Glenn T. Suddaby

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

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

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

The case involves a plaintiff suing a police officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment for false arrest and excessive force after an August 2004 incident in which the officer arrested him for skateboarding in a prohibited area at Auburn City Hall and for resisting arrest. The court granted the officer's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, dismissing the false arrest claim but allowing the excessive force claim to proceed to trial. The false arrest claim failed because the officer had arguable probable cause based on his observations of the plaintiff with a skateboard in a no-skateboard zone, the plaintiff's denial of skating, and his refusal to comply with instructions during the encounter, which also supported qualified immunity. The excessive force claim survived due to disputed issues of material fact about the degree of the plaintiff's resistance and the level of force the officer used in forcing him to the ground and applying handcuffs.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involves a breach-of-contract dispute in which insurance companies sued their former insured clients for unpaid retrospective premiums, guaranteed-cost policy premiums, taxes, and claim service fees under multiple workers' compensation, liability, and auto insurance policies. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that most claims were barred by New York's six-year statute of limitations because the action was filed in 2007, more than six years after the relevant policy audits had occurred and amounts became due. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that claims based on audits completed before November 2000 were time-barred absent any tolling, while allowing certain remaining claims to proceed; the decision rested on the policy language requiring payment after each annual retrospective calculation or audit notice and the absence of evidence supporting equitable tolling or fraudulent concealment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this products liability case, plaintiff Beverly Maxwell sued defendant Howmedica Osteonics Corp. after suffering an allergic reaction to nickel in the Duracon Total Knee System implanted during her 2004 knee replacement surgery, asserting claims for design defect and failure to warn under negligence and strict liability theories. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint in full. It reasoned that expert testimony was required to establish both a design defect and inadequate warnings but that the plaintiff's sole expert disclosure was insufficient, as it did not address the reasonableness of the product's design or the adequacy of warnings. The court further held that the defendant had satisfied its duty to warn by providing information about metallic risks to the implanting surgeon under the learned intermediary doctrine.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

This case is a pro se civil rights action in which plaintiff Shawn Bradley alleged that Kingston police officers violated his Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights by using excessive force, including a police dog, during his September 2006 arrest after a traffic stop and flight, and by delaying medical treatment for his injuries for several hours. The defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds including reasonableness of the force, qualified immunity, lack of serious medical need or deliberate indifference, absence of personal involvement by a supervisor, and statute of limitations bars on certain claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing claims against defendants Keller, Maisenhelder, and a John Doe desk officer for lack of personal involvement or untimeliness while allowing other claims to proceed.

civil rightscriminal law

This case is a trademark infringement action under the Lanham Act in which the Road Dawgs Motorcycle Club plaintiffs alleged that defendants' use of the name "'Cuse Road Dawgs" and a related logo infringed their registered "ROAD DAWGS" mark. The court reconsidered its prior order and amended it to conclude that defendants' continued use of a gold-colored stylized pit bull head logo, by itself, would not infringe the mark. On the pending motions, the court granted plaintiffs' summary judgment motion in part and denied it in part, denied defendants' cross-motion, and analyzed the validity and protectability of the mark along with the Polaroid factors for likelihood of confusion. The decision addresses plaintiffs' requests for injunctive relief and other claims but leaves certain issues, such as damages, for further proceedings.

business & regulatory

This case involved a products liability lawsuit brought by Dennis and Denise Wade and their insurer against Tiffin Motorhomes after a fire damaged their RV and its contents while parked at a New York campground; the plaintiffs alleged the fire resulted from defects in the RV's design and manufacture. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. It dismissed the strict liability and negligence claims for damage to the RV itself under the economic loss rule, the breach of express warranty claim because the warranty had expired, and the insurer's implied warranty claim due to lack of privity, while also rejecting a request for sanctions based on spoliation of evidence. The court allowed the claims for the RV's contents to proceed under strict liability or negligence theories and the claim for the RV itself under an implied warranty theory, finding sufficient factual issues remained on those points.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a pro se prisoner civil rights action brought by Norberto Javier Felix-Torres against four Auburn Correctional Facility employees, alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment through deliberate indifference to his medical needs regarding bunk assignments and failure to follow DOCS procedures on double-celling. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of personal involvement, qualified immunity, and that negligence claims are not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the magistrate judge's report-recommendation, which found genuine issues of material fact as to personal involvement for two defendants, and after considering objections, accepted it with modifications. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing all claims except those against Defendant Bellnier based on evidence of his potential personal involvement through deliberate indifference in approving bunk placements.

civil rightscriminal law

This case was a federal criminal prosecution of David Santalucia for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), in which the defendant moved to suppress a handgun found without a warrant in his mother's home after his arrest there on a parole absconder warrant, as well as a statement he made to parole officers afterward. The court denied suppression of the firearm, holding that the search was permissible because the defendant had agreed as a condition of parole to allow warrantless searches of his residence and the gun came into plain view during officers' protective sweep of the room for safety hazards after his arrest. The court granted suppression of the incriminating statement (in which the defendant said he had many enemies), ruling that it was elicited through questioning before the defendant received Miranda warnings. The opinion emphasized the defendant's diminished privacy expectations due to his parole status under New York regulations while applying standard Fourth and Fifth Amendment standards.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

This case involved a former Verizon Wireless employee who sued the company, its disability plan, and MetLife under ERISA after being denied short-term and long-term disability benefits for conditions including depression, anxiety, and PTSD. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint in full. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient medical evidence showing he could not perform his job's essential functions, did not respond to requests for additional information or calls from reviewers, and that MetLife's claims process—including an independent psychiatric review—reasonably supported the denial under the plan terms. The court also dismissed any remaining state-law claims as preempted and recharacterized under ERISA.

labor & employment

This case is a pro se prisoner civil rights action brought by Thomas Dallio against nineteen New York DOCS employees, alleging First and Eighth Amendment violations including excessive force, inadequate medical care, deliberate indifference, and conspiracy related to grievances. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on grounds including lack of personal involvement by certain defendants, qualified immunity, bars on official-capacity and state-law claims, and insufficient evidence of medical indifference. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion in part and denying it in part, with some claims proceeding to trial, but the district court accepted the report-recommendation as modified and granted the motion in full, resulting in dismissal of all challenged claims. The decision rested on plaintiff's concessions regarding official-capacity and state claims, failure to establish personal involvement or deliberate indifference, and application of qualified immunity, along with dismissal for failure to serve one defendant.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a dispute among shareholders of Concha Futura, S.A., a Panamanian corporation that owns land in Panama, in which plaintiffs Walter and Anthony Rusyniak asserted claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, breach of contract, and violation of Panamanian corporate law against defendants Ena Paola Gensini and others, arising from events following the 1986 death of Geoffredo Gensini and including alleged unauthorized meetings, control changes, and asset sales in 1996 and 2006. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) on grounds including lack of personal jurisdiction, statute of limitations, and failure to state claims, while plaintiffs cross-moved to amend further by adding new facts from disclosures and a new defendant. The court granted in part and denied in part both motions, dismissing certain claims as untimely or insufficiently pled under New York or Panamanian law while allowing others to proceed, and permitting some amendments based on newly discovered evidence but denying others as futile.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

In Vega v. Artus, a pro se prisoner brought a Section 1983 civil rights action against New York correctional facility employees, alleging harassment and discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation, retaliation through false reports and other actions after filing grievances, and a conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights. The court addressed the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal for failure to state a claim, applying the plausibility pleading standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and Twombly. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing certain claims such as those under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 while allowing others to proceed after evaluating their legal sufficiency and factual allegations.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

In Cusamano v. Sobek, a pro se plaintiff brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against thirteen New York State Department of Corrections employees, alleging violations of his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments as well as the New York Constitution. The district court reviewed a magistrate judge's report-recommendation on the defendants' motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's cross-motions for summary judgment, a stay to compel discovery, and leave to amend. Accepting the report as modified by the plaintiff's withdrawal of certain claims and introduction of new evidence on appeal, the court applied de novo review to specific objections and clear-error review to the rest, granting summary judgment in part after determining there was no genuine issue of material fact under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and enforcing procedural rules against pro se litigants, including potential sanctions for material misrepresentations in the complaint.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved Patrick Romeo, who was convicted in 2001 of a California sex offense and later indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 for failing to update his sex offender registration after moving to New York in 2008, in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). Romeo moved to dismiss the indictment on constitutional grounds, arguing that SORNA's application to him violated the Ex Post Facto and Due Process Clauses, exceeded Congress's Commerce Clause authority over purely local offenses, encroached on state powers under the Tenth Amendment, and improperly delegated legislative authority to the Attorney General under the Non-Delegation Doctrine. The court denied the motion, holding that SORNA applies retroactively via the Attorney General's interim rule, that Congress validly regulated activity affecting interstate commerce, and that the statute did not violate the Tenth Amendment or non-delegation principles, consistent with rulings in similar cases.

criminal lawfederal power