Glenn T. Suddaby

United States v. Hagerman

District Court, N.D. New York · 2011-11-30 · cited 1×

This case concerned whether a defendant convicted of receiving and possessing child pornography must pay restitution to a victim under 18 U.S.C. § 2259. The court decided that an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary, that Vicky qualified as a victim, that recoverable losses were limited to those proximately caused by the defendant's conduct, and that the defendant was jointly and severally liable for the full amount of those losses after offsets. It calculated specific recoverable amounts for future counseling, educational and vocational needs, lost wages, and attorney's fees based on the evidence submitted. The core reasoning rested on the statutory text of § 2259, its mandatory restitution requirement, and precedents interpreting proximate causation and joint liability under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.

criminal lawprocedure

Murtaugh v. New York

District Court, N.D. New York · 2011-08-16 · cited 9×

This case involves claims by property owners and related entities against county, state, and corporate defendants arising from alleged ongoing pollution and hazardous waste discharges from the Old City of Fulton Dump onto plaintiffs' properties. Plaintiffs asserted federal claims under the Clean Water Act, RCRA, CERCLA, and Section 1983 for due process and unlawful search violations, along with state law claims for nuisance, negligence, and declaratory relief. The court granted the state defendants' and corporate defendants' motions to dismiss in full and the county defendant's motion in part, dismissing most claims while allowing limited aspects of the county claims to proceed. Dismissals rested on grounds including lack of standing, failure to allege ongoing violations, Eleventh Amendment immunity, collateral estoppel from prior state proceedings, and qualified immunity.

environmentcivil rightspropertyprocedure

Optigen, LLC v. International Genetics, Inc.

District Court, N.D. New York · 2011-03-08 · cited 2×

This case is a patent infringement action in which Optigen, LLC, the exclusive licensee of two U.S. patents covering DNA-based tests for progressive rod-cone degeneration (PRCD) in dogs, sued International Genetics, Inc. (InGen, a Bahamian company), Genetic Fulfillment USA, Pinpoint DNA Technologies, and Richard Dobbins. The complaint alleged direct and induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, plus Lanham Act false advertising and unfair competition claims, based on defendants' website offers and sales of PRCD testing kits and services to U.S. customers (with samples shipped from and to U.S. addresses but tests performed abroad). The court granted Optigen's motion to dismiss certain counterclaims and strike affirmative defenses for failure to state a claim, granted InGen's summary judgment motion in part and denied it in part on the infringement issues, and granted Optigen's motion to amend the complaint. The core reasoning addressed whether website solicitations and fulfillment arrangements directed at U.S. customers constitute an infringing "offer to sell" or "sale" under § 271(a) even when performance occurs outside the United States, along with the adequacy of the pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6).

business & regulatoryprocedure

Picciano v. McLoughlin

District Court, N.D. New York · 2010-07-13 · cited 16×

Continental Ins. Co. v. Coyne Int'l Enter. Corp.

District Court, N.D. New York · 2010-05-20 · cited 8×

Maxwell v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.

District Court, N.D. New York · 2010-05-10 · cited 5×

Affiliations

Decision record

Glenn T. Suddaby

Affiliations

Decision record