Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum

This case is a putative class action securities fraud lawsuit brought by lead plaintiff Acticon AG against China North East Petroleum Holdings Ltd. and related defendants under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The core reasoning is that, under the Supreme Court's decision in Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo, a plaintiff alleging fraud on the market must show an economic loss, which requires alleging that the share price fell significantly after the truth became known; here, the plaintiff held all shares for months after the alleged corrective disclosure, during which the stock price rose above the average purchase price on multiple occasions, so any later losses from selling at lower prices could not be attributed to the alleged misrepresentations.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Plaintiff Jonah Seeman sued his former employer, Gracie Gardens Owners Corp., and its managing agent for alleged disability discrimination under the ADA and related state and city laws, as well as for unpaid overtime under the FLSA and New York Labor Law. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The court reasoned that Seeman had voluntarily resigned from his position and failed to show that the employer's actions were pretextual or motivated by his mental disability. Additionally, the FLSA claim was dismissed because the complaint did not allege that the employer was an enterprise engaged in commerce, and leave to amend was denied due to undue delay.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Chukwuka v. City of New York, a black employee of Nigerian national origin who worked as a Staff Analyst for the New York City Human Resources Administration sued the City, HRA, and two supervisors, alleging Title VII employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and citizenship, along with claims of employment fraud, constructive discharge, and ERISA violations related to retirement benefits. The plaintiff pointed to eight specific incidents, including denial of extended leave requests, changes to a performance evaluation, verbal criticism and threats of demotion, increased scrutiny, and interference with vacation time. The court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the Title VII claim, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because none of the alleged incidents amounted to materially adverse employment actions under the governing legal standards. A supplemental motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims was also granted in open court, resulting in dismissal of the entire complaint.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Jonah Seeman, a long-term doorman, sued his employer Gracie Gardens Owners Corp. for suspending him without good cause in 2007 and 2008 and failing to reinstate him after he met the employer's conditions, in violation of the collective bargaining agreement. He also sued his union, Local 32B-32J, for breaching its duty of fair representation by allegedly mishandling the grievances and arbitration, including not adequately presenting evidence of his mental capacity or other facts. The court granted summary judgment to both defendants. The core reasoning was that Seeman failed to show the union acted arbitrarily or in bad faith, as its tactical choices in arbitration—such as focusing on duress rather than disability—were within its discretion, and without a union breach, the hybrid claim against the employer also failed as a matter of law.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a mezzanine loan agreement and related guaranty in a Florida real estate development project. The lender, Madeleine L.L.C., sued the guarantors, Brian Street and James H. Cohen, claiming that transfers of interest from escrow accounts by a property owner's management company triggered a full recourse provision making the guarantors personally liable for the entire loan balance exceeding $188 million. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the claim, holding that no Event of Default had occurred under the Pledge Agreement because the transfers were not made by the Pledgor and did not meet the specific criteria listed in Section 9(a). The decision emphasized that defaults under the separate Loan Agreement could not be conflated with those under the Pledge Agreement to activate the guaranty's full recourse clause.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves a Swiss company, Medien Patent Verwaltung AG, suing Warner Bros. and others for willful patent infringement related to a method of marking film prints with unique audio codes to trace unauthorized copies. The defendants moved to transfer the case from the Southern District of New York to the Central District of California for convenience under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court denied the transfer motion, reasoning that the plaintiff's choice of forum deserves deference when based on legitimate factors like travel ease from Europe and preferred counsel, and the defendants failed to demonstrate sufficient inconvenience or that California was the exclusive locus of operative facts, which also involved events in Germany.

procedureproperty

NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund sued Goldman Sachs and related entities under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that offering documents for mortgage-backed certificates contained misleading information about the underlying loans. The court denied the motion to dismiss the Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 claims but granted dismissal of the Section 11 claim. The core reasoning was that Section 11 requires a plaintiff to allege a cognizable injury, such as the actual failure to receive due payments, rather than merely increased risk of future cash flow shortfalls or a hypothetical decline in secondary market value; the complaint lacked such allegations and the offering documents had warned that the certificates might lack liquidity. The court also noted the absence of factual support for any actual market price decline.

business & regulatoryprocedure

P & E Properties sued Millbrook for breach of contract over unpaid management fees and unreimbursed extraordinary expenses for employee retention payments, and sued UNFI for tortious interference. The court denied P & E's motion for summary judgment on the management fees claim because disputed issues of material fact existed regarding P & E's performance under the contract. It granted Millbrook's motion to dismiss the extraordinary expenses claim, holding that the contract unambiguously required advance written approval for such payments, which was undisputedly absent. The court found indemnification issues premature pending resolution of the breach claims and noted that any summary judgment motion by UNFI on the tortious interference claim should be filed separately.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

In Wolf v. New York City Department of Education, plaintiff Joyce Wolf, a Caucasian assistant principal, sued the BOE and a regional superintendent under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law, alleging race and ethnicity discrimination in the selection of a new principal for P.S. 72 after an outgoing principal's retirement. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, finding that Wolf presented only a weak prima facie case resting on a single comment by a non-decisionmaker about it being "time for a minority" principal, with no evidence linking that remark to bias in the actual selection process. In contrast, the defendants documented a formal, multi-stage hiring process under Regulation C-30 involving interviews and ratings by a diverse panel that selected the Hispanic candidate based on qualifications for improving a "School in Need of Improvement," and the court concluded no reasonable jury could find discrimination on the record.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case is a Title VII employment discrimination action brought by Asian American police officers and their association against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. After a three-week jury trial, seven of eleven plaintiffs prevailed and received a total award of $1,637,622 in back pay and compensatory damages. Plaintiffs then moved for attorneys' fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), seeking over $2.3 million. The court granted the motion in part, awarding reasonable fees calculated by multiplying approved hourly rates by hours reasonably expended and granting most requested costs while excluding expert fees for testimony not admitted at trial. The ruling rests on the statutory prevailing-party standard, the lodestar method from Hensley v. Eckerhart, and factors such as case complexity and rates in comparable matters.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved Western Investment LLC, the largest shareholder in DWS Global Commodities Stock Fund, Inc., a closed-end investment company, suing to block the Fund from implementing a shift to an actively-managed direct commodity total return strategy via commodities-linked derivatives without a shareholder vote. Western Investment argued that the change altered the Fund's fundamental investment objective of capital appreciation (with total return secondary), violating Section 13 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and requiring approval under the Fund's prospectus. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that Western Investment failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions with a balance of hardships tipping in its favor, as the prospectus explicitly permitted such derivative investments and evidence conflicted on whether the strategy deviated from the stated objective. The court also noted that injunctive relief would unduly interfere with the Fund's daily management while any hardship to the plaintiff could be addressed later.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a trademark dispute between the City of New York and Tavern on the Green, LP (and related debtors) over rights to the name "Tavern on the Green" for a restaurant facility in Central Park. The City sought a declaration of its prior rights under New York law, cancellation of the Debtors' registered marks for fraud and false suggestion of connection with an institution, and related relief, while the Debtors sought a declaration of their exclusive rights and an injunction barring the City's use. The court granted the City's motion in part and denied the Debtors' motion, canceling the Debtors' restaurant services mark for fraud because the undisputed facts showed the City had continuously used the name since 1934 under license agreements that granted only temporary operating rights without transferring ownership or goodwill. The claim regarding the Debtors' cooking oils mark was denied as premature.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved eleven Asian-American Port Authority police officers and their fraternal organization suing the agency under Title VII for racial discrimination in promotions from officer to sergeant. The jury found that the Port Authority's promotion practices had a disparate impact on Asian-American officers, and the court addressed the agency's post-trial motion seeking judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or reduction of the compensatory damages awarded. The court denied the motion in full, holding that the statistical and other evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's disparate impact finding and that the damages awards, including larger sums to two plaintiffs, did not shock the conscience.

civil rightslabor & employment

Amida Capital Management II, LLC sued Cerberus Capital Management and related entities and individuals under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, plus New York common law claims for fraud, alleging that defendants made false or misleading statements about their commitment to complete a $34.50-per-share merger with United Rentals, Inc. (URI) in 2007, inducing Amida to purchase URI stock. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint after previously dismissing the original complaint. The core reasoning was that Amida failed to plead any actionable material misstatements attributable to the defendants, because the merger agreement and related disclosures expressly addressed termination rights, financing conditions, and market risks without guaranteeing the deal's completion, and statements by URI or others could not be attributed to Cerberus.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Maxine Vesterhalt brought federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, excessive force, and unreasonable search, along with related state-law tort claims, arising from a police response to a 911 call at her apartment where officers allegedly forced entry and restrained her. Defendants moved to enforce an alleged oral settlement agreement reached through counsel or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The court denied the motion to enforce settlement, finding no binding agreement because the plaintiff's attorney lacked apparent authority to settle without her direct communication to defendants and because she never signed and returned the required release documents. The court granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part on the underlying claims.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act by 1478 current and former FDNY paramedics and EMTs alleging three overtime violations: unpaid gap time between scheduled and overtime hours, uncompensated pre-shift work of 15-30 minutes, and delayed overtime payments beyond two pay periods. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on liability for all three claims, while defendants cross-moved for summary judgment asserting no violations occurred and that prior premium payments offset any potential damages under 29 U.S.C. § 207(h)(2). The court denied plaintiffs' motion entirely and granted defendants' motion in part and denied it in part. The core reasoning addressed undisputed facts about shift schedules and payroll processes, rejected cumulative offsets in favor of same-work-period credits per DOL interpretations, and found genuine issues of material fact remaining on whether intra-period offsets fully covered any liability.

labor & employment

This case involves plaintiff William Gibbons' medical malpractice, informed consent, and facility negligence claims against Dr. Leonard Fronton and Sterling Medical Corporation for allegedly failing to timely diagnose his prostate cancer during treatment at a Florida VA clinic from 2001 to 2004. Gibbons filed suit in the Southern District of New York after moving there, but defendants moved to dismiss on New York statute of limitations grounds, prompting Gibbons to seek transfer to the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) where Florida's longer limitations period would apply. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the transfer motion, finding that Gibbons had timely filed in the wrong forum and that transfer served the interests of justice by allowing adjudication on the merits without prejudicing defendants, while denying the dismissal motion as moot.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Anthony Gargiulo sued the law firm Forster & Garbus for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and defamation arising from the firm's representation of Capital One in a prior debt collection action. The firm had obtained a default judgment against Gargiulo after serving process at the wrong apartment in his building, which was later vacated by consent; Gargiulo claimed the supporting affidavits contained false statements about his default status and review of case files. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the FDCPA claim failed because the challenged statements were not plausibly false or misleading, and the defamation claim was barred by the absolute privilege for statements made in judicial proceedings. The court also denied leave to amend, noting the complaint was already Gargiulo's third attempt and amendment would be futile.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

Nancy DeNardi sued DRA Imaging P.C. and Imaging Support Services, LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York Human Rights Law, alleging termination based on an erroneous perception that she was disabled due to colon cancer and related treatment. The defendants moved for summary judgment, disputing that DRA employed her and contending that no discrimination occurred. The court denied the motion, holding that DeNardi had evidence supporting a prima facie case of discrimination, a genuine factual dispute on pretext, and that DRA and ISS could qualify as a single employer based on interrelation of operations, common management, and other factors.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerned whether Ann Eschenasy qualified as a student with an emotional disturbance under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), entitling her parents to tuition reimbursement from the New York City Department of Education for placements at the John Dewey Academy and the Elan School. The court granted summary judgment to the parents on the classification issue, finding that Ann's documented history of severe behavioral problems, multiple psychiatric diagnoses including mood disorder and borderline personality features, and resulting need for special education met the IDEA criteria. It awarded reimbursement for the Elan School as an appropriate placement but denied it for Dewey due to the parents' failure to provide timely notice to the DOE before unilateral enrollment. The court also dismissed the City of New York as a defendant because it is a separate entity from the DOE with no alleged involvement.

civil rights