Victor Marrero

In Melo v. United States, petitioner Manuel Melo filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 130-month sentence after convictions for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, and aiding and abetting firearm possession in furtherance of the robbery attempt, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to communicate a plea offer, objecting to certain jury instructions on aiding and abetting and interstate commerce elements. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the petition in full. Applying the two-part Strickland test, the court found that Melo failed to demonstrate either that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that any alleged deficiencies caused prejudice to the outcome of the trial or sentencing. The court also addressed procedural matters, such as the waiver of attorney-client privilege when raising ineffectiveness claims and the timeliness of certain arguments.

criminal lawprocedureguns

The case involved a dispute over insurance coverage under a Builder’s Risk policy issued by Continental Casualty to 1765 First Associates for a Manhattan construction project. After a tower crane collapsed on the site in 2008, Continental paid for certain direct damages and cleanup but refused to cover costs from resulting construction delays, citing the policy’s Faulty Workmanship Exclusion. First Associates sought a declaratory judgment that the exclusion did not apply to these delay losses. The court granted the request, holding that under New York law the exclusion covers only defects in the quality of the insured property itself and does not reach losses from equipment accidents during construction; a later motion for reconsideration was denied on the ground that the issue was one of pure contract interpretation.

business & regulatoryproperty

Universe Antiques sued William Vareika and his gallery for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and related claims arising from an unpaid balance of $560,000 on a consigned painting that the gallery sold to a buyer who later defaulted. The defendants counterclaimed for fraud in the inducement, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment based on a separate transaction in which Universe sold them a stained glass window that it had represented as an authentic 1896 Tiffany Studios piece but that evidence showed was actually created around 1904 by another artist. After a bench trial, the court found Universe liable for fraud by clear and convincing evidence and awarded the Vareika parties damages of $1,227,122, while holding the Vareika parties liable for the $560,000 contract balance on the painting; the net result was a judgment in favor of the Vareika parties. The decision rested on historical documents, expert testimony, and other evidence establishing the window's true origin and the misrepresentations made during its sale, along with stipulations regarding the painting consignment and payments.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case involved plaintiffs Hounddog Productions and The Motion Picture Group suing defendant Empire Film Group for breach of a 2008 distribution agreement for the film Hounddog and for willful copyright infringement after the agreement's termination. The court had previously entered a default judgment against Empire and denied its motion to vacate, then referred the matter for an inquest on damages. The magistrate judge recommended awarding $400,000 in compensatory damages plus interest for the contract claim, $150,000 in statutory damages for copyright infringement, declaratory relief terminating the agreement, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. The district court adopted the report in full, finding no clear error in its findings or recommendations after Empire filed no objections. The ruling was based on the defendant's default and the evidence supporting the damages calculations under contract and copyright law.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involves a Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) negligence claim by plaintiff Perry Pitter against Metro-North Commuter Railroad for an eye injury sustained while working as a trainee signalman, where the parties disputed the admissibility of evidence concerning Pitter’s employment progress and the withdrawal of his job application after the injury. The court ruled on the defendant’s motion in limine by denying six of seven requests to exclude witness testimony, deposition transcripts, wage and benefits documents, and party admissions, while granting exclusion of the plaintiff’s Notice to Admit as cumulative. The core reasoning was that FELA’s relaxed causation standard permits recovery for consequential economic damages, such as lost wages from discharge, if employer negligence played any part in causing the injury, making related evidence relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

Plaintiff Aubrey Chisholm sued his former employer Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and supervisors for unlawful retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, claiming he was fired after workplace complaints. Following a jury verdict awarding him back pay of $233,290.32, front pay, and $1 million in punitive damages against one supervisor, the court addressed post-trial motions on the remaining damages issues. The court awarded front pay of $102,545.62 plus interest, reasoning that evidence of workplace friction and management changes made it unlikely Chisholm would have remained employed until retirement age. It granted a new trial on punitive damages unless Chisholm accepted remittitur to $50,000, finding the original award excessive. The court also awarded pre-judgment interest on the back pay award, following standard practice for such compensation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved federal criminal charges against defendants including CDR and its executives for allegedly conspiring to rig bids, fix prices, and manipulate the market for municipal derivatives, in violation of antitrust and fraud statutes. The defendants moved under Brady v. Maryland for an order requiring the government to identify and produce in categorized batches already-disclosed materials related to non-featured transactions that they claimed could be exculpatory or useful for impeachment. The court denied the motion, holding that Brady requires disclosure of favorable evidence but imposes no duty on the government to sort, organize, or reformat voluminous discovery materials in the manner requested by the defense. The court noted that the materials were already provided in searchable formats and that defendants' counsel were capable of conducting their own review.

criminal lawprocedure

Plaintiffs, associated with musical groups like The Sugar Hill Gang, sued record companies for rescission of recording agreements and related damages after defendants allegedly exploited their musical recordings. The case reached this court on remand after the Second Circuit vacated a default judgment, prompting defendants to seek summary judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that its prior rulings finding plaintiffs failed to establish grounds for damages remained the law of the case because they were challenged on appeal but not addressed by the appellate court. It also rejected plaintiffs' arguments for pursuing rescission or alternative compensatory damages on remand, noting procedural failures such as not raising claims before the magistrate or trial court. The opinion concludes by directing the clerk to close the case.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiff William Kregler, a retired FDNY Fire Marshal, sued the City of New York and several FDNY and DOI employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his application to become a City Marshal was denied in retaliation for his public endorsement of a political candidate for District Attorney, in violation of his First Amendment rights. The defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, and after converting the motions and considering additional evidence and briefing, the court granted the motion as to defendants Naberezny, Hearn, Schwam, Keenaghan, and Grogan. The court dismissed the claims against Naberezny as time-barred because she was added as a defendant after the statute of limitations had expired and there was no basis for relation back. As to the other individual defendants, the court found no genuine issue of material fact supporting their personal involvement in any retaliatory decision or agreement, as they were not decision-makers and the evidence did not show the required conspiracy or direct participation.

civil rightsfree speechprocedure

In Carrasco v. United States, petitioner Victor Manuel Adan Carrasco filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 264-month sentence for conspiracies to import and distribute cocaine, arguing that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by misrepresenting jurisdictional elements of the charges based on conduct in Belize, failing to investigate lack of U.S.-based conduct for one count, and not challenging a two-level sentencing enhancement for firearm possession that occurred abroad. The court denied the motion, finding that counsel's performance was not deficient under the standards of Strickland v. Washington because existing Second Circuit precedent supported extraterritorial application of the Sentencing Guidelines enhancements and the charges, and that Carrasco failed to show prejudice from the alleged errors, including after remand in light of United States v. Booker. The decision rested on the conclusion that arguments relying on cases like Small v. United States were inapposite and that the sentencing court had properly applied the guidelines both pre- and post-Booker.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves claims by Norwegian municipalities against Citigroup and related entities for fraud and negligent misrepresentation arising from investments marketed through Terra Securities. The court previously dismissed similar claims by sophisticated investors but allowed the municipalities' claims to proceed, distinguishing them as unsophisticated. Defendants sought reconsideration based on a later decision dismissing claims by other sophisticated plaintiffs, arguing that the agent's actions should be imputed regardless. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the prior decisions hinged on the plaintiffs' sophistication, which differs here, and the contractual relationships reflect that distinction.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a pretrial dispute in a civil action over the sale of an alleged 1896 Tiffany Studios stained glass window, in which the plaintiffs planned to introduce a large physical copy of the window as an exhibit. The defendants moved to exclude the roughly 8' x 8', 500-pound exhibit under Federal Rules of Evidence 901, 401/402, and 403, arguing it was irrelevant and risked confusing the issues. The court granted the motion, finding the exhibit had minimal probative value on the question of the seller's knowledge of the window's provenance and that any value was substantially outweighed by practical burdens on judicial resources, while noting that less cumbersome alternatives such as photographs could serve the same purpose.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

Abbas Corporation sued Michael Aziz Oriental Rugs for payment on four invoices totaling $438,517.92 for carpets shipped on credit, asserting claims for an account stated, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. MAOR countered that the shipments were part of an alleged joint venture and asserted counterclaims for breach of that agreement plus prima facie tort and tortious interference, seeking $5 million in damages. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Abbas on the account stated claim plus statutory interest, finding the invoices accurate and undisputed, while dismissing all counterclaims. The court reasoned that MAOR failed to prove the existence of a joint venture by a preponderance of the evidence, as no essential terms such as profit and loss sharing or management control were established, and the tort claims lacked evidence of sole intent to harm rather than legitimate business motives.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved claims by Norwegian pension and investment entities Akershus and Langen against Citigroup for common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation, alleging that Citigroup provided misleading marketing materials about fund-linked notes tied to a municipal bond fund, including false claims about risk, active management, and interest rate correlations. The action was consolidated with two prior similar suits against Citigroup, which had already been partially dismissed. The court granted Citigroup's motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs were sophisticated investors who could not establish reasonable reliance on the alleged misrepresentations, rendering further amendment futile.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Callen v. Callen, plaintiffs Tara and Justin Callen sued defendant Robinson Callen in New York state court over alleged mismanagement of assets in an irrevocable trust governed by Florida law. Defendant removed the case to federal court in the Southern District of New York based on diversity jurisdiction, prompting plaintiffs to move to remand on grounds that removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The court denied the motion to remand, ruling that the 30-day removal clock began only when plaintiffs' July 27, 2011 affidavits first disclosed facts establishing complete diversity, making the August 26 removal timely. The court then granted defendant's motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of Georgia under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), finding that the trust's records, administrative offices, witnesses, and key events were all located in Savannah, Georgia.

procedureproperty

This case involves a dispute between Waverly Properties, LLC, which purchased three luxury condominium units, and KMG Waverly, LLC along with related defendants, over alleged construction defects in the units. Waverly asserted nine causes of action under New York law, including multiple counts of breach of contract, negligence, fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, gross negligence, and a violation of Section 349 of the New York General Business Law. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and adopted it in full, denying summary judgment on the first eight common-law claims while granting it on the ninth claim alleging consumer fraud. The court directed the parties to proceed to a final pretrial conference.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a breach of contract claim by CIT against Graco and related defendants under a loan and security agreement, in which Graco sought to offset amounts owed with alleged lost profits from failed acquisitions and other dealings. The court addressed motions in limine to exclude proposed expert testimony from Patrick Kilbourne on lost profits calculations and from Donald Parker on industry customs and practices. Applying Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards, the court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, excluding testimony based on unverified client assumptions, ultimate legal conclusions such as material breach or bad faith, or witness credibility assessments, while permitting other portions that rested on reliable methodology and did not usurp the fact-finder's role. The decision focused on ensuring expert evidence assists the trier of fact without crossing into speculation or improper opinions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Jermaine Nibbs's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of a fair trial, false arrest, and malicious prosecution stemming from his 2009 arrest in the Bronx on narcotics possession and sale charges. The opinion addresses two motions in limine filed before the scheduled trial, with the plaintiff seeking to exclude evidence of his criminal history, marijuana use, child support matters, and certain witness testimony, while the defendants sought to limit inquiry into their disciplinary records, personnel files, prior lawsuits, and other matters. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, applying Federal Rules of Evidence such as 402, 403, 404(b), 608, and 609 to assess relevance, probative value versus unfair prejudice, and admissibility for impeachment. Core reasoning focused on excluding evidence that would suggest propensity or cause undue delay while permitting limited use of prior convictions and aliases to test credibility where the probative value outweighed prejudice. The rulings also addressed disclosure requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves a maritime dispute between plaintiff Milestone Shipping and defendants Estech Trading and AES over alleged breaches of a charter party agreement for shipping iron ore and a related escrow agreement, with the core issue being entitlement to $500,000 in attached funds held by a law firm. The court denied Milestone's motion for summary judgment on its claims to the funds and granted AES's cross-motion in part. The reasoning focused on the terms of the multiple overlapping contracts, including financing notes and a trust letter, which showed that AES never directed its funds into escrow, that Milestone lacked standing to enforce certain agreements, and that no joint venture or agency relationship existed between AES and Estech.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Plaintiff Lincoln Payne sued defendants Jumeirah Hospitality & Leisure and related entities, along with the Atkins Group, for personal injuries allegedly sustained on an aquatic ride at an amusement park in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The case had previously been dismissed by New York state courts on forum non conveniens grounds. The federal district court dismissed the action on the same basis, finding that the injury and most evidence, witnesses, and documents were located in Dubai or Great Britain, Payne was not a resident of the district, and the filing shortly after the state court dismissal indicated forum shopping. The court determined that Dubai or Great Britain were adequate alternative forums and that the balance of public and private interest factors favored dismissal, conditioned on defendants consenting to jurisdiction and service of process in those locations.

proceduretorts & liability