Edward Weinfeld

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

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 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

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

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

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

This case involves a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by Cirillo to vacate his 1945 narcotics conviction based on a guilty plea, which was used to enhance his 1972 sentence as a second offender. The petitioner alleged that his 1945 plea was involuntary, his counsel was ineffective, and the court failed to properly advise him of his rights to challenge the prior conviction before sentencing in 1972. The court denied the motion, finding no evidentiary support for the claims beyond the petitioner's own allegations, noting the absence of an affidavit from his 1945 attorney despite his availability, and holding that challenges to the 1945 conviction were barred by the five-year limitation in 21 U.S.C. § 851(e). The record showed that the government had filed the required information and the court had inquired about the prior conviction as mandated.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Barbizon Corporation's challenge to withdrawal liability assessed by the ILGWU National Retirement Fund under ERISA as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act, after Barbizon closed its Provo, Utah manufacturing plant in 1980, shifted production to outside contractors, and fully withdrew from the pension plan in 1983. The Fund demanded over $1.5 million in liability payments based on Barbizon's prior contributions, and Barbizon sought a declaratory judgment that the pre-1980 plant closure qualified for a statutory exception excluding those contributions from the liability calculation. The court granted summary judgment to the Fund on cross-motions, finding no genuine issues of material fact. It held that the Provo closure did not meet the requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 1397(a) for excluding contributions, as it was neither a qualifying facility closure nor a permanent cessation of contribution obligations under the relevant collective bargaining agreements.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involves a bankruptcy trustee for Frigitemp Corporation suing IDT Corporation, its president, General Dynamics, and others, alleging a conspiracy involving fraudulent conveyances of assets, kickbacks, embezzlement, perjured testimony to obtain a prior settlement, and violations of RICO and common law fraud. The defendants asserted counterclaims, and the trustee moved to dismiss them. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing counterclaims for fraud, inducement to breach fiduciary duty, and civil RICO violations, while denying dismissal of counterclaims for equitable relief and breach of contract. The reasoning centered on bankruptcy law under the 1898 Act, which permits certain counterclaims and setoffs in plenary actions even without prior proofs of claim in bankruptcy court, and allows lifting of automatic stays when equity requires, but bars claims that would improperly use the stay as an offensive tool.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved makers of OPIUM perfume suing distributors of a competing OMNI perfume for using comparative slogans like 'IF YOU LIKE OPIUM, YOU’LL LOVE OMNI' on packaging and in advertisements, after a prior preliminary injunction had barred such language. Plaintiffs sought contempt sanctions against the defendants for alleged continued violations, including modified slogans with disclaimers, and alternatively requested an expanded injunction. The court denied the contempt motion, finding insufficient clear and convincing evidence that defendants were responsible for the advertisements or that the orders were clearly violated, as some materials predated the injunction and retailers acted independently. However, the court granted a new preliminary injunction against the modified slogan-plus-disclaimer combination, reasoning that its design and placement could still mislead consumers about product affiliation despite the added text.

business & regulatory

In United States v. Benevento, the defendant was convicted after trial of narcotics trafficking offenses, including conspiracy and operating a continuing criminal enterprise, and the government moved for criminal forfeiture of three specific cash transfers totaling $1.238 million that were proceeds of those crimes. The court granted forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 853, holding the defendant individually liable for the full amount and authorizing an in personam judgment that could be satisfied from his other property. The court reasoned that trial evidence, including witness testimony and records, proved by a preponderance that the funds were acquired during the violation period with no likely legitimate source, that the statute's rebuttable presumption applied, and that transfers to co-conspirators did not defeat liability.

criminal law

The case involves a parolee bringing a pro se Section 1983 action against a New York parole officer and a fire marshal, claiming that the officer's issuance and prosecution of a parole violation warrant and the marshal's false testimony at the revocation hearing unconstitutionally prolonged the plaintiff's incarceration despite his acquittal on underlying arson charges. The defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of absolute immunity. The court granted the motion, reasoning that parole revocation hearings under New York law are quasi-judicial proceedings featuring due process protections comparable to criminal trials, such that the officer's prosecutorial functions and the marshal's witness role warrant absolute immunity to safeguard the adjudicatory system from harassment.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a plaintiff suing the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained when a postal truck hit the car in which she was a passenger. The government conceded negligence by its driver, leaving the central issue as whether the plaintiff had suffered a "serious injury" under New York's No-Fault Law, defined to include a permanent impairment or one preventing normal daily activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days after the accident. After evaluating the plaintiff's testimony, medical records, and expert evidence from a treating chiropractor, the court found that she had established permanent injuries to her cervical spine, ligaments, and nerves that caused ongoing pain, limited motion, headaches, and substantial interference with activities such as sleeping, piano playing, and swimming. The court therefore awarded the plaintiff $42,500 in damages.

torts & liability

The case concerned whether Korea Shipping Corporation (KSC), a Korean ocean carrier that used stevedoring companies to load and unload cargo in New York harbor from 1967 to 1985 under the General Cargo Agreement, qualified as an "employer" subject to withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA) after ceasing operations there. The Pension Trust Fund assessed withdrawal liability and sought to enforce it via counterclaim, while KSC sought declaratory judgment that it was not an employer and cross-moved for summary judgment on that issue. The court decided that KSC was an employer under the MPPAA, granting the defendants' motion and denying KSC's. The core reasoning was that employer status is governed by the MPPAA's provisions and history rather than common-law definitions, that KSC's direct obligations for tonnage and man-hour assessments under the collective bargaining agreement made it an employer, and that using intermediaries like stevedores did not relieve it of liability.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Metzner v. DH Blair & Co., Inc., trustees of two employee benefit plans sued a brokerage firm and its representatives, alleging breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA Section 404(a)(1), securities fraud under Section 10(b), unlawful credit extensions under Sections 7(c) or 7(d), civil RICO violations, and related state-law claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and for Rule 11 sanctions. The court denied the motion as to the ERISA claim, finding the complaint sufficiently alleged particular conduct violating the prudent-man standard of care in managing plan assets, but granted the motion with leave to amend on the remaining claims due to insufficient particularity in pleading fraud, lack of a private right of action under Section 7, and failure to properly allege RICO elements such as the enterprise and predicate acts.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Blair v. CBS Inc., Susan Blair sued her former employer CBS for breach of contract and age and sex discrimination under New York law after being transferred and then terminated following disputes with a long-time supervisor. The court granted CBS summary judgment on the contract claim, holding that the employment was at-will because Blair accepted the job offer before receiving the personnel handbook and did not rely on its provisions about warnings and termination procedures. The court denied summary judgment on the discrimination claims, finding material factual disputes about the reasons for termination and whether age or sex played a role.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves the Secretary of Labor suing The Wackenhut Corporation, a security services provider, for violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act based on payroll practices affecting employees in the New York City area. The court reviewed earnings histories, installation time sheets, and testimony showing that 146 employees, including specific security guards, had not received required overtime premiums for hours over 40 per week, resulting in $16,301.02 in unpaid back wages, with some violations occurring both before and after a 1985 compliance conference. Wackenhut had previously signed a National Compliance Agreement and paid certain back wages but challenged the proof by arguing that earnings records reflected paid rather than worked hours and that some overpayments corrected earlier shortfalls. Applying the burden-shifting framework from Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., the court found the Secretary's evidence sufficient to establish violations where records were inadequate and Wackenhut did not fully rebut the claims through produced documents.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Rinfret, Inc., a commodities trading advisor, and its chairman suing Drexel Burnham Lambert, a futures commission merchant, for allegedly failing to pay promised rebates on trading commissions and overcharging on personal accounts, in violation of the anti-fraud provisions of section 4b of the Commodity Exchange Act as well as state breach of contract law. Drexel moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court held that disputes over commission rates, rebates, and related misrepresentations did not state a claim under the CEA because the alleged conduct was not fraud in connection with the execution of trades or orders. It therefore dismissed the federal claims and the pendent state claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs moving to amend the court's prior findings to add elements of damages after the defendant breached a sublease agreement by vacating the premises. The court granted the motion in part, allowing plaintiffs to recover brokerage fees of $8,067.85 incurred to secure a substitute tenant and reducing the requested attorney's fees from $41,237.59 to a reasonable $12,500 based on the simple nature of the breach of contract claim and the short trial. The core reasoning rested on express provisions in the sublease authorizing recovery of such mitigation costs and fees in connection with a default, while limiting fees to the fair value of necessary legal work rather than the full amount sought.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved defendants charged with conspiracy and multiple substantive counts of defrauding the United States and IRS in tax assessment and collection by forming and promoting limited partnerships that engaged in rigged, fraudulent securities trades to generate fictitious losses and interest expenses passed through to limited partners for improper tax deductions. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment under Rule 12(b)(2), arguing due process violations from allegedly ambiguous laws, legislative amnesty under the Tax Reform Act of 1986, and that New York's Statute of Frauds would bar enforcement of secret agreements, preventing complete elimination of profit potential. The court denied the motion, holding that the indictment's factual allegations must be accepted as true for purposes of the motion, that a facially valid indictment requires trial on the merits, and that the defendants' legal challenges to the tax deductibility theory and other grounds did not warrant dismissal within the four corners of the indictment.

criminal lawtaxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure