Denny Chin

In April 2006, the Bairds gave Bernard Madoff a sculpture as a thank-you gift for managing their investments through his firm; after Madoff’s 2009 guilty plea to fraud, the sculpture was forfeited to the government as part of his assets, prompting the Bairds to file a petition seeking its return on the ground that the gift was conditional on Madoff’s honest handling of their money. The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss the petition. Applying New York law, the court held that the transfer met all requirements of a completed gift—delivery with donative intent—because the Bairds presented the sculpture without stating any conditions or reservations at the time, and a later claim that the gift was based on a mistaken premise does not render it revocable. The petition contained no facts showing that Madoff agreed, expressly or impliedly, to return the item if the premise proved false.

criminal lawproperty

In United States v. Peterson, after Richard Peterson pleaded guilty to wire fraud and related insurance offenses and agreed to forfeit two properties as part of his sentence, his long-term domestic partner Gregory Crew petitioned under 21 U.S.C. § 853 to assert an interest in both the San Francisco Property and the Grand Cayman Property. Following a two-day hearing, the district court ruled that Crew held a valid community property interest in the San Francisco Property but none in the Grand Cayman Property. The court found that Crew and Peterson had lived together as a couple at the San Francisco Property since the early 1980s, registered as domestic partners under California law granting them rights equivalent to married couples, and that Crew had contributed roughly 40 percent of ownership costs plus substantial labor and funds to multiple renovations. By contrast, the Grand Cayman condominium was owned by a Peterson-controlled company, and Crew had no comparable financial or ownership stake. The court therefore recognized Crew’s interest only in the San Francisco Property while rejecting it for the other asset.

criminal lawpropertyfamily law

In this case, Jose Marte pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute Oxycodone and was sentenced to 135 months in prison under the federal Sentencing Guidelines. He later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the Guidelines' drug equivalency tables for Oxycodone were unconstitutional. The court denied the motion, finding that Marte's plea agreement included a valid waiver of his right to challenge the sentence via § 2255, that his counsel had raised related sentencing arguments at the time, and that any equal protection claim had not been preserved. The decision rested on the terms of the plea agreement and the procedural history showing the sentence fell within the stipulated Guidelines range.

criminal law

In Lawson v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services, the petitioner, a Jamaican-born lawful permanent resident and Vietnam veteran, sought de novo review of USCIS's denial of his naturalization application after it determined he lacked good moral character due to his 1985 manslaughter conviction for killing his wife. The sole issue was whether Lawson had been of good moral character during the statutory period beginning in 2005. The court granted the petition, holding that Lawson met the requirement based on his military service and resulting PTSD and addictions, his completion of over thirteen years in prison during which he earned degrees and counseled others, and his post-release record of steady employment as a drug counselor, family caregiving, church involvement, and community volunteering. Although prior conduct could be considered, the court found that Lawson's rehabilitation and contributions established good moral character by a preponderance of the evidence.

immigrationcriminal law

In this qui tam action under the False Claims Act, relator Cleuza Colucci alleged that Beth Israel Medical Center and its executives submitted false claims to Medicare by purchasing non-teaching hospitals to artificially inflate reimbursements for its Graduate Medical Education program. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court reasoned that the complaint failed to allege falsity because the relevant Medicare regulations were ambiguous and the defendants' interpretations were reasonable, and it also failed to plead that the defendants acted knowingly, as the facts showed only a possibility of misconduct rather than the required scienter.

healthcarecriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff James Muller claiming that defendants Twentieth Century Fox, Paul W.S. Anderson, and Davis Entertainment copied his screenplay "The Lost Continent" when producing the film "AVP: Alien vs. Predator," asserting copyright infringement and breach of implied contract. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the amended complaint. It reasoned that no reasonable jury could find actual copying or substantial similarity between the works under copyright law, as any similarities involved only unprotectible ideas, concepts, or abstractions rather than particular expressions, and the works told very different stories.

propertyprocedure

The case was a class action lawsuit brought by authors and publishers against Google alleging copyright infringement from its scanning of over 12 million books, including many still under copyright, to create a searchable digital database with snippet displays, without obtaining permission. The parties negotiated a proposed Amended Settlement Agreement (ASA) that would authorize Google to digitize books, sell subscriptions and individual access, display advertising, and handle revenues for rightsholders, including provisions for orphan works. The court denied final approval of the ASA under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, concluding it was not fair, adequate, or reasonable. The core reasoning was that the ASA exceeded the scope of the litigation by creating a broad forward-looking business arrangement granting Google extensive rights to exploit entire books without permission, releasing claims beyond those presented, and potentially conferring competitive advantages while raising concerns about class member representation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a waitress who sued her former employer, a New York restaurant, and its owners for unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, alleging she worked solely for tips over four years with no hourly pay. The defendants maintained that they had paid the plaintiff hourly wages exceeding legal requirements and introduced payroll records to support their position. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the plaintiff on her claims for unpaid wages, finding that the defendants had failed to maintain the required employment records and that their evidence was inconsistent and not credible. The core reasoning was that the lack of proper records shifted the burden to the defendants to disprove the plaintiff's reasonable estimates of hours and wages, which they did not do, allowing the court to rely on the plaintiff's credible testimony to calculate damages.

labor & employment

In Sykes v. Mel Harris and Associates, LLC, eight plaintiffs sued a debt-buying company, its affiliated law firm, and a process serving company on behalf of themselves and over 100,000 similarly situated consumers, alleging a scheme involving 'sewer service'—failing to serve process while filing false affidavits—to fraudulently obtain default judgments in state court debt collection actions. The complaint asserted claims under the FDCPA, RICO, New York General Business Law § 349, and New York Judiciary Law § 487, seeking damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6), challenging pleading sufficiency and jurisdiction. The court denied the motions in part and granted them in part, holding that the allegations of fraud met heightened pleading requirements with particularity, supported a strong inference of intent, and adequately established an enterprise and pattern for RICO purposes while preserving subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure

The case involves a lawsuit by Aneita Henry-Lee, as administratrix of the estate of her son Peter Lee, who was shot and killed outside Rory Dolan’s bar in Yonkers by off-duty NYPD sergeant Michael Ingram in the early morning of January 4, 2006. Plaintiff asserted civil rights claims under federal law as well as state-law claims including negligence against Ingram, two other NYPD officers, the City of New York, the bar proprietor JMR Rest. Corp., and the City of Yonkers. All defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motions and dismissed the complaint, holding that the facts construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff showed no basis on which a reasonable jury could find liability for any defendant.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

Baidu, a Chinese search engine operator, sued its domain registrar Register.com after an unauthorized intruder accessed Baidu's account and redirected web traffic to a hacked page for about five hours in January 2010. Baidu asserted claims including contributory trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, breach of contract, gross negligence, and other torts, alleging that Register failed to follow its own security protocols. The court granted Register's motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, dismissing the trademark infringement claim along with conversion, trespass, and bailment claims as redundant or barred by the contract, while allowing the breach of contract, gross negligence, and recklessness claims to proceed. The core reasoning was that New York law and the Master Services Agreement's limitation of liability clause barred claims for ordinary negligence or lesser conduct but did not preclude allegations of gross negligence, and that Register had not engaged in the required use of Baidu's mark for the Lanham Act claim.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Kraft v. City of New York, plaintiff Timothy Kraft sued the City, police officers, hospital corporation, doctors, and social service providers after NYPD and FDNY personnel transported him to Bellevue Hospital following altercations with a tenant and staff at his residence, where he was held overnight for observation and then involuntarily admitted to the psychiatric ward for several days under New York Mental Hygiene Law provisions. Kraft asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his rights along with related state-law claims including false arrest, malicious abuse of process, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the entire complaint. It reasoned that the officers had sufficient information to justify transporting Kraft for evaluation, the doctors' initial hold and admission decisions complied with statutory standards and did not violate accepted medical practice, and the state tort claims failed on the merits for lack of the required elements such as lack of probable cause or improper purpose.

civil rightshealthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, ICOS Vision Systems and Nvidia filed declaratory judgment actions against Scanner Technologies seeking rulings that several of Scanner's patents on ball grid array inspection technology were invalid and not infringed by the plaintiffs' products. Scanner moved to dismiss the complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that covenants not to sue it had provided eliminated any justiciable controversy. The court denied the motions, holding that jurisdiction existed because a substantial controversy remained between the parties. The decision rested on the limited scope of the covenants, which did not cover all related patents or future products, combined with the history of prior litigation between the parties and the plaintiffs' ongoing development activities.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs Luv N' Care and Admar, who sold baby sippy cups under the NUBY mark, suing retailer Walgreens for allegedly selling similar competing cups made by another manufacturer after ending their business relationship. Plaintiffs claimed that Walgreens engaged in trademark infringement and unfair competition under the federal Lanham Act, federal trademark dilution, New York common law unfair competition, and a violation of New York General Business Law § 349 by using a bait-and-switch tactic of shelving the competing products near plaintiffs' items. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied plaintiffs' motion as to their Lanham Act, dilution, and state unfair competition claims, finding substantial issues of material fact remained regarding protectable trade dress, secondary meaning, and non-functionality. The court granted Walgreens's motion only as to the NYGBL § 349 claim, holding that allegations of consumer confusion from the alleged conduct did not constitute the direct harm to consumers required under that statute. All other claims were left for trial.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Pro se plaintiff Nathaniel Jones sued the City School District of New Rochelle and Good-Temps, alleging that the defendants discriminated against him on the basis of race by refusing to hire him as a substitute teacher and by declining to provide substantive employment references, in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments, and related state law. The defendants moved for summary judgment, explaining that the school district required two professional references meeting its criteria and that Good-Temps followed a neutral policy of providing only dates of employment and job titles. The court granted the motions and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, holding that Jones failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find racial discrimination or any other constitutional or statutory violation, that the school district's requirements were legitimate, and that Good-Temps's reference policy was applied neutrally without improper motive.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerned a breach of contract dispute in which U.S. Bank sued a partnership and related individuals to enforce the terms of an interest rate swap transaction designed to reduce the net interest rate on the defendants' mortgage loans. The defendants raised defenses and asserted counterclaims including misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The court granted the bank's motion and denied the defendants' motion, holding that the swap agreement was validly formed and enforceable under the undisputed facts and governing documents.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This diversity case involved plaintiffs who maintained a brokerage account with an Italian bank and its New York-licensed parent; they alleged that the subsidiary bank breached their account agreement by mistakenly selling shares of Newmont stock instead of buying additional shares as instructed by phone, and then fraudulently induced them to use their own funds to correct the error without intending to reimburse the difference. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court denied the motions as to the contract claims against both entities, finding jurisdiction and that the pleadings sufficiently stated a breach, but granted the motions as to the fraud claims, holding that plaintiffs had not alleged facts showing fraudulent intent beyond mere nonperformance and that the fraud allegations were not distinct from the contract claim under New York law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Williams v. City of New York, black and Hispanic provisional employees in the Deputy Sheriffs Office alleged that the City discriminated against them on the basis of race by denying promotions to permanent status, extending longer probationary periods after appointment, denying overtime, and making racist comments, and retaliated against them after they complained, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 as well as state and city human rights laws. The court granted the City's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. It held that only three claims were timely, that the § 1983 claims failed to plausibly allege a municipal policy or custom under Monell or an adverse employment action, that the § 1981 claims similarly lacked sufficient factual allegations of discrimination, and that the court would decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

In this employment discrimination case, seven Hispanic police officers sued the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1988, claiming race-based discrimination and retaliation in promotions and other employment actions. After a jury trial, the jury found for two plaintiffs on claims that their promotions to sergeant were delayed because of race and awarded them backpay totaling $101,178.72, while ruling for the defendant on all remaining claims by those two plaintiffs and all claims by the other five plaintiffs. The court addressed the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest by first determining a presumptively reasonable fee based on reasonable hourly rates and hours expended, then reducing the fee award by 75% to account for the limited degree of success achieved, and granting prejudgment interest on the backpay awards.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a securities class action brought by lead plaintiffs on behalf of purchasers of Fortis securities against Fortis and its executives, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 for misrepresentations about the company's financial condition, including the value of its CDOs and the risks from its ABN AMRO acquisition, during the period from September 17, 2007 to October 14, 2008. The court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without reaching the merits under Rule 12(b)(6). The core reasoning was that the Exchange Act does not apply extraterritorially here, as the alleged fraudulent conduct occurred primarily outside the United States and the complaint failed to show sufficiently substantial effects on U.S. investors or markets under the conduct and effects tests. The court denied leave to amend, noting that plaintiffs had already filed two complaints and bore the burden of establishing jurisdiction.

business & regulatoryprocedure