Cathy Seibel

The case concerns a homeowner's disputes with a village zoning board and code enforcement officials over building permits, stop-work orders, and variance applications for alterations to her house, which she had expanded over time while operating a day care. After the board revoked her permits and certificate of occupancy, she successfully challenged part of that decision in state court under Article 78, then faced repeated denials of further permits and variances. She sued in federal court alleging First Amendment retaliation by the board and a code officer for her prior litigation and advocacy. On the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court analyzed the retaliation claims, finding triable issues of fact based on circumstantial evidence including procedural irregularities, disparate treatment of her applications compared to others, and a pattern of antagonism, while noting that other harm beyond speech chilling was alleged.

propertyfree speechcivil rightsprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Susan Schlenger sued her former employer IBM for alleged misrepresentations during hiring regarding variable pay and relocation benefits, and sued MetLife and Fidelity over the denial of disability benefits and related claims after she developed back pain and other medical issues while employed. The court granted MetLife's motion for summary judgment on the claims against it and on its counterclaim, granted Fidelity's motion for summary judgment on the claims against it, denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment and request for attorneys' fees, and granted IBM's motion to dismiss the claims against it under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) while granting leave to amend. These rulings rested on the absence of genuine disputes of material fact supporting the benefit claims, the plaintiff's actual notice of employment terms that contradicted her allegations, and the failure to adequately plead elements such as fraudulent intent or necessary accommodations for disability discrimination.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved plaintiffs Leland Eaves and his Florida company Cando, who joined the BETA Plan marketed by defendants Designs for Finance, Moritt Hock law firm, and Prusky Law as a legitimate multiple-employer welfare benefit plan allowing tax deductions for contributions under IRC Section 419A(f)(6). Plaintiffs claimed the defendants promoted it despite knowing it was an illegal tax shelter, failed to warn of 2003 IRS regulatory changes that recharacterized it as deferred compensation and eliminated deductibility, and caused them tax-related harm after they contributed $40,000 annually from 2001 to 2007. The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint asserting RICO, fraud, negligence, contract, and New York deceptive practices claims. Dismissal rested on statute of limitations bars for several claims, failure to adequately plead elements like reliance or consumer-oriented conduct, and lack of a New York transaction for the Section 349 claim.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Carroll v. City of Mount Vernon, a Caucasian firefighter employed since 1988 sued the city and its mayor under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause, alleging that his race was improperly considered when he was not promoted to lieutenant from the 2004 civil service list despite being eligible and interviewed. The plaintiff ranked high enough for two vacancies that arose in 2007, but the city delayed action after receiving objections from the Vulcan Society citing a prior consent decree, and the list expired before any decision was finalized; later vacancies were filled from a new list. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment and held that the defendants did not make a race-based promotion decision, as they merely considered the objections without reaching a final determination to deny the plaintiff based on race, distinguishing the facts from Ricci v. DeStefano and finding no violation of the consent decree or applicable law.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved a probationary police officer, Jason Jackler, who alleged that he was fired by the Middletown Police Department in retaliation for filing a report corroborating a civilian complaint of excessive force by a sergeant and for refusing orders from superiors, including Police Chief Byrne, to withdraw or alter the report with false information. Jackler brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation, conspiracy, and substantive due process violations. The court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed all claims. It reasoned that under Garcetti v. Ceballos, Jackler's statements were made pursuant to his official duties as a police officer and thus were not protected speech under the First Amendment, and that his refusal to make false statements did not give rise to a viable constitutional claim in this context.

free speechcivil rightscriminal law

Riverkeeper brought a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act against Mirant Lovett, alleging that the company violated its SPDES permit by repeatedly failing to deploy a required Gunderboom marine life exclusion system at its Hudson River power plant on time. Lovett moved to dismiss, contending that a 2004 consent order with the state DEC had modified the permit deadlines, that the state had diligently prosecuted the violations, and that the claims were moot due to the plant's shutdown, demolition, and Lovett's bankruptcy. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It held that the consent order did not validly alter the permit because it bypassed required public participation procedures, so the citizen suit was not barred, while noting that shutdown and related events could affect claims for injunctive relief but not necessarily civil penalties.

environmentprocedure

The case concerns state-law tort claims brought by Ann Grill and later her estate against Philip Morris USA for injuries and death from lung cancer allegedly caused by long-term smoking of Marlboro cigarettes, which she began using as a minor in the 1970s. After several claims were dismissed, the remaining causes of action were fraudulent concealment and negligent failure to warn outside advertising or promotion until February 1980, along with wrongful death and loss of consortium. The court addressed the defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment, analyzing whether federal law preempted the claims and whether Philip Morris owed a common-law duty to disclose information about health risks and addictiveness through non-advertising channels, citing precedents such as Altria Group v. Good and Adamo v. Brown & Williamson. The opinion discusses the standards for summary judgment and evaluates evidence regarding the company's knowledge and public statements.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a widow's state-law fraud claim against tobacco companies, alleging that her late husband was misled by marketing of Marlboro Lights cigarettes as safer than regular cigarettes, leading to his lung cancer and death. The court addressed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) to vacate or modify its prior 2007 summary judgment order dismissing the fraud claim, prompted by the intervening Supreme Court decision in Altria Group, Inc. v. Good. The opinion applies the standard for reconsideration based on a change in controlling law and examines whether genuine issues of material fact exist on the elements of reliance and causation. It concludes that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence, including the decedent's statements about switching to and continuing with Marlboro Lights due to the "lights" and "lowered tar and nicotine" descriptors on the packaging, to survive summary judgment on those elements.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case was a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of ITT Corporation against its directors for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and gross mismanagement arising from the company's 2007 guilty plea to federal felonies for unlicensed export of defense articles and related reporting violations, resulting in over $100 million in fines. Plaintiffs either made a demand on the board that went unaddressed or claimed demand futility under Rule 23.1, but after the court previously dismissed futility allegations with leave to amend, a Special Litigation Committee (SLC) of the board investigated the claims. The SLC, after a seven-month review involving interviews, document analysis, and a detailed report, recommended terminating the suit. The court granted the SLC's motion to terminate under Indiana Business Corporation Law, finding the committee members disinterested and the investigation conducted in good faith, as plaintiffs presented no evidence it was a pretext or sham. The directors' and company's dismissal motions were resolved accordingly.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Dipilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., a pro se plaintiff sued the defendant over its alleged failure to award her a franchise, raising claims including employment discrimination and violations of New York General Business Law provisions on franchises, fraud, and deceptive practices; she also sought to amend her complaint to add or revise several causes of action. The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to the defendants in part and denying it in part, while separately denying leave to amend certain claims. The district court adopted the report and recommendation in full after finding no timely or specific objections to it, triggering only clear-error review, and it affirmed the denial of amendment because the proposed additions failed to meet statutory requirements such as consumer-directed conduct for Section 349 claims, actual-franchisee standing for Sections 683 and 687, and particularized allegations of falsity and intent for common-law fraud. The court noted that representations of equal-opportunity status did not convert alleged discrimination in franchise decisions into fraud or deceptive business practices.

business & regulatorycivil rightsprocedurelabor & employment

This case is the latest in a series of actions brought by property owners in Lewisboro, New York, challenging the town's wetland and zoning regulations under Chapters 217 and 220 of the Town Code as unconstitutionally vague and alleging violations of due process and equal protection through selective enforcement, along with related claims under RICO, the Hobbs Act, and state law. The plaintiffs, including Peter Manbeck and others added from a consolidated prior action, named the town, various officials, boards, and neighboring private property owners as defendants, asserting harms arising from enforcement proceedings against their properties. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in part, granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, and dismissed all claims against every defendant. Dismissal rested on res judicata from the prior consolidated actions, lack of state action by private defendants, and failure to support the constitutional, conspiracy, and other claims with sufficient facts or legal basis.

civil rightspropertyenvironmentprocedure

The plaintiff, a former security officer at Entergy's nuclear plant, sued his employer under Title VII alleging same-sex sexual harassment by a coworker that created a hostile work environment, along with retaliation and constructive discharge after he reported the incidents. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case on any of the claims. The court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment and retaliation claims, finding triable issues regarding whether the harassment was sex-based and whether the employer's responses and subsequent actions were adequate or retaliatory, but granted summary judgment on the constructive discharge claim because the plaintiff's resignation was not shown to result from intolerable conditions. The decision was based on analysis of the evidence of the two reported incidents, the company's anti-harassment policies and investigations, and the timing of disciplinary actions relative to the plaintiff's complaints.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involves a nursing home, Andrus on Hudson, seeking to block implementation of a state commission recommendation that it cease operating as a nursing home or convert to an assisted living facility. The court granted the nursing home's motion for a preliminary injunction against the New York State Department of Health. The decision rested on a finding that the commission's process for developing the recommendation likely violated the nursing home's procedural due process rights, because the commission relied on reports containing material errors regarding the facility's occupancy and finances, and the nursing home lacked an adequate opportunity to correct those errors before the final recommendation was issued.

healthcareprocedurecivil rights

This case involved a class action lawsuit against PepsiCo alleging that the company misleadingly labeled Aquafina bottled water to suggest a mountain source when the water actually came from public tap supplies, in violation of state consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment principles, and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs' state-law claims were expressly preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act because the FDA's regulations for purified water do not require disclosure of the water's source and preempt any non-identical state requirements regarding labeling. The court further noted that the FDA had specifically considered and rejected concerns about graphics or imagery on purified water labels implying a natural source.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This consolidated stockholder derivative action was brought on behalf of ITT Corporation against its directors for breach of fiduciary duty and gross mismanagement, stemming from ITT's guilty plea to federal felonies for unlicensed export of defense articles like night-vision equipment and material omissions in required arms export reports, which resulted in over $100 million in fines and a deferred prosecution agreement. Plaintiffs alleged that demand on the board was either refused or futile due to directors' participation in or oversight failures regarding the misconduct. The court considered a motion for reconsideration of its prior ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1, applying the strict reconsideration standard and the Rales test for demand futility, which examines whether a majority of directors face a substantial likelihood of personal liability such that they could not exercise independent business judgment. The court concluded that the complaint lacked sufficiently particularized allegations as to most directors but granted plaintiffs leave to amend within thirty days to cure pleading and jurisdictional defects.

business & regulatoryprocedure