District Court, S.D. New York — appointed by Richard Nixon
Romano v. SLS Residential, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York · 2011-06-22 · cited 9×
This case is a class action brought by former patients against SLS Residential, Inc., a private mental health facility, and its principals and employees, alleging that the facility engaged in illegal restraints, privacy violations, improper punishments, and other mistreatment of residents rather than providing proper therapeutic care. The plaintiffs asserted claims under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, New York Executive Law, and various state tort and contract theories, though some federal claims were previously dismissed. The court addressed the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, which sought to give preclusive effect to findings from a New York Office of Mental Health investigation and hearing regarding statutory and regulatory violations at the facility. The court denied the motion, holding that the administrative determinations lacked preclusive effect in this action because certain charges were annulled on appeal due to the agency's failure to properly promulgate its policies as rules, and the remaining findings did not meet the requirements for collateral estoppel on the issues presented.
healthcarecivil rightsproceduretorts & liability
United States v. Al-'Owhali
District Court, S.D. New York · 2010-02-09
This case involved Mohamed al-'Owhali's post-conviction motion to vacate prior findings on the voluntariness of his confession, suppress statements made during interrogation in Kenya after the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings, and obtain other relief. Al-'Owhali argued that newly disclosed information from the interpreter present during the first three days of questioning—regarding possible loud noises or aggressive actions by agents—constituted a Brady violation that undermined the suppression hearing and trial. The court denied the motion, holding there was no reasonable probability the evidence would have changed the outcome because al-'Owhali made no incriminating statements during those initial days, the agents' accounts were consistent, and he never claimed physical coercion or torture. The court further found no suppression of the presence of other agents and no materiality in that fact, as it was not favorable to the defendant. The decision affirmed the prior rulings on the confession's admissibility after Miranda warnings.
criminal lawprocedure
United States v. Bin Laden
District Court, S.D. New York · 2005-11-02 · cited 15×
This case concerns Wadih El-Hage's post-conviction motion for a new trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 after his 2001 convictions on conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals, conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to destroy U.S. property, and perjury counts tied to al Qaeda activities and the 1998 African embassy bombings. The motion centered on the government's delayed disclosure—more than fifteen months after sentencing—of twenty-eight hours of videotaped and transcribed interviews with cooperating witness Jamal al-Fadl, which were withheld due to inaction and suppression by the U.S. Marshals Service and DOJ's Office of Enforcement Operations. The court conducted multiple evidentiary hearings, reviewed the materials and trial record, and made findings that the evidence constituted required discovery under Brady/Giglio and Jencks Act standards, raising grave concerns that the suppression jeopardized the fairness of the trial and may necessitate a retrial.
criminal lawprocedure
May Ship Repair Contracting Corp. v. Barge Columbia New York
District Court, S.D. New York · 2001-04-06 · cited 8×
The case involves May Ship Repair Contracting Corporation seeking recovery of fees for repairs and wharfage services provided to the Barge Columbia New York while it was owned by the Glanville Revocable Trust and chartered to Columbia Coastal Transport, Inc. Disputes arose over responsibility for additional repairs required by surveys, leading to partial payments, an arbitration award between the defendants, and unpaid invoices for wharfage after the work stopped. May Ship moved for summary judgment on its claims and for Rule 11 sanctions based on the defendants' opposition. The court denied both motions, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to the terms of the agreements, allocation of repair costs, and reasonableness of the wharfage charges.
business & regulatoryprocedure
United States v. Salameh
District Court, S.D. New York · 1999-06-21 · cited 21×
This case concerns Rule 33 motions for a new trial filed by four defendants—Mahmoud Abouhalima, Ahmad Mohammad Ajaj, Nidal Ayyad, and Mohammad Salameh—after their convictions for the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed six people and caused extensive damage. The defendants raised claims including ineffective assistance of trial counsel, newly discovered evidence of perjured expert testimony and co-conspirator statements, violations of the Vienna Convention, and issues with evidence seized from apartments and luggage. The district court denied the motions, finding that the allegations lacked merit, that any new evidence was not material enough to warrant retrial given the independent proof of guilt, and that counsel's performance met constitutional standards. The opinion reviewed extensive hearing testimony, FBI reports, and trial records before concluding the convictions should stand.
criminal lawprocedure
Application of Medway Power Ltd.
District Court, S.D. New York · 1997-11-20 · cited 1×
Medway Power Limited petitioned a U.S. district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for an order compelling General Electric to produce documents for use in a pending private arbitration in the United Kingdom, to which GE was not a party. The court denied the petition, holding that a private arbitration does not qualify as a 'foreign or international tribunal' under the statute. The decision rested on the statute's legislative history, which shows Congress intended the term 'tribunal' to cover official governmental or quasi-judicial bodies rather than private contractual arbitrations, as well as distinctions in the U.S. Code between tribunals and arbitrations and the limited authority of arbitrators over non-parties. The court noted that the Federal Arbitration Act provides the specific mechanism for judicial assistance in domestic arbitrations and that Section 1782 was not meant to create broader assistance for foreign private proceedings.
procedure