Naomi Reice Buchwald

In Liriano v. ICE/DHS, pro se plaintiffs Jovanny Liriano, a deported Dominican Republic citizen who had illegally re-entered the U.S., and his daughter sued ICE, a deportation officer, and unknown agents under the Federal Tort Claims Act for physical and emotional trauma from a 2009 arrest and under Bivens for unspecified constitutional violations. The arrest followed a standoff at Liriano's apartment after officers used GPS and other tools to locate him pursuant to a warrant for illegal re-entry. The court granted defendants' motion in full, dismissing the FTCA claims under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and granting summary judgment on the Bivens claims under Rule 56. The core reasoning was that plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the FTCA claims by not filing a proper claim specifying a sum certain, while the Bivens claims failed because the arrest was lawful and supported by court orders.

immigrationcriminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves Federal Insurance Company seeking a declaratory judgment and rescission of excess directors and officers liability insurance policies issued to SafeNet, Inc., following the company's stock options backdating practices that led to SEC investigations, a securities class action, and criminal charges against executives including CFO Carole Argo. The court granted Federal's motion for summary judgment in part and denied the defendants' cross-motion, holding that the policies were void due to material misstatements and omissions in the insurance applications. The core reasoning was that Argo knowingly provided false information about the absence of wrongful acts or investigations in SafeNet's SEC filings and applications, that this knowledge was imputable to other insureds under the policy terms, and that the misrepresentations were material to the insurer's risk assessment under applicable Maryland and Delaware law.

business & regulatorycriminal law

This case involves London market reinsurance companies petitioning to vacate an arbitration award in favor of Century Indemnity Company under a 1965-1967 reinsurance treaty covering asbestos bodily-injury claims. The dispute centered on unilaterally imposed documentation requirements by the reinsurers, leading to arbitration where the Powers Panel issued an interim order establishing a prepayment protocol requiring payment of billed amounts within 106 days (with objections allowed afterward) to effectuate the contract's purpose. The court denied the petition to vacate and granted Century's cross-petition to confirm the award, holding that the arbitrators acted within their broad authority under the agreement's honorable engagement clause to interpret the contract reasonably rather than literally, without exceeding their powers or violating public policy.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Theodore Smith, a tenured New York City public school teacher, who sued the Department of Education and several officials under the ADA, ADEA, Section 1983, and related state and city human rights and civil service laws. Smith alleged discrimination and retaliation based on his disability, age, and union activity, along with defamation and due process violations stemming from an investigative report and two administrative disciplinary proceedings that led to findings of misconduct against him. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Smith was barred by collateral estoppel from relitigating issues decided by neutral hearing officers in the prior quasi-judicial proceedings and that he had failed to file a required notice of claim under state law. The court granted the motion in full, holding that the administrative findings precluded Smith's claims and that the notice-of-claim requirement had not been satisfied.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

Gene Codes Forensics sued the City of New York in a diversity action asserting breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment over the City's post-contract use of the M-FISys software and database that Gene Codes had developed to help identify World Trade Center victims using DNA. The City moved for summary judgment, contending that Gene Codes could not show misuse of any proprietary information, while Gene Codes sought additional discovery under Rule 56(d). The court denied the discovery request and granted the City's motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that the contract granted the City a perpetual non-exclusive license to use the middleware and software for noncommercial purposes, that raw DNA data belonged to the City, and that Gene Codes failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact showing any misuse of its intellectual property.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Astra Oil Trading seeking approximately $156 million in indemnification from defendant PRSI Trading for payments made as a guarantor on a credit facility, along with requests for pre-judgment attachment of the defendant's bank accounts under New York CPLR and FRCP rules. The defendant moved to dismiss both related actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to insufficient diversity of citizenship and to vacate the existing attachment, while also seeking damages for wrongful attachment. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, determining that diversity jurisdiction existed under the Hertz test for corporate citizenship, allowing a second attachment action to proceed seamlessly after vacating the first to avoid any gap, and rejecting claims for attorneys' fees or increased bond amounts. Core reasoning centered on the parties' citizenship analysis, the ongoing arbitration's impact on the claims, and the procedural requirements for maintaining attachment without technical defects or prejudice.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a petition by General Security National Insurance Company to confirm an arbitration award against AequiCap Program Administrators under the Federal Arbitration Act. The arbitration arose from a dispute over payments under an insurance agreement, where the panel awarded General Security the principal amount owed plus interest and attorney's fees. AequiCap sought to vacate the attorney's fees portion, claiming the panel exceeded its authority and manifestly disregarded the law by relying on a broad arbitration clause incorporated from a related underwriting agreement. The court rejected these arguments, finding that the clause authorized the fee award either inherently or based on the parties' conduct during arbitration, and confirmed the entire award.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Peter Corines, a former physician, suing his disability insurers (including APIT, Hartford, and others) for a declaratory judgment that he is entitled to monthly disability income benefits starting February 1999, along with a refund of premiums, based on a back injury and the revocation of his medical license. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the claims had already been fully litigated and rejected in New York state courts, or alternatively that claim preclusion applied. The court denied Corines's motion to strike portions of the defendants' declaration and granted the motion to dismiss, reasoning that the state court had already granted summary judgment against Corines on the same issues—finding he continued practicing medicine after claiming total disability, supported by his admissions and convictions—and that this ruling was affirmed on appeal.

business & regulatoryprocedurehealthcare

In Hartley v. Rubio, a Black teacher employed by the New York City Department of Education sued his principal, the City, and the DOE, claiming race and national origin discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and related state and city human rights laws after incidents of alleged mistreatment and his eventual termination. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions based on multiple documented complaints about the plaintiff's confrontational behavior toward colleagues, parents, and administrators, including insubordination and safety violations. The court granted the defendants' motion, finding no evidence that the stated reasons were pretextual or that discrimination motivated the decisions, while denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment and his request to amend the complaint. It also rejected claims of a hostile work environment and statistical evidence of disparate impact due to insufficient supporting data.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Pearson v. Unification Theological Seminary, a former admissions officer sued the seminary and its dean, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and parallel state and municipal laws, violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act, and disability discrimination under state and municipal laws. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all of the plaintiff's claims. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or present sufficient evidence of discrimination or retaliation, that her FMLA claims lacked support regarding entitlement to leave or interference, and that her disability claims did not meet the required elements under applicable law. With no federal claims remaining and only a state-law counterclaim for assault left, the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved the United States suing Daniel B. Karron under the False Claims Act to recover damages and penalties for alleged misuse of federal funds awarded to her company through the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Advanced Technology Program. Karron had previously been convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 666 for intentionally misapplying more than $5,000 in those funds. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, holding that the criminal conviction established liability for at least one of the twenty false claims submitted but declining to impose civil penalties on nineteen of them at this stage. The core reasoning was that the conviction precluded Karron from contesting the facts of misapplication and false certifications on the reimbursement forms, allowing treble damages on the proven amount while addressing potential constitutional limits on additional penalties.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

Plaintiff Steven J. Gentile, a former Town of Orangetown police officer injured in the line of duty in 1993 and 1995, sued the Town and Police Chief Kevin A. Nulty under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state laws, claiming violations including equal protection after the Town terminated his employment in 2004 under New York Civil Service Law § 71 due to his prolonged absence and later discontinued his disability benefits. Earlier rulings had dismissed all claims except the equal protection claim against the Town. The court granted defendants' summary judgment motion, finding that Gentile failed to demonstrate he was treated differently from similarly situated employees or that any alleged differential treatment resulted from a municipal custom or policy, as required for a § 1983 claim.

civil rightslabor & employment

Tylie S. Waters sued the General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law, claiming age-based discrimination and harassment over the course of her employment starting in 1993. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that Waters had not produced evidence supporting her claims and had not experienced any actionable adverse employment actions. The court granted the motion after applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, concluding that no reasonable jury could find that age was more likely than not the basis for any decisions affecting Waters, such as her 2009 suspension. The opinion details her various roles and incidents at the organization but finds the allegations insufficient to survive summary judgment under either federal or state standards.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved plaintiff Ronald Williams, a VA employee on parole, who was arrested by defendant VA Police Officer Demetrius Young for failing to comply with orders to stop his vehicle and display identification at a VA Medical Center during enhanced security measures. Williams was released after several hours but later faced parole revocation proceedings based in part on the officer's report, which he claimed contained fabrications; he then brought a Bivens action alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment, malicious abuse of process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and denial of a fair trial. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims. It reasoned that the undisputed facts established probable cause for the arrest, that the officer's report did not cause the parole violation finding in a manner supporting the constitutional claims, and that other elements of the claims were not met as a matter of law.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case involved major television copyright owners suing ivi, Inc. and its CEO for capturing over-the-air broadcasts of their programming and simultaneously streaming them online to paying subscribers without consent. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to stop the unauthorized retransmissions. The court granted the injunction after finding that plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, a favorable balance of hardships, and no disservice to the public interest. The core reasoning was that ivi did not qualify as a "cable system" eligible for a compulsory license under Section 111 of the Copyright Act, as its internet-based operations fell outside the statutory definition and regulatory framework applicable to traditional cable providers.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved Swedbank's attempt to set off its pre-petition claims against Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) against funds that LBHI deposited into a Swedbank account after LBHI's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in 2008, including by freezing the account. The bankruptcy court granted LBHI's motion to enforce the automatic stay and ordered Swedbank to return the post-petition funds. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code permits setoffs only of mutual pre-petition obligations and that the safe harbor provisions in sections 560 and 561 for swap agreements do not authorize setoffs of pre-petition claims against post-petition assets. The court rejected Swedbank's arguments based on legislative history, finding that it did not support allowing such setoffs or overriding the mutuality requirement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Mugan v. Hartford Life Group Insurance, the plaintiff sued under ERISA alleging that the defendant insurer wrongfully terminated his long-term disability benefits under an employer-sponsored plan after he suffered a heart attack and related complications. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment, with Mugan arguing the termination was arbitrary and capricious due to a conflict of interest, and Hartford seeking to affirm its decision and recover alleged overpayments. The court denied Mugan's motion, granted Hartford's motion on the main claim, and partially granted it on the counterclaim, reasoning that Hartford's decision was supported by the evidence and not influenced improperly by any conflict.

labor & employmenthealthcare

In this case, Federal Insurance Company sought declaratory relief and rescission of excess liability insurance policies issued to SafeNet, Inc., and its executives, alleging that applications contained material misrepresentations about stock option practices amid related criminal and civil proceedings. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(7), arguing the claims were unripe because primary coverage had not been exhausted and that necessary parties had not been joined, or alternatively to stay the action pending a class action suit. The court denied the motions, holding that an actual controversy existed under the Declaratory Judgment Act, that the excess policies' validity could be adjudicated independently of primary exhaustion or indemnification decisions, and that any absent parties were not required under Rule 19(b) because prejudice could be minimized through a narrow judgment. The reasoning emphasized that the policies' structure and the pending legal troubles created a concrete dispute suitable for resolution without awaiting further developments.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a maritime contract dispute in which Phoenix Bulk Carriers sought recovery of unpaid demurrage fees under three 2008 charter party agreements with America Metals Trading, and obtained a Rule B attachment; the defendant posted security and then moved under Supplemental Rule E(7) for countersecurity covering its counterclaims for breach of two earlier 2007 charter party agreements. The court denied the motion for countersecurity. It held that the counterclaims did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the original claims, applying the logical-relationship test used for compulsory counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a), because the sets of contracts concerned different voyages, rates, and time periods even though the parties had an ongoing business relationship.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Rahbari v. Oros, a shareholder brought a derivative suit on behalf of NexCen Brands, Inc. against its directors, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, and related claims stemming from alleged misrepresentations and failures to disclose material adverse facts regarding the company's acquisitions, financing, and financial condition between 2007 and 2008. The court considered whether the plaintiff adequately pleaded that demand on the board was excused as futile due to the directors facing a substantial likelihood of liability or lacking independence. The court concluded that demand was not excused, finding insufficient particularized allegations that directors knew of or were involved in the alleged wrongdoing, that audit committee membership implied knowledge, or that personal relationships compromised independence.

business & regulatoryprocedure