Joan Marie Azrack

In this case, Kenneth Locke sued St. Augustine's Episcopal Church and its rector under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, seeking unpaid minimum wages, overtime, spread-of-hours pay, and liquidated damages for his work as a custodian. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the federal claims. It held that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking because the FLSA did not apply, as neither the church qualified as an enterprise engaged in commerce nor Locke as an employee engaged in commerce or producing goods for commerce under the statute's definitions. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Phelps v. Szubinski, plaintiff sued a police officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and excessive force, along with related state law claims, stemming from a 2003 traffic stop where the officer arrested him for driving with a revoked license and allegedly caused injury to his hip and knee while placing him in the patrol car. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the federal claims. It reasoned that the officer had probable cause for the arrest based on the DMV records showing the license revocation, and that the force used was not excessive because it was reasonable under the circumstances. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involves a defendant charged with transporting and possessing child pornography who moved to compel the government to provide a mirror image of his seized computer hard drive for his defense. The court denied the motion, holding that the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which keeps such materials in government custody but requires they be made reasonably available for inspection at government facilities, is constitutional. The court reasoned that the Act does not violate due process or the right to effective assistance of counsel, as it provides ample opportunity for examination by the defendant, counsel, and experts. The court also rejected arguments that the Act violates equal protection or the separation of powers doctrine, noting that Congress has authority to modify procedural discovery rules like those in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rightsfederal power

This case involved the U.S. Attorney's ex parte application for a pen register order under the Pen/Trap Statute, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3121-3127, seeking access to all dialed digits from a target telephone, including post-cut-through dialed digits (PCTDD) that may contain the contents of communications. The court granted the application in part but denied access to PCTDD, and upon reconsideration reaffirmed that denial after receiving an amicus brief. The court held that the statute prohibits pen registers from obtaining communication content and that allowing such access would violate the Fourth Amendment, rejecting the government's minimization theory that it could collect all digits subject only to internal guidelines if no technology existed to filter content. The decision aligned with rulings from other districts but relied on statutory text, legislative history, and constitutional principles.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a petition by Robert Skrodzki under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction seeking the return of his two children to Poland after their mother, Ewa Skrodzka, removed them to New York without his consent. The court granted the father's motion for summary judgment and denied the mother's, ordering the children's return to Poland. The children had been habitual residents of Poland, where both parents shared joint custody rights under Polish law, and the mother's removal violated those rights. Defenses such as the children being well-settled in the new country or the child's objection were rejected because the evidence showed only a preference for life in the US rather than a valid objection, and the petition was filed within one year of removal.

family law

This case involves former employees of New York Foundling Hospital, a nonprofit providing foster care and related services to children referred by the New York City Administration for Children’s Services, who sued for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York labor law, asserting either enterprise coverage or individual coverage. The court granted the defendant’s partial summary judgment motion and denied the plaintiffs’ motion, dismissing the enterprise coverage claims under the FLSA while allowing the individual coverage claims to proceed as a collective action. The state law claims were dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. The core reasoning was that, based on the FLSA’s text, legislative history, and relevant case law, Foundling does not qualify as an “enterprise engaged in commerce” because it is not a public agency or acting in connection with one in the manner required by the statute, despite its contracts with ACS and receipt of public funds.

labor & employment

The case involved a claimant's motion for attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act following the court's prior order enforcing a settlement agreement in a civil forfeiture action concerning $660,200 in currency. The court had already ruled that the government was not substantially justified in refusing to honor the settlement, making the claimant eligible for fees, though a co-claimant was ineligible due to a prior guilty plea. Claimant sought fees at market rates exceeding the EAJA's $125 per hour statutory cap, either due to cost-of-living increases or special factors such as the limited availability of qualified forfeiture attorneys. The court awarded $54,773.96 total, applying Consumer Price Index adjustments to raise the hourly rate for 2005 and 2006 billings but rejecting any further increase under the special factors provision, as attorney skill and competence do not qualify. The decision applied EAJA standards requiring year-specific adjustments and a reasonable lodestar calculation based on prevailing rates.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns the government's attempt to forfeit $660,200 in currency and claimants' motion to enforce an oral and written settlement agreement reached with the U.S. Attorney's Office. The court had previously granted enforcement of the settlement and awarded attorneys' fees and costs to the claimants under the Equal Access to Justice Act, finding the government lacked substantial justification for refusing to honor the agreement. On the government's motion for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b), the court considered arguments based on alleged newly discovered evidence of ties to terrorism, fraud, and national security risks. The court granted reconsideration in part, holding that one claimant was ineligible for fees under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, but otherwise adhered to its prior decision because the government had known the relevant information before settling and could not obtain a second review of issues already decided. The core reasoning was that motions for reconsideration are not a vehicle for new theories or evidence available earlier, and due process requires disclosure of any post-settlement evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Norma Del Franco, a per diem betting clerk hired at age 63 by defendant New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation, who alleged age discrimination under the ADEA and a hostile work environment based on incidents including reassignments, reprimands for attendance and conduct issues, and comments by supervisors. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing both claims. It reasoned that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, no material facts showed that any adverse actions were motivated by age rather than documented performance problems, and the alleged incidents were not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment as a matter of law.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves the government's civil forfeiture action under 31 U.S.C. §§ 5316 and 5317 seeking to seize $660,200 in currency found concealed in luggage at JFK Airport. Claimants Khalil and Solimán, who were not present at the seizure, filed claims to the funds and participated in extensive discovery and settlement conferences before a magistrate judge. The parties reached an oral settlement agreement in open court under which claimants would forfeit roughly half the amount and the government would return the rest, with the agreement approved by a supervising Assistant U.S. Attorney; the government later failed to execute the written stipulation or transfer funds. The court granted the claimants' motion to enforce the settlement, holding that the oral agreement was binding, that the cited regulations on settlement authority did not apply because the matter had not been delegated to the Criminal Division, and that the government's approval process had been properly completed. The decision rests on principles of contract formation in judicial proceedings and the specific delegation rules in 28 C.F.R. Pt. 0, Subpt. Y.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

This case was a negligence action under the Federal Tort Claims Act in which plaintiffs Keith and Sharon Jones sought damages for injuries and loss of consortium allegedly caused by a January 2000 motor vehicle accident involving an FBI agent's car. The court conducted a bench trial on liability and damages after the government conceded that its vehicle caused the collision. It found that the impact was minor, that Keith Jones had extensive pre-existing disabilities from a 1997 knee injury and degenerative spinal conditions, and that any post-accident range-of-motion limitations either predated the accident or did not qualify as a 'serious injury' under New York’s No-Fault Law. The court therefore entered judgment for the United States.

torts & liability

This qui tam case under the False Claims Act alleged that ambulance companies defrauded Medicare by submitting false claims for patient transportation services. The immediate dispute concerned a proposed protective order governing confidential patient medical records subpoenaed from non-party providers under Rule 45. Defendants sought to restrict the government's use of those records exclusively to this litigation, while the government contended that HIPAA regulations permitted broader use in its health-oversight role. The court held that any protective order could not limit the records' use solely to the present case. It reasoned that 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(d) expressly authorizes disclosures to health-oversight agencies for fraud investigations and that the regulation's commentary treats such inquiries as distinct from ordinary judicial-proceeding limits under § 164.512(e).

criminal lawhealthcareprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant Yochanan Cohen, who was charged with engaging in sexual contact without permission on a flight from Salt Lake City to New York under 18 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Cohen moved to suppress statements made to Port Authority police officers before and after his arrest, arguing they resulted from unlawful custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings. The court granted suppression of his initial unwarned statements made during questioning in the jetway, as they were obtained while he was in custody and subjected to interrogation, but denied suppression of statements made after Miranda warnings were administered, concluding the warnings were effective. The court also denied suppression of later spontaneous statements made to an FBI agent during transport, finding they were not elicited by questioning.

criminal lawprocedure

In Pollock v. Trustmark Insurance, the plaintiff sued the defendant insurance company in state court for breach of contract and violation of New York General Business Law §349 after the company stopped paying disability benefits under the policy. The defendant removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds, claiming the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 based on ongoing benefits and other damages. The court determined that the amount in controversy at the time of removal was only about $55,000 in accrued benefits, plus at most $1,000 under the statute and reasonable attorney's fees that could not bridge the gap to $75,000. Because the jurisdictional threshold was not met, the court remanded the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

business & regulatoryprocedurehealthcare

In Nasser v. CSX Lines, LLC, seaman Fadel Nasser sued his employer under the Jones Act and general maritime law for a back injury sustained on December 31, 1998, during unmooring operations aboard the OOCL Innovation when a tangled line was heaved without orders, throwing him into the air. After a bench trial, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, determining that the plaintiff’s foot was clear of the line at the time it was heaved and that medical histories showed some inconsistencies with his trial testimony. The court’s reasoning centered on crediting the second mate’s deposition testimony, comparing it against the plaintiff’s account and medical records, and evaluating overall witness credibility to establish the sequence of events and extent of injury.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Vincent Sinagra, an experienced longshore worker employed by stevedore Howland Hook Marine Terminal, who was injured while unloading cargo from the vessel MW Atlantic Ocean owned by defendant Atlantic Ocean Shipping Limited. Sinagra sued the ship owner for negligence under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act after his hand was crushed by a lowering container as he attempted to remove an attached stacking shoe, claiming the ship's crew failed to properly manage the unloading process. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that the ship owner owed no duty to the plaintiff and did not cause the injury. The core reasoning was that the stevedore controlled the cargo discharge operations, the stacking shoe issue was a common hazard routinely handled by dock workers, and any negligence was attributable solely to the stevedore rather than the vessel.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

The case involves plaintiff John Moore seeking to enforce rights to disability benefits under ERISA-governed employee insurance plans administered by defendants CIGNA after an alleged taxi accident. The court, after a bench trial on written submissions, entered judgment for the defendants on all claims. The core reasoning was that Moore's back problems were pre-existing conditions not caused by the accident, based on medical records, history of prior issues, and factors like being overweight and a heavy smoker.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case arose from a 1993 car accident in Queens between plaintiff Bolivar Yanez and off-duty NYPD Officer Richard Thompson, after which Yanez was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated but later acquitted at trial. Yanez sued the City of New York and individual officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and related claims, plus parallel state-law tort claims and a claim for no-fault insurance benefits. The court dismissed all claims against the NYPD itself, as the plaintiff conceded it was not a proper party. On the remaining claims, the court denied summary judgment because material factual disputes existed regarding the circumstances of the accident, whether Yanez showed signs of intoxication, whether field sobriety tests were administered, and whether probable cause supported the arrest. The opinion emphasized conflicting witness accounts and noted that these credibility issues must be resolved by a jury rather than on a motion for summary judgment.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

In Galbut v. American Airlines, Inc., a frequent flyer sued the airline after disputes arose over his use of expired Gold AAdvantage upgrade stickers on flights between Miami and New York in December 1993, leading to conflicting instructions from agents, additional payments for upgrades, computer notations questioning the legitimacy of his status, and a confrontation at the gate where police were summoned but he was allowed to board. The plaintiff brought claims including breach of contract, false imprisonment, and related torts. The court granted the airline's motion for summary judgment, holding that certain claims were preempted by the Federal Aviation Act's provisions on airline services and that the remaining claims lacked genuine issues of material fact, as the airline's actions were reasonable under the circumstances and consistent with its policies.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

This case involves a class action by former New York Post employees over age 40 against NYP Holdings, Inc. and Rupert Murdoch alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and New York State Human Rights Law based on a post-acquisition reorganization that terminated all employees and disproportionately failed to rehire those age 40 and over. The court granted Murdoch's motion to dismiss all claims against him in his individual capacity under both statutes. The core reasoning was that Murdoch did not qualify as an "employer" under the ADEA or HRL absent proper pleading of representative capacity, alter ego status, or aiding-and-abetting liability, though the court granted leave to amend within 30 days to attempt such allegations.

labor & employmentcivil rights