jury to unanimously agree on the specific predicate narcotics violations forming the required 'series of violations.' The court denied the motion and dismissed the petition, acknowledging that the instructions violated the Supreme Court's later holding in Richardson v. United States but concluding that any error was harmless. The core reasoning was that the jury's unanimous findings on related racketeering acts and narcotics conspiracy counts, combined with extensive trial evidence of Monsanto's heroin distribution activities involving multiple individuals, demonstrated that the jury would have reached the same CCE verdict even under a proper unanimity instruction.
Marshall Manley sued AmBase Corporation for breach of an employment agreement providing indemnification. AmBase counterclaimed for fraud and reformation of a 1993 settlement agreement, alleging Manley concealed ongoing indemnity obligations from his prior law firm partnership. After a jury found for Manley on the breach claim, the court tried the counterclaims and dismissed them. The court held that AmBase, as a sophisticated party aware of the broad indemnity language and prior disputes, could not show reasonable reliance on any alleged misrepresentation, defeating both the fraud and reformation claims.
Plaintiff Marshall Manley sued AmBase Corporation for breach of contract, claiming entitlement to indemnification for payments he made under a 1991 settlement resolving claims against him arising from his prior role at the Finley Kumble law firm during his employment at AmBase. AmBase filed a counterclaim alleging fraud and seeking reformation of the contract. A jury awarded Manley $1.8 million on his claim. The court granted AmBase's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial under Rules 50(b) and 59(a), finding that Manley had not provided adequate notice or identified the Finley Kumble liabilities in his prior indemnification action against AmBase and that his personal corporate entity could not support the claimed indemnification rights.