William Curtis Conner

In this case, YouTube applied to ASCAP for a blanket license to publicly perform over two million musical compositions on its streaming video website but the parties could not agree on fees, prompting ASCAP to seek court determination of interim and final fees under the Second Amended Final Judgment from a prior antitrust action. The court set interim fees at $1,400,000 for the period from YouTube's 2005 launch through 2008 and $70,000 per month starting January 2009 until final fees are determined, with an initial lump-sum payment required. The core reasoning compared the proposed fees to YouTube's existing licenses with record companies such as EMI and Sony BMG, noted music's substantial role in driving site traffic and ad revenue, and concluded the amounts were reasonable and conservative relative to those benchmarks.

business & regulatory

The case involves plaintiff Ertha Augustin, a teacher of Haitian descent employed by the Enlarged City School District of Newburgh, who brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York Executive Law § 296 alleging that her termination was motivated by national origin discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection guarantee. Defendants, including the District and two administrators, moved for summary judgment, with the parties disputing the plaintiff's work performance, the reasons for her reassignments and mentoring, and whether complaints or evaluations reflected bias. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, determining that some claims lacked sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent or personal involvement while others presented triable issues of fact regarding the decision-making process and potential bias by certain defendants.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case is a class action securities lawsuit brought by investors against Citigroup and individual officers of Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd., alleging that the company's IPO registration statement and prospectus contained material misrepresentations about how the FA-1 cable system construction would be financed through presales of capacity. Plaintiffs claimed violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on the disclosures regarding over $750 million in presales, which they argued misrepresented actual customer demand. Defendants moved for summary judgment on those claims, arguing that the presales disclosures were accurate and any risks were adequately warned about in the prospectus. The court denied the motion in full, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the presales representations were misleading, particularly regarding whether they implied real demand rather than financing arrangements, and that this issue was not resolved by the risk disclosures.

business & regulatory

In Cicchetti v. Davis, a former Fire Commissioner of Mount Vernon, New York, sued the city's mayor under the First Amendment after being fired shortly after attending a political fundraiser for the mayor's opponent. A jury found that the plaintiff's political activity was a substantial factor in the termination decision, but the court then addressed the mayor's affirmative defense. The court held that the plaintiff qualified as a policymaker because the position involved duties creating a rational connection between shared political ideology and job performance, such as influencing city programs and being perceived as aligned with the mayor. As a result, the court set aside the jury's verdict and entered judgment as a matter of law for the defendant, allowing the termination based on political associations.

free speechelectionslabor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerns an application by ASCAP under the Second Amended Final Judgment in a longstanding antitrust action to set reasonable interim license fees for AT&T Mobility's public performances of ASCAP music via wireless devices (including Cellular Video services and Answer Tones) and certain Internet websites and streaming services. After reviewing the parties' proposals, revenue data, and comparable licensing rates, the court determined interim fees of $1,500,000 for the period from October 2004 through October 2008, plus ongoing monthly fees of $60,000 starting November 2008, while deferring decision on fees for Ringtone previews due to insufficient information. The reasoning relied on allocating portions of AT&T's subscription and sales revenues attributable to the licensed services, applying rates drawn from radio broadcasting and other ASCAP licenses, and adjusting for incomplete discovery and third-party licenses held by some suppliers.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Mahmud v. Kaufmann, plaintiff Dr. Saeeda Mahmud, a cardiologist, sued fellow physicians affiliated with Bon Secours Community Hospital alleging that they denied renewal of her contract and blocked her admitting privileges at the hospital and a related facility on the basis of race and to suppress competition in local cardiology services. Her remaining claims after prior rulings were for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and violation of the Sherman Act. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in full, holding that plaintiff failed to produce evidence showing that defendants acted outside the scope of their hospital authority or engaged in any improper conduct that caused the loss of her privileges or opportunities. The opinion notes that the hospital's actions, including reviews of her patient care, were conducted through established quality-assurance processes and that no actionable interference with business relationships was demonstrated.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability

In Aspilaire v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Haitian-American employee sued her former employer under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the New York State Human Rights Law, alleging race-based discrimination and retaliation through denial of the maximum pay rate, promotions, preferred scheduling, and other adverse actions after she complained about her treatment. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion in full, holding that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence showing that the employer's pay, training, or scheduling decisions were motivated by discriminatory animus rather than legitimate factors such as completion of required skill blocks under the union contract. The court further found no proof that the plaintiff engaged in protected activity by complaining of race discrimination or that any adverse actions were retaliatory.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this case, plaintiff Kevin Heffernan, a fire lieutenant and union vice president, sued the City of White Plains and several fire department officials, alleging that they filed baseless disciplinary charges against him in retaliation for his exercise of First Amendment rights to speech and association in connection with union health and safety activities. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the First Amendment claim to the extent it was based on adverse action in response to the plaintiff's April 20, 2005 radio transmissions, but denied the motion as to the remaining aspects of the claim. The core reasoning focused on whether the plaintiff's statements were made pursuant to his official duties as a lieutenant under Garcetti v. Ceballos and whether they addressed matters of public concern in the context of his union role.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

The case involves a mother suing Dutchess County, its Department of Social Services, and several caseworkers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the wrongful removal of her newborn son from her custody violated due process and Fourth Amendment rights. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that the individual caseworkers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court granted the motion as to caseworkers Tilton, Woolsey, Thomas, and Garcia, finding it moot as to Commissioner Allers. The core reasoning was that the caseworkers reasonably believed probable cause existed to support the removal based on hospital reports of the mother's drug-seeking behavior, evasiveness, and inability to care for the infant, and that the subsequent Family Court hearing was initiated promptly enough to satisfy procedural requirements.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

The case involves Rita Flynn, a female parole officer employed by the New York State Division of Parole since 1979, who sued the agency and a regional director under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming gender-based disparate treatment, a hostile work environment, and retaliation for her complaints about unequal treatment and assignments. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing insufficient evidence of discrimination or retaliatory adverse actions tied to protected activity. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part after reviewing evidence on disciplinary actions, work assignments, performance evaluations, and internal complaints, finding some claims lacked support while others raised triable issues under the applicable legal standards for employment discrimination and retaliation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involves plaintiff Daisy Early, an African-American pharmaceutical operator at Wyeth's Pearl River facility, suing her employer and two supervisors under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the New York State Human Rights Law for alleged race-based adverse employment actions, constructive termination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment spanning from 1989 to 2005. Defendants filed counterclaims for fraud in the inducement and unjust enrichment and moved for summary judgment, which the plaintiff opposed while cross-moving on the counterclaims. The court granted defendants' motion in full, dismissing all of plaintiff's claims and deeming the counterclaims moot. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory motive, that most alleged incidents were not materially adverse or were time-barred, and that no genuine issues of material fact existed to support her claims.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

In this proposed class action, plaintiffs Tony and Dianne Anirudh sued CitiMortgage for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of New York and New Jersey consumer fraud statutes, alleging that the defendant improperly charged one extra day of interest on co-op loans beyond the payoff date and withheld release of collateral until paid. The plaintiffs sought to proceed on behalf of a nationwide class of borrowers whose co-op loans were paid off from 2002 onward. Defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, holding that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the requirements for federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act because they could not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that at least 100 class members resided in New York or meet other statutory thresholds.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose under a longstanding antitrust consent decree (AFJ2) governing ASCAP's licensing of public performances of musical works, in which AT&T Mobility sought a blanket license for wireless and internet transmissions including ringtones and ringback tones. AT&T moved for summary judgment, arguing that short previews of these tones constituted fair use under copyright law and thus required no licensing fees. The court denied the motion, holding that the previews were not transformative, copied a substantial portion of the works, and served a commercial purpose that could harm the market for ASCAP's performance licenses. The decision rested on the four statutory fair-use factors, with particular emphasis on the non-transformative nature of the use and the lack of evidence showing no market effect.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a student JL and his mother DT suing the Somers Central School District and officials for alleged racial harassment by other students that created a hostile educational environment, claiming violations of Title VI, Section 1983, the Equal Protection Clause, and state laws. The plaintiffs alleged that JL suffered harm from incidents including racial slurs and physical actions, and that the school failed to adequately respond. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in full. The reasoning was that the school lacked sufficient notice of the specific incidents prior to them occurring, conducted a reasonable investigation after the main incident, and there was no basis for individual liability or deliberate indifference under the applicable standards.

civil rights

In DeVittorio v. Hall, four police officers sued the police chief, a captain, and the town under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, claiming that a video camera installed in the department locker room violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by recording them in states of undress and capturing conversations about alleged corruption, and that they suffered retaliation for reporting the device. The defendants moved for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The court granted the motion, holding that the camera had no audio capability, was installed solely to investigate vandalism, produced no evidence of live observation or recordings of the plaintiffs, and that the locker room afforded no reasonable expectation of privacy; the retaliation claims also lacked sufficient factual support on the uncontested record.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involved a real estate developer, S&R Development Estates, and prospective residents who sued town officials, the zoning board, and the Town of Greenburgh after purchasing property they believed was zoned for multi-family housing under the Central Avenue Mixed Use Impact District. The plaintiffs alleged violations of due process, takings, equal protection, the Fair Housing Act, and related state claims, asserting that defendants' actions and zoning interpretations prevented their planned development. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims without prejudice. It reasoned that the federal constitutional claims were not ripe for review absent a final decision from the zoning board of appeals, the Fair Housing Act claim lacked sufficient allegations of discriminatory intent or impact, and the state-law claims (including Article 78 and declaratory judgment) fell outside federal subject-matter jurisdiction or warranted declining supplemental jurisdiction.

propertycivil rightsprocedurefederal power

In this patent infringement case, plaintiff Rothschild sued defendant Cree for allegedly infringing two U.S. patents related to semiconductor doping methods. After claim construction rulings, Cree moved for partial summary judgment of non-infringement on the '499 patent, which the court denied in July 2008; Cree then sought reconsideration, arguing that the court had overlooked controlling Federal Circuit precedents on the limiting effect of claim preambles and critical facts from patent prosecution history. The court denied the reconsideration motion, finding that Cree had merely repeated prior arguments with different citations and that the cited principles were inapplicable because the claim body described a complete process without needing the preamble, and no overlooked facts altered that analysis.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves parents of a minor child classified as emotionally disturbed seeking tuition reimbursement from the Bedford Central School District under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for unilateral placements in private residential programs during the 2005-06 school year, summer 2006, and 2006-07. Plaintiffs appealed administrative decisions by an Independent Hearing Officer and State Review Officer that denied reimbursement and found the district had offered a free appropriate public education (FAPE) through programs like the Keys to Emotional Awareness at the public high school. The district court reviewed the administrative record on cross-motions for summary judgment, including evidence of the child's hospitalizations, evaluations, and the district's recommended placements and supports. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, affirming the denial of reimbursement.

civil rightsfederal power

This case involves a dispute over the proceeds of a life insurance policy issued by William Penn Life Insurance Company of New York to Jon Fieldman, with Kimbal Viscuso originally named as beneficiary. The Birns defendants claimed entitlement after Fieldman's attorney-in-fact submitted a change-of-beneficiary form naming them, despite the durable power of attorney expressly prohibiting such changes to insurance contracts. William Penn filed an interpleader action under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 to resolve the competing claims and be discharged. The court accepted interpleader jurisdiction, granted summary judgment to Viscuso on the ground that the attempted change was unauthorized and ineffective, and retained jurisdiction to adjudicate the Birns defendants' counterclaims against the insurer.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

The case involved Alan Rheingold suing the Harrison Town Police Department, Officer J. Parrello, the Town/Village of Harrison, and his ex-wife Deborah Gierszewski under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and gender discrimination under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Rheingold claimed he was arrested without probable cause based on his ex-wife's complaint that he violated a Westchester County Family Court custody order by returning their children 20 minutes late, and that the defendants failed to investigate his protests or similar complaints he made against her, allegedly due to gender bias. The court granted the motion to dismiss filed by Parrello and the Town pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). The core reasoning was that the officer had probable cause to arrest based on the complaint without a duty to investigate further, the claims against the town failed to allege a sufficient municipal policy or custom, and the gender discrimination allegations lacked adequate factual support.

civil rightscriminal lawfamily lawprocedure