Kevin Thomas Duffy

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Investors sought insurance coverage from Liberty Mutual under CGL and umbrella policies for multiple lawsuits alleging fraudulent or negligent sales of mutual funds to investors. The court denied First Investors' motion for partial summary judgment on the insurer's duty to defend and instead granted summary judgment to Liberty Mutual, dismissing the complaint. The core reasoning was that the underlying claims sought recovery for economic losses from securities investments, which did not qualify as covered bodily injury or property damage under the policies' definitions of occurrence, and were further excluded by the banks and financial institutions endorsements barring coverage for errors or omissions by a financial institution.

business & regulatory

This case concerned a dispute between the assignee of Igor Stravinsky's rights to "The Rite of Spring" and The Walt Disney Company regarding Disney's use of the composition in the 1940 film Fantasia and its later release on video. The plaintiff claimed copyright infringement, false designation under the Lanham Act, breach of the 1939 license agreement, and unjust enrichment, while Disney moved for summary judgment and dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds. The court granted summary judgment to Disney on the Lanham Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment claims, finding no evidence of consumer confusion, that the license duties were fully executed, and preemption by copyright law; it also dismissed one claim on forum non conveniens but granted the plaintiff's motion on the first claim. The reasoning centered on the terms of the 1939 license agreement granting broad rights to Disney, the lack of U.S. copyright protection for the work, and procedural standards for summary judgment.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerned damages following a prior finding that Pentech International, Inc. had literally infringed a patent licensed to Paradise Creations, Inc. for a kit of water-based erasable markers and eradicating fluid. After a bench trial on damages, the court awarded Paradise a reasonable royalty of $1,032,000 based on Pentech's sales of infringing products. The award was trebled to $3,096,000 because the infringement was willful, as Pentech continued sales after learning of the patent and a prior infringement ruling, and Paradise was also granted attorney's fees. Prejudgment interest was awarded on the base royalty amount at the prime rate plus one percent.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case concerned a dispute in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding over whether the trustee could exercise an option to purchase tail coverage under a claims-made medical malpractice insurance policy that had been purchased by the debtor physician. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment to the trustee, holding that the trustee timely exercised the option. The court reasoned that the debtor's pre-conversion attempt to cancel the policy was an extraordinary transaction requiring court approval and thus void, so the policy remained in effect until it was automatically rejected by operation of Bankruptcy Code § 365(d)(1) sixty days after conversion. The sixty-day period to purchase tail coverage under the policy and New York insurance regulations therefore began on the rejection date of March 28, 1994, making the trustee's May 1994 exercise timely; the deemed rejection did not extinguish the option right.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved three defendants charged with conspiring and attempting to destroy aircraft in foreign air commerce, conspiring to kill U.S. nationals, conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction, and related offenses including use of explosives and escape from custody. The defendants moved to suppress statements they made to U.S. law enforcement agents while being transported by plane to the United States, arguing that Miranda warnings were defective and that their waivers of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were not knowing or voluntary. After a suppression hearing, the court denied all motions, finding based on the facts that each defendant understood the warnings given in English, signed valid waiver forms, and made statements without coercion by U.S. officials, even where allegations of prior mistreatment by foreign authorities existed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved three defendants charged with conspiring and attempting to bomb United States commercial airliners operating in East Asia, along with related explosions in the Philippines that killed one passenger and injured others, under various federal statutes including 18 U.S.C. §§ 32, 371, 2332, and 924. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction under domestic and international law, insufficient nexus to the United States, violations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and improper acquisition of jurisdiction due to alleged abduction and mistreatment abroad. The court denied the motions, reasoning that the statutes expressly or impliedly authorize extraterritorial application when US aircraft, nationals, or interests are targeted, that precedent like United States v. Toscanino requires credible evidence of US involvement in any alleged torture (which was absent here), and that any constitutional nexus requirement was met by the direct connection to US citizens and property.

criminal lawfederal powercivil rightsprocedure

This case involves an extradition proceeding in which the government of Israel sought the extradition of Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, the leader of Hamas's political wing, for alleged involvement in multiple violent incidents including bombings and shootings that resulted in civilian deaths and injuries in Israel. Abu Marzook filed a petition for habeas corpus challenging the constitutionality of the extradition statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3184, on separation of powers grounds, arguing that judicial findings in extradition are not final and are subject to executive revision. The court denied the habeas petition, holding that it had jurisdiction to conduct the statutorily required hearing to determine probable cause under the U.S.-Israel extradition treaty and federal law. The court reasoned that the statute is constitutional and that any separation of powers concerns did not warrant invalidating the proceeding or the court's authority to certify findings to the Secretary of State if probable cause is found.

criminal lawfederal power

In this case, Corrections Captains employed by the City of New York and its Department of Correction sued for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, claiming they were improperly classified as salaried executive or administrative employees exempt from overtime requirements. The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability, while the defendants cross-moved, asserting an exemption and a good-faith defense under the Portal-to-Portal Act based on Department of Labor guidance. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding that the city's admitted policies subjecting captains to unpaid suspensions or fines for disciplinary violations other than major safety rules caused them to fail the salary basis test for exemption. The court further held that the good-faith defense did not apply to the disciplinary policies at issue.

labor & employment

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute in which Unimax and its subsidiary JFD sought indemnification from Lumbermens and Liberty Mutual for costs related to hazardous waste cleanup at a former antenna production site in North Carolina under CERCLA. The plaintiffs faced claims from a successor company for contamination allegedly caused by their operations between 1968 and 1980. The court denied the insurers' motions for summary judgment on the trigger of coverage, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether property damage occurred during the policy periods under both North Carolina and New York law. It granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion on the duty to defend against Lumbermens (except for one policy with uncertain terms) because the underlying complaint alleged occurrences during those periods, but denied it against Liberty Mutual due to an unresolved condition precedent. The court also denied Lumbermens' motion regarding a lost policy.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Lomaglio Associates Inc. (LAI), a New Jersey sales representative, and LBK Marketing Corp., an Ohio manufacturer, over a 1992 agreement making LAI the exclusive representative for sales of ceramic figurines to Avon. LAI alleged that LBK breached the contract by refusing to produce the figurines after Avon placed an order and that LBK committed fraud by making false representations about its production capacity and intent. The court denied the motion to dismiss the breach of contract claims under Rule 12(b)(6), finding they adequately stated a claim, and denied dismissal of the fraud claim under Rule 9(b) because the amended complaint identified specific statements by LBK officers with dates and details. However, the court granted dismissal of the fraud claim under Rule 12(b)(6), reasoning that the allegations showed only a failure to perform rather than an intent to deceive at the time the promises were made, making it indistinguishable from the contract claims.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In this class action, plaintiff Rebecca Skydell alleged that defendants Ares-Serono S.A. and Tucker Anthony, Inc. violated § 14(e) of the Williams Act by making misrepresentations and omissions in an offering circular for a tender offer to acquire shares of InterPharm Laboratories Limited, including claims about the company's value, a new product called Rebif, and prior looting of assets. The court granted Tucker Anthony's motion to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 9(b). It denied Ares-Serono's motion to dismiss under Rule 9(b), finding the fraud allegations sufficiently particular, and converted its Rule 12(b)(6) motion to one for summary judgment under Rule 56 because the parties relied on materials outside the complaint such as the offering documents.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, a NYSE member and futures commission merchant, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent three non-member life insurance companies from compelling arbitration under NYSE rules over claims that SLK was liable for losses on insurance policies. The policies involved a customer whose falsified account statements from SLK were allegedly used in applications, leading the insurers to pay out benefits after the customer's death. The court granted the injunction, holding that no valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties and that the NYSE Constitution and Rules did not apply absent any direct transactional nexus, contractual relationship, or business contact between SLK and the defendants. The decision rested on the principle that arbitration is a matter of contract and that courts must determine arbitrability when no agreement covers the dispute.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Lloyd v. WABC-TV, plaintiff Saundra Lloyd, an African-American employee at WABC-TV since 1981, alleged violations of Title VII in that she was subjected to a racially discriminatory work environment, harassment, denial of training and promotions afforded to Caucasian colleagues, and unequal job titles and compensation. She filed an EEOC charge in 1992, received a right-to-sue letter, and sued in federal court in 1993 seeking back pay, damages, and other relief. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the court granted the motion, holding that most incidents were time-barred under Title VII and that the sole timely claim failed because the employer articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason (superior qualifications of the selected candidate) that the plaintiff did not rebut with evidence of pretext or racial motivation.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case arose from a dispute between Readco, Inc., its shareholders, and Marine Midland Bank over loans for a condominium project, a forbearance agreement, and a subsequent settlement agreement in which the bank agreed to pay off a related letter of credit in exchange for conveyance of the property, subject to an audit that could offset the payment. The plaintiffs brought seven claims alleging breach of contract, fraud by misrepresentation and omission, waiver, and estoppel, asserting that the bank wrongfully refused to make the payment after the audit revealed unauthorized use of loan funds. After converting the defendants' motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment and considering additional evidence, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the entire complaint. It held that the settlement agreement's terms were unambiguous, the audit properly triggered an offset, and the plaintiffs failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact on the contract, fraud, or equitable claims, as the allegations either lacked evidentiary support or contradicted the record.

business & regulatoryprocedure