Charles Proctor Sifton

This case involved a former employee's claims against his former employer's pension plan and related entities under ERISA, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by providing inaccurate information about pension credits and failing to furnish a summary plan description. The plaintiff sought equitable relief to determine his disability status and temporarily reform the plan to allow benefits based on his years of service. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The reasoning centered on the absence of any material misstatement, as the pension statement included limiting language about estimates, the plaintiff was aware of the collective bargaining agreement affecting credits, and he did not qualify for benefits under the plan's plain terms, making any reliance unreasonable.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves U.S. and Israeli citizens suing the Swiss bank UBS AG under the civil provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act after their husband and father was killed in a 2004 Hamas bus bombing in Jerusalem. The plaintiffs alleged that UBS aided terrorism by continuing to process wire transfers totaling about $25,000 from a designated Hamas fundraising entity in Switzerland to a West Bank organization shortly before the attack. UBS moved to dismiss on grounds including lack of standing, forum non conveniens, unconstitutionality of the ATA as applied, and insufficient pleading. The court granted the motion only as to the first count (aiding and abetting murder or physical violence) and denied it on all other grounds, allowing the claims for providing material support to a terrorist organization and collecting or transmitting funds for terrorism to proceed.

criminal law

The case involved Bravado International Group Merchandising Services, Inc. and Bravado International Group Limited, holders of exclusive licenses to sell merchandise bearing the trademarks and logos of musical performers such as Korn and Guns N’ Roses, suing Ninna, Inc., Heyclick, Inc., and related corporate and individual defendants for distributing unauthorized bootleg merchandise. After obtaining a temporary restraining order, seizure order, and preliminary injunction, plaintiffs secured defaults against most defendants for failing to answer the complaint alleging trademark infringement and related claims. The magistrate judge recommended entry of default judgment against the defaulting parties, and the district judge adopted the report and recommendation in full, directing plaintiffs to settle a judgment on notice while referring the remaining defendant for pretrial proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a parent, A.H., seeking review of a State Review Officer decision under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that upheld the New York City Department of Education's offer of a public school placement for her child J.H., who has learning disabilities, and denied reimbursement for private school tuition at the Mary McDowell Center for Learning during the 2007-2008 school year. The plaintiff claimed the proposed individualized education program (IEP) was inappropriate and sought reversal, declaratory relief, tuition reimbursement, and fees, while the DOE defended its compliance with IDEA requirements for a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted and denied portions of each motion after reviewing the factual record, including evaluations, the IEP process, and procedural safeguards. The core reasoning centered on whether the DOE's IEP met statutory standards for tailoring services to the child's needs and providing adequate notice and due process opportunities.

civil rights

The case arose from an incident on May 16, 2003, in which plaintiff Aaron Wong alleged that defendant James Mangone and several New York City police officers used excessive force, falsely arrested him, denied him medical treatment, and maliciously prosecuted him, along with related claims of racial discrimination and conspiracy under federal civil rights statutes. Wong sued the individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1981, and 1985; the officers then brought third-party claims against the City of New York for legal representation and indemnification. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing certain claims while allowing others to proceed based on the existence of disputed material facts and the applicability of qualified immunity and indemnification rules under state law.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In Fleming v. MaxMara USA, Inc., plaintiff Yvonne Fleming, an African-American woman formerly employed as Director of Human Resources and Payroll, sued her employer and two supervisors under Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law, alleging race discrimination, a race-based hostile work environment, and retaliation. The defendants moved for summary judgment after discovery. The court granted the motion and dismissed all claims, finding that many incidents were time-barred, that the plaintiff had not suffered a material adverse employment action, that the alleged conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment, and that there was insufficient evidence linking any protected activity to an adverse action.

civil rightslabor & employment

In Richards v. Napolitano, plaintiff Grace Chadderton Richards, a Barbadian national, sued the Secretary of Homeland Security and USCIS officials after the agency denied her I-130 alien relative petition and I-485 application following the death of her U.S. citizen husband before their second wedding anniversary. The court addressed whether Richards remained an "immediate relative" spouse eligible for adjustment of status under the Immigration and Nationality Act despite her husband's death, and whether USCIS's policy of automatic denial was lawful. The court granted declaratory, mandamus, and injunctive relief in part, holding that the statutory definition of "spouse" includes surviving spouses and that Congress did not intend the timing of agency adjudication to determine eligibility. It denied the request for attorney's fees without prejudice and noted that removal proceedings could continue separately.

immigration

This case involved a lawsuit by T.Z. on behalf of student C.G. against the City of New York and related defendants, alleging violations including under Title IX after C.G. was sexually assaulted by two classmates in a school computer class while the teacher was present but did not intervene. The plaintiff claimed the school failed to adequately address peer-on-peer sexual harassment, leading to impacts on C.G.'s education and mental health. The court had previously granted summary judgment to the City on the Title IX discrimination claim but, on reconsideration, granted the plaintiff's motion and denied the City's summary judgment motion. The core reasoning was that additional case law and facts supported finding the single incident sufficiently severe and pervasive to potentially bar educational access under Title IX standards, warranting a trial on the claim.

civil rights

This case is a long-running patent dispute between Rosco, Inc. and Mirror Lite Co. concerning oval cross-view mirrors used on vehicles, with Rosco originally seeking declaratory relief on Mirror Lite's '984 utility patent and Mirror Lite counterclaiming for infringement. After a bench trial, Federal Circuit remand, and further proceedings, the court addressed remaining issues of damages from Rosco's infringement and whether three specific post-trial Rosco mirror models continued to infringe. The court awarded Mirror Lite a reasonable royalty of $397,843.25 based on Rosco's sales and profits, ruled that mirrors #1, #2, and #5 did not infringe based on spherometer testing and other evidence showing they lacked the required varying radius of curvature, and denied requests for enhanced or future damages. Various evidentiary motions were also resolved as part of the findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from an alleged sexual assault of minor student C.G. by two classmates in a school computer classroom while teacher Robert Raskin was present, leading to federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 and Title IX, plus state claims for negligence and emotional distress against the City of New York, its Department of Education, Raskin, and an assistant principal. The court granted the City defendants' summary judgment motion in part and denied it in part, denied Raskin's motion for summary judgment, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on liability. It dismissed abandoned claims including those under §§ 1981 and 1985, found no triable issue under Title IX due to lack of actual knowledge by school officials of specific risks to C.G., but identified material factual questions regarding state-law negligence based on the foreseeability of assaults in the classroom environment given prior incidents. Official-capacity claims against individuals were dismissed as duplicative of claims against the municipal entities.

civil rightstorts & liability

In this case, the State of New York and related plaintiffs, along with intervenor fishing groups, challenged a 2008 federal rule governing recreational summer flounder fishing quotas issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, claiming violations of that statute and the Administrative Procedure Act; the intervenors additionally sued the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) for related violations of its compact, the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, and the APA. The court addressed ASMFC's motion to dismiss the intervenors' claims against it for failure to state a claim, specifically arguing that the intervenors lacked a right of action. The court denied the motion, holding that the intervenors had stated plausible claims. The core reasoning was that ASMFC functions as a quasi-federal agency whose actions are subject to judicial review under the APA, consistent with the court's prior ruling permitting intervention, and that this characterization allows the claims to proceed without requiring an implied private right of action under the compact or related statutes.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

The case involves Russian performers Yuri and Dmitri Kuklachev suing Mark Gelfman, his company, and others for producing competing cat-themed theatrical shows that allegedly infringed the plaintiffs' trademarks and related rights. The plaintiffs asserted sixteen claims, primarily under the federal Lanham Act for trademark infringement, false designation, dilution, and cybersquatting, along with New York state law claims for unfair competition, privacy rights, and common law claims including unjust enrichment and fraud. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration for two claims pursuant to a contractual arbitration clause but denied it for the remaining claims, granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and denied the motions under Rule 9(b) and Rule 12(e).

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Cohen v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., plaintiff Sylvia Cohen brought a proposed class action against Chase alleging that a $225 "post-closing fee" charged during her 2003 mortgage refinance violated Section 8(b) of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and New York General Business Law section 349. The court denied Chase's motion for summary judgment. The decision turned on the existence of disputed facts about whether the post-closing review services qualified as compensable settlement services under RESPA, whether the fee was properly disclosed in the loan documents, and whether it constituted an unlawful split or unearned fee, with the court distinguishing prior precedent on overcharges and post-settlement services.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case challenged New York City Local Law 51, which extended term limits for the mayor, city council members, and other elected officials from two to three consecutive terms after being passed by the City Council rather than through a public referendum. Plaintiffs, including voters, officials, and advocacy groups, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the New York State Constitution, the Municipal Home Rule Law, and the City Charter. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied the plaintiffs' motion, upholding the law. The core reasoning was that the legislation did not infringe on any fundamental constitutional rights, including rights related to voting, ballot access, or governance by disinterested legislators, and complied with applicable state and local procedural requirements.

electionscivil rights

The case involved plaintiffs Yuri and Dmitri Kuklachev, who perform and manage a well-known cat-and-clown theatrical troupe called the Moscow Cats Theatre, suing numerous defendants including promoter Mark Gelfman and various venues and ticket sellers for using similar names and marketing for competing shows. Plaintiffs asserted sixteen claims, primarily federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin, dilution, and cybersquatting under the Lanham Act, along with related state-law claims for unfair competition, privacy rights, copyright, and fraud. The court ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to stop the defendants from using the marks, advertising the shows, or using related domain names. It granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on their core trademark infringement claims based on evidence that the marks had acquired secondary meaning and that consumers were likely to be confused.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a class action brought by individuals and a mental health law clinic against New York state officials, challenging practices that allegedly prolonged the confinement of defendants found incompetent to stand trial on minor charges under CPL § 730.40 and the procedures for involuntary civil commitment under the Mental Hygiene Law. Plaintiffs claimed violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, § 1983, and related state tort laws. The court granted the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment on the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Causes of Action, finding that due process is satisfied by generally accepted medical standards and that physician actions must shock the conscience to violate constitutional rights. It also granted defendant Cahill's motion, applying Younger abstention to dismiss or decertify claims against the class of local criminal court judges because they implicated ongoing state criminal proceedings, and denied related requests for class amendments or interlocutory appeal.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case is a purported class action by a Genesco shareholder against UBS Loan Finance LLC and UBS Securities LLC alleging tortious interference with a business relationship, stemming from UBS's decision to withhold financing for the planned merger between Genesco and Finish Line after credit market tightening and Genesco's earnings shortfall. The court denied UBS's motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(7). It held that the plaintiff adequately pleaded a valid prospective business relationship under Tennessee law between Genesco shareholders and Finish Line, that the merger agreement created enforceable expectations of payment, and that UBS's actions, including its letters reserving rights and refusing to fund, could constitute improper interference with that relationship.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Porter, the defendant, who had been convicted of transporting and possessing child pornography and was serving a term of supervised release, moved to modify or stay a special condition requiring GPS monitoring of his movements after he violated release terms by failing to account for his whereabouts and comply with other rules. The court denied the motion, finding that the GPS condition was reasonably related to the underlying offenses and the defendant's history of non-compliance, served the goals of deterrence and public protection without imposing a greater deprivation of liberty than necessary, and did not violate his First Amendment right to travel or Fourth Amendment right to privacy. The court reasoned that supervised releasees have a diminished expectation of privacy and that less restrictive measures like verbal warnings had proven ineffective given Porter's repeated violations. The opinion noted that the condition could be adjusted if the defendant showed employment needs or progress in treatment.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a fiduciary of employee benefit plans suing an electrical contracting company and its principal for failing to make required contributions to union benefit plans and a 401(k) plan under a collective bargaining agreement and follow-up stipulations. The defendants acknowledged owing over $100,000 in delinquent contributions and agreed to a payment schedule, but defaulted by missing payments without curing the defaults. The court granted the plaintiff's renewed motion for entry of judgment, awarding the unpaid contributions plus interest, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The decision rested on the enforceability of the stipulations under ERISA sections 502 and 515 and the LMRA, with the defendants' breach triggering the judgment provisions.

labor & employment

The case involved defendant Donald Mason, who faced federal charges for possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute, possessing a firearm in furtherance of that drug crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, all stemming from an incident in a Brooklyn public housing building. The court addressed the defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence and statements obtained after his arrest by NYPD officers. The court denied the motion, concluding that the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant for criminal trespass based on his entry into the building, the presence of no-loitering signs, his flight upon approach by officers, and his physical contact with one of them during the encounter. This probable cause justified the subsequent search that uncovered the drugs and gun. The ruling relied on the officers' observations, the building's posted rules, and New York trespass law.

criminal lawgunsprocedure