Robert Joseph Ward

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.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

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.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a class action lawsuit by plaintiffs against New York City and State officials alleging systemic deficiencies in the administration of the city's child welfare system, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. After the parties reached settlement agreements establishing an expert advisory panel for oversight and reforms, which were approved by the court and affirmed on appeal, plaintiffs moved for attorneys' fees and expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 as prevailing parties. The court awarded $5,835,116.78 out of the requested amount, applying the lodestar method to determine reasonable hourly rates based on prevailing market standards in the district and the number of hours reasonably expended, with adjustments for factors such as travel time and documentation adequacy.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

This case involves a nonprofit organization and individual parents suing the City of New York and its Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that ACS policies and practices for investigating child neglect and abuse lead to improper removals of children from custody, violating rights under the First, Fourth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as state constitutional and statutory provisions. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, abstention, and failure to state a claim. The court denied the motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and for abstention. It granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion in part and denied it in part, allowing some claims to proceed while dismissing others, and declined to consider certain arguments raised for the first time in reply papers.

civil rightsfamily lawreligious liberty

This case concerns a motion for a supplemental award of attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 in long-running litigation in which the National Organization for Women sought injunctive relief against defendants blocking access to abortion clinics. The underlying claims included violations of federal civil rights laws and New York state law, resulting in a permanent injunction, multiple contempt findings, and several appeals with remands from the Supreme Court in light of Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic and International Union v. Bagwell. The court granted the motion, holding that plaintiffs qualified as prevailing parties because they succeeded on significant issues, including reinstatement of contempt sanctions and modification of the injunction to comply with new precedent. The core reasoning is that successful civil rights litigants are entitled to reasonable fees absent special circumstances, and the work on the post-remand motions was not duplicative of prior fee awards.

abortioncivil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs suing AT&T and its former affiliate UCS, alleging that AT&T improperly shared customers' unlisted telephone numbers, billing details, and proprietary network information with UCS without consent in violation of the Federal Telecommunications Act and FCC rules, and that UCS made repeated harassing calls to collect a debt owed by the plaintiffs' daughter-in-law. Plaintiffs also asserted claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and common-law intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The core reasoning was that the factual allegations, accepted as true, failed to state any claim upon which relief could be granted under the statutes or common law.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Scott v. Coughlin, an inmate sued multiple corrections officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, alleging due process and equal protection violations arising from two disciplinary hearings at Green Haven Correctional Facility—one for alleged possession of a weapon and another for refusing a direct order to enter a courtroom. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. Claims concerning compelled court appearance, retaliation, conspiracy, and malicious prosecution were dismissed based on qualified immunity, lack of personal involvement, and statute of limitations. The motion was denied as to certain due process claims because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether requested witnesses at the second hearing would have been irrelevant and whether the hearing officer's refusal to call them violated due process under the regulations in effect at the time of the incidents.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case concerned plaintiffs Philip Friedman and Carl DeFreitas, who alleged that a representative of defendant Wheat First Securities made material misrepresentations and omissions about Zitel stock in 1996-1997, leading them to purchase shares and incur substantial losses; the claims were brought under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5, and common law. After the plaintiffs had pursued the same claims in a prior NASD arbitration that was dismissed, they filed this federal action in December 1998. Defendant moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss or alternatively stay for arbitration. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the federal securities claims were time-barred by the one-year-from-discovery and three-year-from-violation limitations periods, that plaintiffs had notice of the alleged fraud well before the suit was filed, and that the intervening arbitration did not toll the statute under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 204(b) or equitable principles.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved claims by cigar manufacturers Consolidated Cigar Corporation and Cuban Cigar Brands against Monte Cristi de Tabacos and its director for selling counterfeit Montecristo cigars and using similar trade names in the US. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on trademark counterfeiting, dilution, and infringement claims under federal and state law. It entered default against the corporate defendant for failing to appear with counsel and deemed the plaintiffs' facts admitted due to the defendants' failure to respond to the summary judgment motion, finding that the undisputed evidence established the unauthorized use of the plaintiffs' trademarks and trade dress.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute between plaintiffs David Kreiss and Gregory Shelton, who developed a business plan for consolidating debt management companies, and defendants McCown DeLeeuw & Co. and Outsourcing Solutions, Inc., over alleged promises of equity stakes and stock options outlined in a 1995 Term Sheet. After plaintiffs contributed capital and helped acquire companies for OSI, defendants reduced their roles, failed to deliver the promised equity, and rejected their attempts to exercise stock options upon resignation. Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract and related claims under diversity jurisdiction. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the Term Sheet could support certain claims not superseded by later agreements like the Stockholders and Options Agreements, while dismissing others based on the integrated documents and lack of specific allegations.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a 1981 fire aboard the Zim Montreal that damaged cargo, prompting plaintiff Zim Israel Navigation Co. to declare a General Average loss under bills of lading governed by the York-Antwerp Rules and to seek contributions to a General Average Fund from owners whose goods were saved. Defendant Hatzlachh Supply, Inc., whose cargo was partially lost, asserted a timely counterclaim for its proportionate recovery from the Fund, while Zim settled with other cargo owners on terms allowing those with lost goods to contribute only 50% and those with sound goods to contribute 75%, with full payment plus interest to those owed money from the Fund. Hatzlachh moved for summary judgment, arguing it was entitled to equivalent treatment despite its separate, time-barred Cogsa claim. The court granted the motion, ruling that Zim must pay Hatzlachh 100% of its $880,438.91 claim from the Adjustment while requiring only a 50% contribution of $137,815.82 from Hatzlachh, because treating it differently would impose a disproportionate share of the loss contrary to General Average principles of equity among cargo owners.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a contract dispute in which plaintiff Meridien International Bank sued the Government of Liberia and the Liberia Telecommunications Corporation to recover on loans and guaranties related to a satellite telecommunications project, after defendants allegedly defaulted on payments. In response, defendants asserted numerous counterclaims, primarily alleging fraud and related misconduct in the formation and performance of the agreements. Meridien moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss most of the counterclaims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, primarily analyzing whether the counterclaims were timely under applicable statutes of limitations, whether they stated viable claims, and whether certain federal claims were properly pled.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute between two banks over priority rights to approximately $245,000 in a New York account held by Banco Feigin at plaintiff BPBA. After an Argentine regulatory intervention suspended Banco Feigin’s operations, BPBA exercised a statutory set-off under New York Debtor and Creditor Law § 151 to apply the account balance against its outstanding loan to Banco Feigin. Defendant BayBank, which had received a wire-transfer request from Banco Feigin before the set-off, claimed superior rights to the funds and counterclaimed for conversion. The court granted BPBA’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the set-off was valid because the account was a general deposit, the right to set-off arose upon the intervention, and no payment order had been accepted under UCC Article 4A so the funds had not been transferred to BayBank.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a class action by indigent tenants against the New York City Housing Authority challenging the termination of Section 8 rental subsidies without prior notice or hearings, on procedural due process grounds under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the matter was resolved through two partial consent judgments establishing tenant protections. Plaintiffs, represented by legal services organizations, then applied for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 totaling $543,183.50 for sixteen years of work. The court determined that plaintiffs were prevailing parties entitled to fees but calculated a lodestar amount of $426,063.75 based on reasonable hourly rates and hours, then reduced it by ten percent to $383,457.37 after adjustments for limited success, vague time entries, and other factors, while rejecting NYCHA’s more drastic proposed reductions.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves an application by prevailing plaintiffs for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 in long-running civil rights litigation challenging New York City’s foster care system. The suit, brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, sought to ensure children’s rights to non-discriminatory services based on race or religion and equal access to quality care consistent with constitutional and statutory requirements. The court awarded plaintiffs $72,149.15 in attorney’s fees and $2,813.46 in expenses for post-judgment monitoring work performed from January through June 1996. It applied the lodestar method, multiplying reasonable hours by prevailing market rates for counsel of comparable skill and experience, while reducing the requested amounts to account for excessive rates, insufficient billing detail, and non-compensable time.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

Horn’s Inc. sued Sanofi Beaute, Inc. and Nina Ricci, Inc. alleging federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, unfair competition, common-law trademark infringement, dilution under New York law, and deceptive trade practices, claiming that defendants’ “DECI DELA” fragrance mark—which translates to “here and there”—infringed Horn’s registered “HERE & THERE” mark for fashion-forecasting publications and consulting services. The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The court concluded there was no likelihood of confusion because the marks appeared on dissimilar goods and services (fashion reports versus fragrances) sold to sophisticated consumers in different channels. The court further found that defendants adopted their mark in good faith, which defeated the remaining state-law claims that required proof of bad faith or likelihood of confusion.

business & regulatory