Kenneth Conboy

This case involved purchasers of In-Store Advertising, Inc. stock from its July 1990 IPO who alleged that the company's prospectus contained materially false and misleading financial statements regarding revenue recognition and prospects; after earlier complaints against company insiders and underwriters, plaintiffs added auditor KPMG Peat Marwick as a defendant in a July 1993 amended complaint asserting federal securities claims under Sections 11 and 10(b) plus state-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation theories. The court converted Peat Marwick's motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment and granted it in part, dismissing the federal claims as time-barred while denying the motion without prejudice as to the state claims. The federal claims were held untimely because plaintiffs were on inquiry notice of potential auditor liability by mid-1991 upon receipt of board books and workpapers yet failed to sue with reasonable diligence within the one-year limitations period after that discovery.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Landmark West!, a neighborhood group, sued the United States Postal Service and developers to stop construction of a 46-story mixed-use skyscraper in Manhattan, claiming the USPS violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to prepare an adequate environmental assessment or impact statement for its role in the project. The USPS had entered an agreement to vacate its old leased space and acquire a new condominium facility in the building in exchange for a partnership interest and cash payment. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment. It held that the USPS's limited involvement did not convert the primarily private development into a major federal action requiring broader NEPA review, and that the administrative record adequately supported the USPS's determination that an alternative building of similar size and mass would likely be built without its participation.

environmentfederal power

This case involves multiple defendants charged with conspiring to defraud the U.S. Customs Service through underpayment of import duties on Chinese clothing imports from 1989 to 1991, plus related counts of smuggling, false statements, and an IRS conspiracy charge against some defendants. The defendants filed pretrial motions to suppress evidence from a search of Sunlight's offices (claiming false statements in the warrant affidavit and lack of particularity), to dismiss parts of the indictment as multiplicitous, to sever the IRS conspiracy count and charges against one defendant, and for a bill of particulars and additional discovery. The court ruled that some defendants lacked standing to challenge the search while Sunlight had a reasonable expectation of privacy in its offices, rejected arguments based on the closely regulated industry doctrine, granted severance of the tax conspiracy count, and addressed the remaining motions in its order.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatorytaxes

This case concerns investor Gordon Lenz's 1981 purchase of a limited partnership interest in a Florida tennis resort project promoted as a tax shelter, where he signed agreements warranting that he understood the risks, had not relied on profit or tax assurances, and accepted potential conflicts of interest. Lenz later brought claims alleging fraud and mismanagement after the investment failed to produce the expected benefits. The court held that provisions in the partnership agreement waiving Lenz's right to a formal accounting are enforceable under Oklahoma law. Its reasoning focused on the absence of overriding public policy concerns that would invalidate the waiver, the specific representations and warranties Lenz made in the subscription documents, and distinctions from prior cases involving stronger statutory protections for third parties or public resources.

business & regulatorytaxes

The case involved former American employees of DCA Advertising Inc., a New York subsidiary of the Japanese firm Dentsu, who alleged they were terminated due to their national origin in violation of Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law. Dentsu moved to dismiss the claims against it on multiple grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction, that it was not an employer under the statutes, failure to name it in the EEOC charge, and protection under the U.S.-Japan Friendship, Commerce and Navigation Treaty. The court converted the motion into one for summary judgment. It granted the motion in part, finding no direct employer status or jurisdiction in some respects, and denied it in part, recognizing an identity of interest with DCA for administrative filing purposes and limiting but not eliminating treaty-based defenses. The reasoning centered on corporate separateness, control over employment decisions, and statutory definitions of employer liability.

labor & employmentcivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Jaroslav Hrubec, a Czechoslovakian immigrant convicted of drug offenses, who posted a $10,000 INS delivery bond in 1989 while appealing a deportation order; the INS later declared the bond breached due to his failure to report an address change and denied recovery. Hrubec sued the INS and its officials in federal court to recover the bond plus $1 million in punitive damages. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the breach determination involved factual questions requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies through an appeal to the INS Administrative Appeals Unit. It reasoned that agency expertise was needed for such issues and that Hrubec had not received required notice of his appeal rights, so it granted him 30 days from the order to file an administrative appeal. The court did not address the punitive damages claim.

immigrationprocedure

The case involved a tenured professor at City University of New York who was removed from his position as Chairman of the Black Studies Department following an off-campus speech containing hateful and racist statements. A federal jury determined that the university's actions violated the professor's First Amendment rights by punishing him for the speech without justification, leading to an award of punitive damages. The court upheld the jury's verdict on the First Amendment claim, reasoning that the university failed to provide evidence that the speech disrupted university operations or that the professor's teaching was incompetent, and instead relied on pretextual reasons such as tardiness. The court ordered the professor's reinstatement as Chairman for two years while permitting the university to monitor his performance and remove him for good cause if established, but rejected the professor's Fourteenth Amendment property interest claim and denied qualified immunity to the defendants.

free speechcivil rights

The case involved American-born former employees of DCA Advertising Inc., a U.S. subsidiary of a Japanese company, who sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York Human Rights Law, alleging they were terminated in 1990 due to national origin discrimination favoring Japanese employees. DCA moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that any preferences were based on citizenship rather than national origin and were permitted under the U.S.-Japan Friendship, Commerce and Navigation Treaty. The court denied the motion in part, finding sufficient evidence that terminations involved national origin discrimination and that the treaty does not authorize such discrimination, while granting it in part on other grounds such as certain citizenship-based distinctions. The decision emphasized that Title VII prohibits national origin discrimination even if citizenship preferences are allowed, and it distinguished the claims based on individual employment histories and evidence of favoritism toward Japanese nationals.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved LTV Corporation, in bankruptcy reorganization, seeking to disallow or expunge claims filed by the IRS for excise taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 4971. After the district court initially ruled to expunge the claims, the parties reached a settlement that was approved as part of LTV's confirmed plan of reorganization, which was then consummated. The IRS moved to vacate the prior judgment on grounds of mootness. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, following Second Circuit practice that a settlement rendering the underlying controversy moot requires vacating the judgment.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Zackiva Communications Corporation sued Corey M. Horowitz and Kenneth Horowitz for breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, and constructive fraud, alleging that the defendants exploited confidential information from a group of minority shareholders negotiating the sale of Cellular Systems, Inc. stock to Metromedia while pursuing a separate compensation deal with Metromedia in the Ponderosa transaction without disclosure. The plaintiff sought disgorgement of the defendants' profits but did not claim any damages to itself. The court granted the defendants' motion in part by dismissing the fraudulent concealment and constructive fraud claims, but denied it in part by allowing the breach of fiduciary duty claim to proceed. It reasoned that a breach of fiduciary duty claim under New York law does not require proof of damages to the plaintiff, citing Diamond v. Oreamuno, whereas the fraud claims do require such an injury or loss, which was not alleged here.

business & regulatory

The case concerned damage to a shared party wall between buildings in Washington, D.C., owned by plaintiff United States Theatre Corporation and defendant Gunwyn/Lansburgh Limited Partnership, a Massachusetts company; Theatre sued in New York federal court alleging negligence, strict liability, breach of promise, and violation of the D.C. building code after cracks appeared during Gunwyn's demolition work. Gunwyn moved to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court applied New York CPLR § 302(a)(1) in this diversity action and granted the motion, holding that Gunwyn's contacts with New York—limited to letters, phone calls, and one visit—did not amount to transacting business or purposefully availing itself of the forum's laws in a manner giving rise to the claim. The court also denied Theatre's request for limited discovery on alternative jurisdictional grounds under § 302(a)(3).

procedurepropertytorts & liability

This case involved post-trial motions in a civil RICO action brought by plaintiff J. Reid Bingham, as representative of an estate, against defendants Marvin Zolt and David J. Steinberg, alleging wrongful acts including fraud and breach of fiduciary duty that caused financial injuries to the estate. A jury had returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the RICO claims and related common-law claims. The court denied the defendants' motions to set aside the verdict on statute-of-limitations grounds. It reasoned that the RICO claims were timely under the Second Circuit's separate-accrual rule because all damages found by the jury occurred within the four-year limitations period preceding the December 1986 filing of the suit, even though the estate had knowledge of the underlying acts by December 1982. The court applied a similar analysis to uphold the common-law fraud and fiduciary-duty claims under New York's six-year statute and rejected related challenges to punitive damages and the award of attorneys' fees under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case involves multiple defendants indicted on federal charges including racketeering, kidnapping, extortion, and murder. The court addressed numerous pre-trial motions from both the government and defendants, including requests for an anonymous jury, suppression of evidence from electronic surveillance and searches, discovery, severance, and various evidentiary rulings. The court granted the government's motion for an anonymous jury, citing evidence of a scheme by defendants to bribe or murder a potential witness, the violent nature of the alleged crimes, the defendants' fugitive status, and the severe potential penalties. It also evaluated suppression motions under standards for probable cause in wiretaps and vehicle searches, referencing precedents on warrantless searches and the preference for warrants.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Professor Leonard Jeffries' claim that City University of New York officials denied him a three-year term as Chairman of the Black Studies Department because of a July 1991 speech he delivered on multiculturalism and educational curriculum reform. A jury found that the speech was a substantial motivating factor in the denial, that it did not actually hamper university operations, but that defendants reasonably anticipated disruption, and that Jeffries was also deprived of property without due process. Applying the Pickering balancing test for public-employee speech, the court determined that the speech substantially involved matters of public concern and that, in the absence of actual disruption, the university's efficiency interests did not outweigh Jeffries' First Amendment rights, resulting in a holding that the denial violated the First Amendment.

free speechcivil rights

In this case, two insurance companies sought a declaratory judgment on the distribution of proceeds from an accident insurance policy and life insurance policies issued under an ERISA plan, after the primary beneficiary was convicted of murdering the insured. The court granted summary judgment to the insurers, authorizing payment of the accident policy proceeds to the co-beneficiary and directing the life policy proceeds to the contingent beneficiaries, while discharging the insurers from further liability and enjoining claims against them. The core reasoning was that New York law and federal common law bar a convicted killer from profiting from the crime, the murder conviction collaterally estops the beneficiary from asserting a claim, and the pending appeal did not require escrowing the funds.

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves multiple defendants charged with conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, continuing criminal enterprise, firearms offenses during drug trafficking, and related narcotics violations under Titles 18 and 21. Several defendants, including Montoya, Perdomo, Cuevas, Soto, and St. Hilare, filed pretrial motions seeking bills of particulars detailing their alleged roles, severances to avoid spillover prejudice, suppression of wiretap evidence due to inadequate showing of necessity for electronic surveillance over other methods, suppression of evidence from home searches, and pretrial disclosure of confidential informants and expert materials. The court assessed these requests under relevant legal standards, including the need for defendants to demonstrate materiality of informant testimony to their defense and the sufficiency of the government's affidavits regarding alternative investigative techniques, while noting that certain disclosures would occur at trial and that many objectives of the wiretaps had not been fully achieved beforehand.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case concerns a preliminary issue in a lawsuit brought by Professor Jeffries against university officials (Harleston and others), who allegedly took adverse actions against him following his July 1991 speech at the Empire State Black Arts and Cultural Festival. The court was asked to decide whether the speech, or portions of it, qualified as constitutionally protected expression under the First Amendment. Both parties agreed the speech as a whole addressed matters of public concern, but the defendants argued that specific offensive sections could be isolated and denied protection. The court rejected that approach, holding that the full speech and every sentence within it are protected because the content, form, and context must be evaluated as a whole, as supported by precedents such as Connick v. Myers and Rankin v. McPherson. The ruling permits evidence of which parts motivated the defendants' actions but states that reliance on particular excerpts does not serve as a defense.

free speechcivil rights

This case involved a breach of contract claim in which plaintiff Michael Stroll sought to recover from defendant Jeffrey Epstein amounts allegedly due under an agreement in which Stroll relinquished his interest in a joint venture. Epstein contended that he signed the contract only in a representative capacity as an officer of Intercontinental Asset Group and agent for the venture, and therefore bore no personal liability. The court granted Epstein's motion for summary judgment and denied Stroll's cross-motion. It held that the contract language, when read as a whole, unambiguously demonstrated Epstein's representative role, and that under New York common law an agent for a disclosed principal is not personally bound absent clear evidence of intent to assume individual liability.

business & regulatory

In Cucchi v. New York City Off-Track Betting Corp., the plaintiff sued her former employer after termination, asserting claims including breach of express and implied employment contracts based on an employee manual, disciplinary rules, statutes, her application, and oral assurances, as well as other allegations such as retaliation for whistleblowing. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the defendant's motion in part while denying it in part. It held that New York law presumes at-will employment absent an express agreement limiting termination rights, and found that none of the cited documents or statements created such a limitation as a matter of law. The court further noted that at-will arrangements do not form contractual relationships that could support breach claims and that certain other issues, such as the free speech retaliation claim, were not resolved on this motion.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, Caldor, Inc. sought a declaratory judgment that it had no liability under a 1975 guarantee agreement for the debts of its former subsidiary Leisure Line Toys, Inc. to Mattel, Inc., while Mattel counterclaimed for approximately $2.4 million in unpaid debts incurred after Caldor sold the Leisure Line division in 1987. The court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the guarantee agreement did not address the possibility of Caldor selling Leisure Line, creating uncertainty about whether the guarantee remained in effect, and that such a guarantee could potentially terminate by operation of law even without written revocation if the nature of the risk fundamentally changed.

business & regulatory