Gary L. Sharpe

Plaintiff Kathleen Unangst sued defendant Evans Law Associates under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, alleging repeated calls, threats to garnish wages, and failure to identify as a debt collector. Evans answered and filed a counterclaim seeking payment of the underlying debt. The court granted Unangst’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ruling that the FDCPA claim and the debt counterclaim lacked a sufficient factual relationship to form the same case or controversy under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as proving deceptive collection practices does not require establishing the validity or amount of the debt.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Clark v. Dominique, pro se plaintiff Donna Clark, a state employee with alleged disabilities, sued numerous New York state agencies, officials, and a union under Title VII, the ADA, ADEA, FMLA, and constitutional provisions, alleging discrimination, harassment, retaliation for taking FMLA leave, improper medical examinations, and an emergency lockout from her job. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all claims, denied Clark's motions to strike and amend the complaint, and dismissed the action in full. The core reasoning was that many claims were barred by sovereign immunity, failed to state a plausible claim, duplicated issues in a prior pending case, or were asserted against improper parties, while the proposed amendments would be futile.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In United States v. Burnett, the defendant faced indictment for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams of methamphetamine and filed multiple pretrial motions seeking suppression of evidence, discovery materials, and other relief. The court denied these motions because they failed to comply with the Criminal Pretrial Order and Local Rules of Criminal Procedure, which require specific identification of relief sought, factual and legal bases, and certification of good faith efforts to resolve issues without court intervention. For the suppression motion, the court scheduled a hearing limited to the constitutionality of a warrantless vehicle stop, allowing the defendant to expand issues by submitting proper affidavits or agreements. The reasoning emphasized that without compliance, such as providing personal knowledge affidavits or certifications, the motions could not be properly considered, and waivers of rights might occur.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, pro se inmate Shaquan Jordan sued several prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming excessive force, failure to intervene, and deliberate indifference to medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment arising from an alleged assault at Clinton Correctional Facility. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full. It dismissed the claims against supervisory defendants Fischer, Artus, and Racette because Jordan failed to allege their personal involvement in the incident or any conspiracy. It also dismissed the deliberate indifference claim against defendant Harriman, finding that the alleged injury was not sufficiently serious under either the objective or subjective prongs of the standard and that disagreement with treatment does not constitute a constitutional violation. However, the court denied summary judgment on the excessive force claim against defendant Stoughton, leaving factual and credibility disputes for trial.

civil rightscriminal law

In United States v. Nevsky, the defendant was convicted of conspiring to traffic marijuana as part of a larger organization that smuggled the drug from Canada into the United States for distribution. Following his conviction, Nevsky moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, claiming that the court's jury instructions and verdict form constructively amended the indictment in violation of his Fifth Amendment due process rights and that the government violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to timely disclose a rental car document. The court denied the motion, holding that the instructions and verdict form did not alter the essential elements of the charged conspiracy and that the late-disclosed document did not constitute material Brady evidence because earlier disclosure would not have changed the trial outcome. The court reasoned that the trial evidence overwhelmingly supported the jury's finding of Nevsky's participation in the conspiracy, as he had conceded the conspiracy's existence and his presence but failed to show any prejudice from the alleged errors.

criminal lawprocedure

In Sebast v. Mahan, plaintiff Sherree Sebast, a clerk in the Albany County Sheriff's Department, sued the county and several officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that her former romantic partner and supervisor John Mahan harassed, stalked, and retaliated against her after their relationship ended, including by accessing her communications, making threats involving compromising photos, and physically injuring her finger during a workplace confrontation; she further alleged that Sheriff James Campbell failed to adequately address her complaints. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on Sebast's due process property claims and negligence claim, dismissing them, but denied summary judgment on her freedom of speech and retaliation claim, allowing that claim to proceed to trial. The core reasoning was that the record could support a finding of a continuing violation, preventing dismissal on statute of limitations grounds for the timely retaliation allegations, while the other claims lacked sufficient legal or factual basis.

civil rightsfree speechlabor & employment

In this employment discrimination case, plaintiff Huda Saaidi sued her employer EDIFI and supervisor John Braat under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and local Albany code provisions, alleging she faced sexual harassment creating a hostile work environment and retaliation after complaining about advances by coworkers. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the action entirely but granted summary judgment in part, dismissing the Albany code claims, all Title VII claims against Braat individually, and the hostile work environment claims under Title VII due to insufficient evidence of a severe or pervasive environment and failure to meet timeliness requirements. It denied summary judgment on the retaliation claims under Title VII and the NYSHRL claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether adverse actions like reduced work assignments were retaliatory and whether the employer's investigation and response were reasonable enough to support an affirmative defense. The core reasoning centered on the distinction between isolated incidents insufficient for a hostile environment claim versus evidence of potential retaliation tied to protected complaints, along with procedural bars on certain untimely or non-covered claims.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves plaintiff Candy Pellegrini, a front desk clerk at a hotel operated by defendant Sovereign Hotels, who sued her employer and several managers under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law for gender discrimination based on alleged sexual harassment by a male coworker and for unlawful retaliation. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the severity and pervasiveness of the harassment, whether the employer adequately responded to the plaintiff's complaints, and the credibility of the employer's stated reasons for its actions toward the plaintiff. These factual disputes, including conflicting accounts of incidents and the adequacy of the employer's policies and investigations, precluded summary judgment on key claims and required resolution by a factfinder.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Angela LaVigna sued State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, alleging that her termination after taking medical leave for back surgery violated the New York State Human Rights Law's disability protections and ERISA rules governing employee benefits plans. The court addressed multiple pending motions, including LaVigna's appeal of a magistrate judge's order, cross-motions for summary judgment, and several procedural requests by the plaintiff. It denied the appeal and all of LaVigna's motions, while granting State Farm's summary judgment motion in part and denying it in part. The core analysis examined whether State Farm had adequate notice of LaVigna's disability, properly participated in the interactive process to identify reasonable accommodations such as workstation adjustments, and fulfilled its ERISA disclosure obligations as plan administrator.

labor & employmentcivil rights

JTH Tax, Inc., operator of Liberty Tax Service, sued former employee Mitra Gouneh and her new company Uncle Sam's Taxes, Inc., alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and New York law, along with related claims including misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of an employment agreement, based on the defendants' use of similar Uncle Sam-style mascots, advertising, and customer information to operate competing tax preparation offices nearby. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the breach of employment agreement claim against UST and a breach of fiduciary duty claim against Gouneh, but denied dismissal of the remaining claims. It also denied the motions for summary judgment and for reconsideration of a prior temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The partial dismissal rested on the absence of a direct contractual relationship or fiduciary duty in the pleaded facts for those specific claims, while the surviving claims were found to sufficiently allege plausible causes of action, and summary judgment was deemed inappropriate due to disputed factual issues.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs Nansi Nelson, individually and as executrix of her late husband Barry Nelson’s estate, suing Ulster County defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for depriving the Nelsons of their real property without due process by foreclosing on the Widow Davis Tavern for unpaid taxes. The Nelsons also brought state-law claims against WVD 2906209, LLC and its members for conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, with cross-claims filed between the defendants for contribution or indemnification. The court denied the Nelsons’ and Ulster County defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment and granted WVD’s motion in part and denied it in part. The core reasoning centered on the existence of genuine issues of material fact concerning whether Ulster County provided constitutionally adequate notice of the foreclosure proceedings to the Nelsons and whether WVD could be held liable on the tort claims.

civil rightspropertytaxesprocedure

Plaintiff Dennis Ellis sued debt collector Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and New York General Business Law § 349, alleging that three collection letters sent in January 2009 were deceptive and misleading because their contents, sequence, and aggregate effect overshadowed his rights to validate the alleged $6,370.35 debt owed to Target National Bank. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The court denied the motion, concluding that the complaint plausibly alleged violations of FDCPA provisions prohibiting false or misleading representations and threats to take unintended legal action, as well as deceptive practices under state law, when the facts and reasonable inferences were accepted as true.

business & regulatory

The case involved Squires Motel, LLC's appeal from a bankruptcy court order dismissing its voluntary Chapter 11 petition under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b). The petition was filed after a related entity transferred foreclosed properties to Squires shortly before a scheduled foreclosure sale, which the bankruptcy court found was done in bad faith and without a realistic prospect of confirming a reorganization plan. On appeal to the district court, the appellee moved to dismiss because the properties had been sold at foreclosure without Squires obtaining a stay, rendering the appeal moot. The district court granted the motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, holding that no effective relief could be granted after the sale, and affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal order on the grounds that it was within the court's discretion given the uncontested facts showing bad faith and futility.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In United States v. Bruno, a high-profile federal corruption prosecution of former New York Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno, the Hearst Corporation sought to intervene and obtain disclosure of the identities, home addresses, and pretrial questionnaires of the twelve trial jurors, along with unredacted voir dire transcripts. The court granted intervention based on the public's constitutional right of access and ordered the court reporters to file unredacted voir dire transcripts on the public docket. It denied disclosure of juror names as moot because they had already been revealed during voir dire and denied release of home addresses and questionnaires, citing the jurors' privacy interests, explicit confidentiality assurances given to them, and the need to protect the integrity of the jury system from potential harassment or taint in a media-saturated case. The decision balanced the common-law and First Amendment presumptions of access against countervailing privacy concerns without resolving whether all jury materials qualify as judicial documents.

criminal lawfree speechprocedure

This case arose from a 2005 tractor-trailer collision on Interstate 87 in which Cornelius Mahar struck a vehicle driven by Gloria Morgan that had stopped in the right lane due to an engine issue amid foggy conditions, resulting in serious injuries to Mahar. The Mahars sued Morgan and several U.S. Xpress entities for negligence, vicarious liability, and negligent hiring, training, and supervision, prompting counterclaims and third-party complaints against Polsinello Fuels. The court ruled on numerous summary judgment motions by granting dismissal of certain defendants and claims (such as New York cleanup costs, negligent hiring against Polsinello, and claims against non-operating U.S. Xpress entities), denying others (including negligence and vicarious liability claims against Morgan and U.S. Xpress, and a challenge to service of process), allowing the Mahars to amend their complaint to add punitive damages, and denying sanctions. These outcomes turned on the existence of genuine factual disputes about driver conduct, visibility, employment relationships, and compliance with procedural rules, which the court determined must be resolved at trial rather than on summary judgment.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involves parents and guardians of New York students with severe behavioral disorders attending the Judge Rotenburg Educational Center, who alleged that New York State Education Department regulations restricting aversive interventions (such as electric shocks, restraints, and contingent food programs) arbitrarily denied their children a free appropriate public education under the IDEA. The plaintiffs challenged the emergency and finalized regulations as violating statutory and constitutional rights after the state conducted reviews and adopted limits following public comment. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, while denying the motion to dissolve the existing preliminary injunction. Core reasoning focused on the regulations' adoption process after research and hearings, the lack of individualized pre-adoption review being non-fatal for rulemaking, and the need to preserve the injunction pending further IDEA compliance analysis.

civil rightsfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involved claims by two female seasonal employees at a New York state park and their union against the state agency under Title VII, alleging gender discrimination through job reassignments favoring male workers and retaliation after one employee filed an internal complaint about a hostile work environment and misogyny. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. It granted the defendant's cross-motion only to the extent of dismissing the union from the case, finding that the union lacked standing because the issues were fact-intensive and specific to the individual employees rather than presenting a purely legal question, but denied summary judgment as to the individual employees' claims. The core reasoning centered on the employees having raised triable issues of fact regarding adverse actions and retaliation that could not be resolved on the existing record.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

Schenectady Industrial Corp. sued Upstate Textiles and Safer Equipment for compensation for their use and occupation of its industrial buildings in Schenectady, New York, under New York Real Property Law and common law, plus costs to remove hazardous and petroleum substances under CERCLA and New York Navigation Law, after the defendants acquired equipment and a leasehold interest through foreclosure sales from prior tenants. The district court denied SIC’s motion for summary judgment, granted Upstate and Safer’s cross-motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, and denied all parties’ sanctions motions. The court found genuine issues of material fact on the reasonable value of use and occupancy and on liability for cleanup, while determining that some claims lacked sufficient support or were barred as a matter of law; it also held that expert testimony on rental value was not properly presented and that sanctions were unwarranted. The core reasoning rested on the standards for summary judgment under Rule 56, evaluating evidence of occupancy periods, asset transfers, and environmental conditions at the site.

propertyenvironmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved six defendants indicted for participating in a cocaine trafficking conspiracy who, along with others, filed pretrial motions seeking to suppress conversations intercepted via state-authorized wiretaps on multiple cellular phones and physical evidence from related searches, as well as other relief such as dismissal of the indictment or permission to file additional motions. The court granted in part the requests by some defendants to join the motions of others but denied all remaining motions. The core reasoning was that the wiretap applications established probable cause, there were no violations of statutory requirements for minimization, sealing, or necessity, certain defendants lacked standing to challenge specific warrants, and the government had fully complied with its discovery obligations under the pretrial order.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Want Ad Digest suing Display Advertising and Edward Spain for copyright infringement after the defendants created a competing publication, the Classified Advertiser, that copied many classified ads from Want Ad's publication and website. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the claim of infringement of the compilation copyright, finding that the arrangement and organization of the ads in the two publications differed significantly. However, the court denied summary judgment on the claims regarding individual advertisements, allowing those to proceed. The reasoning centered on the lack of substantial similarity in the overall selection and arrangement of the ads for the compilation aspect, while noting evidence of direct copying of specific ads.

business & regulatory