Richard Joseph Sullivan

In Levion v. Societe Generale, plaintiff Martin Levion sued his former employer for breach of contract and violations of New York Labor Law, claiming he was owed a non-discretionary annual bonus under a 1994 Compensation Principles agreement that set a formula-based bonus pool for his group, plus inclusion of revenues from specific transactions such as NDF deals. After he resigned in 2007, SG reduced his 2006 bonus and paid no pro-rata 2007 bonus, prompting the suit. The court granted SG’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. It held that the 1994 agreement applied only to 1994–1995 and was never extended by a new written contract, that subsequent bonuses were discretionary or evolved without creating an enforceable obligation, and that even under the old formula SG retained discretion to adjust net P&L for losses such as regulatory settlements. The statutory and common-law claims therefore failed as well.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Plaintiff Donna Ann Gabriele Chechele, a shareholder of Morgans Hotel Group Co., sued former Morgans President and CEO W. Edward Scheetz under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to recover more than $3.5 million in alleged short-swing profits. She claimed Scheetz was a member of a shareholder “group” with NorthStar Capital Investment Corp. and two business partners that collectively beneficially owned over 10% of Morgans stock, based on a series of express or implied agreements including Control, Lock-Up, Registration Rights, and NorthStar Agreements. The court granted Scheetz’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the complaint failed to plead facts plausibly showing the existence of such a group under Section 13(d) and instead relied on conclusory labels and vague references to unquoted documents. The court denied leave to amend, finding the pleading deficiencies fundamental.

business & regulatory

This case is a putative securities class action brought by several pension funds against Mechel OAO, a Russian mining company, and its officers, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs claimed that Mechel failed to disclose during the class period that portions of its revenue came from anti-competitive conduct that violated Russian law, exposing the company to potential fines, penalties, and regulatory scrutiny from the Russian Federal Anti-Monopoly Service and other authorities. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) and the PSLRA. The core reasoning was that the complaint failed to plead with the required particularity that any statements were materially false or misleading, that the defendants had a duty to disclose the ongoing investigations or potential consequences, or that the defendants acted with scienter.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Goffer, defendant Craig Drimal moved to suppress wiretap evidence gathered during a government investigation into an alleged conspiracy to commit securities fraud, claiming that monitoring agents violated Title III by failing to properly minimize numerous privileged calls between Drimal and his wife. The court held a suppression hearing and reviewed evidence showing that agents intercepted about 180 spousal calls over 60 days but that only a small number of those calls were not minimized in accordance with the court order and pre-wiretap instructions. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the agents overall demonstrated a high regard for privacy by minimizing the vast majority of calls promptly, that any violations were isolated and not systemic, and that suppression of the entire wiretap was not warranted under the statute when civil remedies are available for improper interceptions.

criminal lawprocedure

In this employment discrimination case, plaintiff Harold Petrisch, who identifies as Spanish/Hispanic, sued his former employer JP Morgan Chase and two managers under Title VII, Section 1981, and New York state and city human rights laws, alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation for complaining about mistreatment. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims, after accepting as true the facts in the defendants' unopposed Rule 56.1 statement due to the plaintiff's failure to file a proper opposition. The court found no direct evidence of discrimination, no showing that the employer's performance-based actions were pretextual, and insufficient evidence to support a hostile work environment or retaliation claim. It also imposed sanctions on the plaintiff's counsel for repeated violations of court orders regarding filings.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved plaintiff Kyer L. Beachum, an African-American dock helper employed by AWISCO New York, who sued his former employer and the union Local 810 for race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Section 1981, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL, along with a claim against the union for breaching its duty of fair representation under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The court granted summary judgment to both defendants on the federal and state claims, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the city law claims, and denied the plaintiff's motions to amend the complaint as futile. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of discriminatory intent or that similarly situated employees were treated differently, and there was no basis to support the fair representation or retaliation claims.

civil rightslabor & employment

Plaintiff Gun Stavis sued his former employer GFK Holding, Inc. in a diversity action alleging religious and age discrimination and retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law, plus common-law breach of contract, after receiving a reduced bonus and being terminated. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in full. The court reasoned that the plaintiff presented insufficient evidence of a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, failed to rebut the employer's legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its actions such as performance concerns, and showed no causal link between his religion, age, or protected conduct and the adverse employment decisions.

civil rightslabor & employmentreligious liberty

In this case, Perkins Eastman Architects sued Thor Engineers for breach of contract and professional malpractice arising from allegedly defective structural designs for a New Jersey construction project, after the project owner demanded indemnification from Perkins Eastman for related repair costs. Thor then filed a third-party complaint against the project owner, Atlantic Realty, seeking contribution and common-law indemnification on the theory that Atlantic Realty negligently implemented the designs. Atlantic Realty moved to dismiss the third-party complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion after determining that New York law applied and that Thor failed to state a plausible claim, because Atlantic Realty owed no duty supporting contribution or indemnification and the parties were not joint tortfeasors liable for the same harm to a third party. The court noted that procedural rules for impleader do not create substantive rights and that the allegations were insufficient under the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a dispute between competing rodenticide manufacturers Reckitt Benckiser (d-CON) and Motomco (Tomcat) regarding statements each made to retail buyers about potential EPA and New York DEC regulatory actions on second-generation anticoagulant products under the 2008 Risk Mitigation Decision. Reckitt sued Motomco under the Lanham Act for false advertising, seeking to enjoin statements in white papers and other communications implying d-CON products would face bans or business disruptions after certain deadlines, while Motomco counterclaimed to enjoin Reckitt from misrepresenting its compliance status, exemptions, and the legal effects of the regulatory decisions. The court granted in part and denied in part both cross-motions for preliminary injunction, applying the four-factor test for injunctive relief after finding some statements likely false or misleading while others were not.

business & regulatoryenvironment

In Abdell v. City of New York, a group of 127 plaintiffs sued the City of New York and various NYPD officials after their arrests during a protest at the 2004 Republican National Convention, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as parallel state constitutional provisions. The plaintiffs moved to amend their Fourth Amended Complaint to add Inspector Thomas Galati as a defendant on the state law claims, a request previously denied on statute-of-limitations grounds. The court granted the motion, holding that the Supreme Court's decision in Krupski v. Costa Crociere clarified the relation-back standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C) and that Galati could not have reasonably believed his omission from the original complaint was anything other than a mistake given his participation in the arrest decision and timely notice of the suit.

civil rightsprocedurefree speechcriminal law

This case involves Guatemalan plaintiffs, including labor union activists and their family members, who sued The Coca-Cola Company and unnamed agents in New York state court for various tort claims arising from alleged violence, threats, and attacks in Guatemala tied to union activities at a Coca-Cola-affiliated bottling plant. The claims included wrongful death, assault, battery, emotional distress, and negligence, with some alternative references to Guatemalan law. Coca-Cola removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. The court granted the motion, concluding that Guatemala was an adequate alternative forum and that private and public interest factors, including the location of witnesses, evidence, and events, strongly favored dismissal so the case could proceed there instead.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a pro se plaintiff's appeal of the Social Security Administration's denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits, which he claimed were warranted due to conditions including back problems, arthritis, and diabetes. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full after no objections were filed by the parties and no clear error appeared on the face of the record. The court therefore denied the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings, vacated the denial of benefits, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. The magistrate had concluded that the administrative decision was not supported by substantial evidence and required additional consideration of medical evidence and the claimant's limitations.

healthcareprocedure

This case involved a bankruptcy appeal by real estate companies challenging the validity of an $8 million mortgage loan and related liens held by CFA on their New York City properties, which had been executed by the owner's son without initial authorization and later led to default and foreclosure proceedings. The district court reviewed the bankruptcy court's dismissal of the companies' adversary complaint alleging issues such as lack of authority, usury under New York law, and insider status. The court affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that the companies had ratified the loan through repeated acceptance of benefits and execution of a pre-negotiation agreement that explicitly confirmed the obligations and waived defenses, counterclaims, or offsets, and that the usury and insider claims lacked merit based on the facts and applicable law.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a shareholder class action by a retirement plan against former officers and directors of Take-Two Interactive Software, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty under Delaware law. The claims asserted that defendants made material omissions and misstatements in proxy statements from 2001 to 2005 regarding stock option backdating and accounting irregularities, which led shareholders to approve additional shares for option plans and resulted in dilution of equity and voting rights. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the remaining claims under Rule 12(b)(6). It reasoned that the allegations failed to state direct claims because any harm was derivative to the corporation rather than direct to shareholders, the complaint did not adequately plead that defendants were the sole beneficiaries of the transactions or knowingly participated in misconduct, and it improperly sought to conflate disclosure violations with underlying corporate harms.

business & regulatory

Plaintiff Ernesto Rivera sued the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the denial of his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability due to conditions including asthma, hepatitis C, diabetes, and high blood pressure. The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. A magistrate judge issued a report recommending denial of the Commissioner's motion and granting Rivera's motion only to the extent of remanding the case for further development of the administrative record concerning the quantitative results of a January 2005 pulmonary function test. No objections were filed to the report. The district court adopted the report in full after finding no clear error on the face of the record and ordered the limited remand to the Commissioner for additional administrative proceedings.

healthcare

The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit brought by Michael McPhee against General Electric International, Inc., over the 2007 suffocation death of his brother Greg while inspecting a water tank at a work site in Israel. The employment agreement between the decedent and defendant contained a clause selecting New York substantive and procedural law to govern disputes. Defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that New York law barred the claims via workers' compensation exclusivity and the statute of limitations. Plaintiff contended that Israeli law should apply instead, either because the clause incorporated New York's choice-of-law rules or because New York lacked sufficient contacts to enforce the clause. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the clause was enforceable given the defendant's extensive New York operations and ties, and directed the plaintiff to submit a proposed amended complaint if he wished to pursue other New York-law theories.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Jean Kraft suing Staten Island Yacht Sales and Silverton Marine after a boat she purchased developed leaks leading to mold damage, seeking recovery under theories of breach of express and implied warranties, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and New York General Business Law. The court granted Staten Island's motion for judgment on the pleadings in full and granted Silverton's motion for summary judgment in part while denying it in part. Core reasoning included the validity of the dealer's warranty disclaimer in the purchase agreement, lack of privity barring implied warranty claims under New York law, the pre-delivery service record not qualifying as a written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Act, and insufficient evidence supporting certain express warranty or statutory violation claims against the manufacturer.

business & regulatory

This case involves parents R.B. and H.Z. seeking tuition reimbursement from the New York City Department of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for their child C.Z.'s placement at the private York Prep school after rejecting the proposed IEP. The court reviewed the State Review Officer's denial of full reimbursement and partially granted and denied both parties' summary judgment motions. It determined that the DOE's IEP was inappropriate and failed to provide a free appropriate public education, while the private school's Jump Start program was appropriate but the regular curriculum was not. The court ordered reimbursement of $13,800 for the Jump Start program based on the Burlington-Carter factors for unilateral private placements.

civil rightsprocedure

This products-liability case arose from a jury trial in which Plaintiff Adebiyi received a nearly $4 million verdict against Defendant Aqua-Dyne for injuries caused by a mini-scrubber machine. The court considered the defendant's post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and to set aside the damages award. It denied judgment as a matter of law on the failure-to-warn claim, holding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings that the defendant breached its duty to warn ultimate consumers and that Yankee Fiber's negligence did not constitute an intervening cause breaking the chain of causation under New York law. The motions were granted in part and denied in part overall.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved plaintiff MIG, Inc., a telecommunications company, suing its former law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison for legal malpractice and related tort claims arising from the firm's 1997 drafting of a certificate of designation for MIG's preferred stock. A subsequent Delaware Chancery Court decision interpreted key provisions of that document differently than intended, resulting in approximately $140 million in costs to MIG. The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that the claims were either time-barred by the applicable statutes of limitations (including New York's borrowing statute) or failed to state a viable claim. The court reasoned that the malpractice cause of action accrued at the time of the 1997 drafting or shortly thereafter, with no applicable tolling under the continuing representation doctrine outside of limited contexts like medical malpractice, and that other claims were duplicative of the malpractice allegations or inadequately pled under pleading standards such as Rule 9(b).

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability