District Court, S.D. New York — appointed by Harry S. Truman
MHM Sponsors Co. v. Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the United Nations
District Court, S.D. New York · 1987-11-01 · cited 8×
This case involved a New York landlord seeking to evict the Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the United Nations from a rented apartment occupied by diplomatic staff and their families after the lease expired in 1983. The action was first filed in New York Civil Court, which dismissed it, and then removed to federal district court. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that there was no valid case to remove because the state court had not restored the action to its calendar. Even assuming removal was proper, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because federal law grants exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions against members of diplomatic missions to the federal district courts, and the state court therefore had no jurisdiction to transfer under the derivative removal doctrine applicable to cases filed before 1986.
propertyprocedurefederal power
Gittens v. Sullivan
District Court, S.D. New York · 1987-09-28 · cited 12×
The case involved an inmate at Sing Sing Correctional Facility suing the prison superintendent and state corrections commissioner for injunctive and compensatory relief, claiming that New York prison policies limiting free postage to five stamps per week plus a $20 advance for legal mail, along with restricted copier access, violated his First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to meaningful court access, and that his punitive segregation placement prevented earning money for litigation. The defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, while the plaintiff sought to supplement the complaint with additional claims about seized or delayed legal mail. The court dismissed the damages claims as barred by the Eleventh Amendment, found the access-to-courts allegations without merit because the policies supplied reasonably adequate postage and materials consistent with Bounds v. Smith, and determined that the segregation placement did not unconstitutionally obstruct court access given the state's disciplinary interests. Supplemental mail-handling claims were noted but tied to isolated incidents not supporting broader relief.
criminal lawcivil rights
Oilex A.G. v. Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York · 1987-09-15 · cited 4×
Oilex sued Mitsui for breach of a 1986 contract to purchase Colombian diesel fuel oil that allegedly failed to meet specifications. Mitsui counterclaimed for Oilex's breach of a separate January 1987 contract to purchase Saudi Arabian gasoline. The court held that the parties had formed a valid contract for the Saudi gasoline through their exchange of telexes and letters, which incorporated the terms of Mitsui's agreement with Petromin except for certain operational instructions; the incorporated arbitration provision called for resolution by Saudi competent authorities rather than arbitration in London under English law. Because a valid arbitration agreement existed but did not require London arbitration, the court denied Oilex's motion to dismiss the counterclaim or to stay it for arbitration in London. The court granted Mitsui's cross-motion and ordered Oilex to post $25,000 security for costs, citing the foreign nature of the parties and witnesses and Oilex's lack of assets.
business & regulatoryprocedure
McGee v. Board of Elections of City of New York
District Court, S.D. New York · 1987-09-10 · cited 4×
The case involved candidates Hansel L. McGee and Lorraine Backal, along with supporting voters, seeking to place their names on the Democratic primary ballot for Surrogate in Bronx County by challenging New York Election Law section 6-136(2)(b), which requires 5,000 valid signatures within a 15-day period following a vacancy. Plaintiffs claimed the requirements created an unconstitutional barrier to ballot access and equal protection due to the abbreviated timeline and higher thresholds compared to counties outside New York City. The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to the Board of Elections defendants, upholding the statute. The court reasoned that the signature mandates were not unduly burdensome under precedents such as Storer v. Brown, that any failures to qualify stemmed from petition errors rather than time constraints, and that geographic differences in requirements rested on a rational basis tied to population and enrollment figures.
electionscivil rights
Manfra v. Koch
District Court, S.D. New York · 1987-08-26 · cited 3×
This case involves a retired New York City police officer who sued city officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, claiming denial of an accident disability pension violated his due process rights after a tie vote by the Board of Trustees. The plaintiff had previously brought an Article 78 proceeding in New York Supreme Court challenging the same pension denial on similar grounds, which was dismissed on the merits, and he did not appeal. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the action was barred by res judicata because the state court judgment addressed the same cause of action between the same parties or their privies, and federal courts must give preclusive effect to such state judgments under New York law. The plaintiff argued that the Board's later refusal to reconsider created a new claim, but the court rejected this as an attempt to relitigate the same issues.
civil rightsprocedure
United States v. Davis
District Court, S.D. New York · 1987-08-26 · cited 4×
The case involves the United States seeking to recover subsidy payments made to General Dynamics for constructing liquefied natural gas carriers, alleging that the company submitted inflated subcontract costs due to a kickback scheme involving its employees. The government brought claims including breach of contract, mistake of fact, fraud, and unjust enrichment. General Dynamics moved to dismiss several claims for failure to state a claim and insufficient particularity in pleading fraud, while the government sought partial summary judgment on liability. The court denied both motions, reasoning that the subsidy contract requires submission of fair and reasonable costs under the authorizing statute, that the complaint adequately pleaded fraud under doctrines like respondeat superior with specific facts about the employees' actions, and that whether the company is liable for its employees' conduct remains a disputed factual issue precluding summary judgment.
business & regulatorycriminal law