Kenneth M. Karas

The case involved debtor Francisco Procel's appeal from bankruptcy court orders that converted his Chapter 13 petition to a Chapter 7 liquidation and granted certain creditors in rem relief from the automatic stay. The district court vacated the conversion order in part and affirmed other aspects of the rulings in part before remanding the matter. The core reasoning addressed whether a debtor's preemptive motion to dismiss under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(b) could be overridden by a later motion to convert under § 1307(c), the debtor's multiple prior filings and nondisclosures, and the bankruptcy court's finding of a scheme to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors under § 362(d)(4).

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves parents of a student with emotional and educational difficulties seeking tuition reimbursement from the Scarsdale Union Free School District under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for a private placement from April 2008 through June 2009. An Impartial Hearing Officer and State Review Officer both found that the district had failed to provide a free appropriate public education and that the private placement was appropriate, but concluded that equitable factors barred reimbursement; the parents appealed that denial while the district cross-appealed the underlying findings. After reviewing the full administrative record of the student's history in public and alternative schools, evaluations, and IEP processes, the district court granted the parents' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, and denied the district's motion.

civil rightsfederal power

Plaintiffs Goel and Rainforest sued defendants Bunge and Ramachandran in New York state court, bringing claims for money had and received, unjust enrichment, tortious interference, fraud, and aiding and abetting fraud arising from an alleged scheme to divert funds related to a share subscription agreement for eSys. Defendant Ramachandran removed the action to federal court under 9 U.S.C. § 205, asserting that the claims related to a pending Singapore arbitration under the New York Convention. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand, finding that removal was improper because the defendants were not parties to the arbitration agreement and the claims were not sufficiently connected to the Convention to confer federal jurisdiction, while denying the request for attorneys' fees.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case concerned whether Travelers Indemnity Company was obligated under a commercial general liability insurance policy to defend and reimburse Bridge Metal Industries and its principals for defense costs in two underlying lawsuits brought by National Lighting Company. The suits alleged trade dress infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, breach of contract, and related claims arising from Bridge Metal's alleged use of confidential information to produce and market competing lighting fixtures. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied defendant's, holding that the policy's advertising injury coverage was triggered because the underlying complaints alleged potential liability for injuries caused by the insured's advertising activities. The court further reasoned that exclusions for intentional acts and breach of contract did not eliminate the duty to defend, as some claims could be established without proving intent and the complaints included multiple non-contract causes of action.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves parents seeking reimbursement from a school district under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for unilaterally placing their learning-disabled child at a private school for the 2007-08 year after disagreeing with the proposed individualized education program (IEP). The State Review Officer (SRO) found that the IEP failed to provide a free appropriate public education but denied reimbursement because the parents did not prove the private placement was appropriate, citing vague progress reports, overly broad grading, and inconsistent evidence of the child's progress. The district court granted summary judgment to the school district, upholding the SRO's determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish the private school's suitability. The core reasoning focused on the lack of detailed, measurable data in the reports regarding the child's specific deficits, curriculum, and skill acquisition, making meaningful assessment of progress impossible.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

In this case, counterclaimant SAS alleged that Versatile breached the forum selection clause in their 2006 Worldwide Distribution & Royalty Agreement by filing the underlying trademark, copyright, and contract claims in Wisconsin federal court rather than New York. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the breach claim. The court granted SAS summary judgment on its request for damages other than attorneys' fees, but denied it as to fees; it granted Versatile's motion only insofar as it sought to preclude recovery of attorneys' fees as damages. The core reasoning was that New York law permits recovery of foreseeable damages for breach of a forum selection clause but does not treat attorneys' fees incurred in the improper forum as recoverable contract damages absent an independent basis such as statute or the agreement itself.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a pro se plaintiff suing the Yonkers Courthouse, its staff, and several state court judges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the ADA, alleging violations of her First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights arising from state family court protective orders, a criminal contempt conviction, a courthouse access restriction, and related proceedings in a family property dispute. The plaintiff sought to vacate the state court orders and conviction, remove pending state cases to federal court, and bar the state Attorney General from representing the judges. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). The core reasoning was that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred federal jurisdiction over challenges to state court judgments, the judges were entitled to judicial immunity, and the complaint otherwise failed to state a claim.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case involved parents of a high school student with spinal muscular atrophy suing their school district under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging repeated failures to implement the student's IEPs and disability-based discrimination across multiple school years. The district moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the court granted in part and denied in part. The decision focused on whether certain claims were time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations, whether minority tolling applied to extend filing deadlines, and whether the plaintiffs had exhausted required administrative remedies before filing suit.

civil rightsprocedure

In Grimes v. Fremont General Corp., African-American plaintiffs sued multiple mortgage lenders, brokers, and related entities alleging that they were induced into a predatory adjustable-rate mortgage through falsified loan applications, misrepresentations, and discriminatory practices, asserting violations of federal statutes including TILA, HOEPA, RESPA, FHA, ECOA, the Civil Rights Act, and RICO, along with numerous state-law claims. The Moving Defendants filed motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motions in part, dismissing most claims for failure to adequately plead required elements such as discriminatory intent, predicate acts for RICO, or timeliness, while allowing limited amendment for certain civil rights claims to add specific allegations of racial animus and dismissing others with prejudice.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case is a neighborhood zoning dispute in which plaintiff Anthony Missere, owner of the Riverbank Restaurant in Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York, sued the village, its zoning officials, and competing neighboring property owners after his applications to expand the restaurant were blocked. Missere alleged that the defendants conspired through improper zoning interpretations, an erroneous official map, and an untimely appeal to deprive him of property rights in violation of federal constitutional protections. The district court granted the separate motions to dismiss filed by the village defendants and the private neighbors, holding that the complaint failed to plead viable federal claims such as substantive due process or equal protection violations and that private parties were not shown to have acted under color of state law.

civil rightspropertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Plaintiffs Robert and Rita Schubert sued the City of Rye and various officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations plus intentional infliction of emotional distress, stemming from the city's handling of a neighbor's drainage work that allegedly destroyed the plaintiffs' permitted wetland garden and from the city's response to the plaintiffs' complaints about the lack of permitting. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the motions in full, holding that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a protected property interest, a First Amendment retaliation claim, a due process violation, or the elements of emotional distress. The opinion reasoned that the city engineer's permitting decisions involved discretion that did not create an entitlement, the complaints did not trigger actionable retaliation, and the psychiatric referral was not conscience-shocking conduct.

civil rightspropertyfree speechenvironment

In Locantore v. Hunt, the plaintiff alleged that after pleading guilty to rape and completing a five-year prison term under a plea agreement that did not include post-release supervision, New York state correctional and parole officials administratively imposed a five-year period of PRS without a hearing or counsel, leading to his re-incarceration for a violation; he later obtained state court relief vacating the PRS and sued the officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, plus state constitutional and negligence claims, for violations of due process, jury trial, and right-to-counsel rights. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims. The core reasoning was that the federal claims were either untimely or barred by qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of administratively imposing PRS was not clearly established until the Second Circuit's 2006 decision in Earley v. Murray and subsequent state rulings, and the state-law claims failed for similar or jurisdictional reasons such as lack of a private right of action or sovereign immunity.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiff A. Michael Kagan suing Unum Provident under ERISA for wrongful denial of long-term disability benefits after quadruple bypass surgery and related heart conditions in 1998. Kagan had received initial benefits but Unum terminated them in 2002 following medical reviews and a vocational analysis concluding he could perform sedentary gainful occupations consistent with his training and experience. The court denied Kagan's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment for Unum after a bench trial on the administrative record, finding the denial was not arbitrary and capricious because Unum reasonably weighed conflicting medical evidence, considered the plan's definition of disability after 24 months, and properly evaluated Kagan's capacity despite his incarceration and other factors.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case involved claims by Michael Dayton, Barbara Nieves, and their five children against the City of Middletown, its police officers, Orange County, and its Department of Social Services, alleging violations of Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with state law claims. The claims arose from a November 2008 incident in which police allegedly mishandled a carjacking and stabbing by striking Dayton, and from subsequent family court proceedings that temporarily removed the children from the parents' custody based on neglect findings. The court granted motions to dismiss by Orange County and DSS in full, granted Middletown's motion to dismiss in part, and denied summary judgment to the Middletown Officers, primarily on grounds including failure to state claims, statute of limitations, and inadequate notice of claim under New York law.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

The case involved American Automobile Insurance Company, as subrogee for its insured restaurant, suing Rest Assured Alarm System for negligence and breach of contract after a fire caused over $1.5 million in damages that the alarm system allegedly failed to detect. AAIC claimed Rest Assured had negligently installed, inspected, monitored, and repaired the system under their agreements. The court granted Rest Assured's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, holding that the contract's exculpatory clauses and limitation of liability provisions (capping damages at six times the monthly payment or $100) were enforceable and barred both the tort and contract claims under New York law. The court rejected arguments that extrinsic evidence or public policy concerns could override the unambiguous contractual terms limiting Rest Assured's responsibility for fire losses.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Smith v. Westchester County, a former correction officer sued the county, its Department of Correction, and various officials, alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The claims centered on the denial of intermittent FMLA leave to care for his ill mother, improper recording of absences, attendance reviews leading to disciplinary actions, and his eventual termination in 2009. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the suit was untimely, failed to state an FMLA claim, and that individual defendants were not properly served. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, addressing issues including the statute of limitations, sufficiency of pleadings for FMLA interference and retaliation claims, and service requirements.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In United States v. Santana, multiple defendants charged in a 2009 indictment with conspiracy to distribute crack and powder cocaine moved to have the reduced mandatory minimum sentences under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 applied to their cases, even though their alleged offenses occurred before the Act's August 2010 enactment. The court denied the motions. The core reasoning was that the FSA's changes to the 100-to-1 crack-to-powder ratio in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) do not apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct for defendants who had not yet been sentenced, as supported by the statutory text, legislative history, and precedents on the non-retroactivity of sentencing reductions absent explicit congressional direction.

criminal law

In this case, plaintiff George Nicholls, a 59-year-old senior process engineer, sued his former employer Philips Semiconductor Manufacturing and related entities under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, alleging that negative performance reviews, an Individual Development Plan, and a company-wide reduction in force were motivated by his age and led to his departure. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court reasoned that Nicholls had not suffered an adverse employment action because he voluntarily accepted a voluntary reduction in force package, that his performance evaluations documented legitimate concerns about his collaborative style, and that statistical and circumstantial evidence failed to raise a triable issue of pretext or discriminatory intent. The opinion emphasized that the ranking process and restructuring were driven by business needs to reduce overstaffing, with no proof that age played a role in the decisions affecting him.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In United States v. Chow, the defendant pleaded guilty to receiving and possessing child pornography in violation of federal statutes, after which the government sought restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259 on behalf of two victims depicted in images found on his devices, for counseling, lost income, and related expenses totaling over $3 million and $2,800 respectively. The court denied the restitution requests. The decision rested on the requirement that the government prove proximate causation between the defendant's conduct and the victims' specific losses; the court found this unmet because the documented harms arose from the original production of the images and the actions of innumerable other viewers and distributors, which could not be attributed specifically to the defendant's possession alone.

criminal law

The case involved plaintiff Antonietta Salvo's long-running challenge to the Commissioner of Social Security's repeated denials of her 1991 application for disability insurance benefits, which included multiple administrative hearings and sentence-six remands by the district court. After further proceedings, an ALJ ultimately issued a fully favorable decision in 2007 finding Salvo disabled due to conditions including chronic fatigue syndrome and awarding her retroactive benefits. The court addressed pending motions for entry of judgment in the plaintiff's favor as well as for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. § 2412) and the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 406(b)). The court granted the motions, finding that fees were recoverable for work at both the judicial and administrative levels following a sentence-six remand, that the requested amounts were reasonable based on documented hours and applicable rates, and that counsel must refund the smaller of the two fee awards to the client.

federal powerlabor & employment