Brian Mark Cogan

This case involves a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a New York state guilty plea to armed robbery. The petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney incorrectly advised that a prior New Jersey conviction for aggravated assault on a police officer qualified as a predicate violent felony under New York law, causing him to accept a ten-year sentence as a second violent felony offender rather than pursuing a lower sentence. The federal court determined that the state court unreasonably applied the Strickland v. Washington standard. It reasoned that the attorney should have recognized that the New Jersey conviction was not analogous to the corresponding New York statute, as the petitioner had correctly identified through his own research, and that this misadvice prejudiced the petitioner in his plea decision. The court therefore granted the writ, permitting the petitioner to withdraw his plea.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved two former union organizers who sued their employer, the New York City District Council of Carpenters, under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act for alleged retaliatory discharge after they criticized union leadership about the financial condition of an officers' pension plan. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. It held that the plaintiffs had executed releases barring their claims and that, even absent the releases, no reasonable jury could find their terminations were connected to any scheme to suppress dissent or that the terminations directly threatened union members' free speech rights.

labor & employmentfree speechcivil rights

This case involves a putative class action by U.S. purchasers against Chinese vitamin C manufacturers, alleging that the defendants formed a cartel through their industry chamber to fix prices and restrict output in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and related Clayton Act provisions. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting defenses of foreign sovereign compulsion, act of state, and international comity on the ground that Chinese law and government directives required their conduct. The court denied the motion, holding that the relevant Chinese regulations did not actually mandate the price-fixing and output restrictions, that the factual record indicated voluntary agreements, and that the court was not required to defer to the Chinese Ministry of Commerce's contrary interpretation of its own laws.

business & regulatory

This case involved the U.S. government's civil forfeiture action seeking to seize over $879,000 from accounts of PRP Restaurant, Inc. (a strip club) and its owner Robert Potenza, on the theory that cash deposits were structured in amounts under $10,000 to evade federal currency transaction reporting requirements. The government alleged over 100 such deposits between 2008 and 2009, supported by theories including transaction volume, a prior bank termination letter, and inferences of tax evasion from unreported cash flows. After a bench trial focused on knowledge and intent, the court ruled for the claimant, holding that the government failed to prove by a preponderance that Potenza acted with the requisite intent to evade the reporting rules. The reasoning emphasized that deposit patterns were consistent with innocent explanations like bill accumulation and business needs, that evidence from a disgruntled ex-employee was unreliable, and that the tax-evasion inference required an overly subtle understanding of the rules not shown to exist.

criminal law

This case involved a condominium board suing developers under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA) for alleged misrepresentations about construction quality and defects in a converted factory building marketed as luxury units. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, holding that the Board was not itself a purchaser entitled to sue under ILSA and did not qualify for associational standing because the claims did not affect all members in common and there were unresolved issues regarding res judicata and member consent. The court therefore concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the federal claims and did not reach the state-law claims or other arguments.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Ellis v. United States, petitioner Amarley Ellis's brother sought to vacate his 1997 guilty plea to accessory after the fact under 18 U.S.C. § 3 for helping dispose of bodies and evidence after two murders committed to conceal the theft and fraudulent deposit of Social Security checks. The district court denied the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition to vacate the sentence, holding that the conviction qualified as an aggravated felony triggering deportation and that claims of ineffective assistance regarding immigration advice failed because any relevant legal changes were not retroactively applicable on collateral review. The court reasoned that the plea was knowing and voluntary based on the record, including explicit warnings about possible deportation, and that the underlying conduct met the statutory definition without requiring new substantive rules to apply.

criminal lawprocedureimmigration

This case is a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a state conviction for second-degree murder. The petitioner argued three errors: improper admission of witness statements as excited utterances and a detective’s notes as past recollection recorded, insufficient evidence to support the conviction, and denial of a mid-trial adjournment to obtain new counsel. The court denied the petition, holding that the evidentiary rulings did not rise to the level of a due process violation, the evidence was adequate for conviction, and the trial court properly found no basis for substituting counsel based on tactical disagreements. The decision applied deferential standards for habeas review of state court evidentiary and procedural rulings.

criminal lawprocedure

In Eastern Savings Bank v. Walker, the plaintiff bank brought a mortgage foreclosure action in federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and named the State of New York, its Department of Taxation and Finance, the IRS, and other lienholders as defendants. The court raised subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte and concluded that the State of New York destroys diversity because a state is not a citizen of any state for jurisdictional purposes. Relying on precedents including Moor v. County of Alameda and State Highway Commission v. Utah Construction Co., the court reasoned that the Department of Taxation functions as an arm or alter ego of the state and therefore likewise lacks citizenship, while noting separate considerations for the IRS under statutes such as 28 U.S.C. § 2410.

procedurefederal powertaxesproperty

This case was a diversity action between former partners in a medical practice who disputed whether revenue from certain contracts constituted partnership property subject to sharing after the plaintiff's departure in 2008. Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $222,300 solely on his accounting claim, without finding a breach of the partnership agreement or awarding prejudgment interest due to insufficient proof on the issue. On the plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment, the court granted prejudgment interest in part but set the rate at 1.83% (based on the one-year Treasury yield) rather than the 9% statutory rate, reasoning that recovery on an equitable accounting claim made the interest award discretionary under New York law and that a lower rate better reflected current economic conditions without creating a windfall.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Close-Up International and defendants including the Ruscico group and Image Entertainment over rights to distribute 65 Russian films from Mosfilm and Lenfilm studios. Close-Up held an exclusive sublicense for Russian-language-only DVD versions, while the Ruscico defendants and Image held licenses to distribute the same films with subtitles that viewers could disable. The central issue was whether the defendants' distribution of multilingual DVDs without technology preventing subtitle shut-off infringed Close-Up's rights or violated any requirement to include such protections. The court ruled for the defendants, concluding that Close-Up lacked the right to enforce its license against distributors of subtitled films without a "no shut off" feature and that the defendants were distributing exactly the versions their licenses permitted.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case arose after an employee of Gaeta Interior Demolition sued Miller’s Launch and the City of New York for negligence in a maritime personal-injury action, prompting the petitioners to file a third-party complaint seeking indemnification from Gaeta under their service contract. Gaeta moved for summary judgment, arguing that no indemnification obligation existed. The court granted the motion and dismissed Gaeta, holding that the March 2002 request-for-proposal letter and the May 2002 counter-signed agreement contained only a statement that Gaeta would later be required to agree to indemnify the petitioners and the City, without any actual indemnity clause or essential terms. Because the documents amounted at most to an unenforceable agreement to agree rather than a binding indemnity contract, no duty to defend or indemnify arose as a matter of law.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case is a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by Ivan Kimbrough and Nastazja Friis Rasmussen against New York City police officers and the city, arising from events during a marijuana-related arrest in which officers entered the plaintiffs' apartment, used physical force on Kimbrough, and arrested Rasmussen after she intervened. The court granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment in part and denied it in part. It held that probable cause supported Rasmussen's arrest for obstruction or harassment, found no constitutional violation in the officers' handling of her diabetes medication, and dismissed the Monell claim against the city due to insufficient evidence of a policy or custom causing the alleged harms.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case concerns a dispute between two physicians who formed an oral partnership to practice pulmonary and critical care medicine from 2003 to 2008 without a written agreement. Plaintiff Dr. Sriraman alleged that defendant Dr. Patel failed to disclose and share income from three contracts with hospitals and medical groups that plaintiff viewed as partnership assets, while defendant contended those contracts were outside the partnership scope and sought an accounting for a separate contract under which plaintiff had received all proceeds. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $222,300, concluding that the Forest Hills contracts constituted partnership property subject to equal division and that an accounting of the parties' respective receipts was required to determine the net amount owed.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case was a class action brought by a debtor against a third-party collection agency under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging that three collection letters, and specifically the third letter offering to settle for 70% of the balance, were false or deceptive. After the plaintiff abandoned claims regarding the first two letters, the court considered only whether the third letter violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692e(10) on its face. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that the letter's inclusion of Miller safe-harbor language, the exact dollar amount of the settlement offer, and the absence of an expiration date did not render it misleading to the least sophisticated consumer. The decision rested on the principle that the letter accurately disclosed the current balance and that settlement offers without a fixed deadline do not create a false sense of urgency under the FDCPA.

business & regulatory

In Ortiz v. City of New York, a former NYPD officer brought a civil rights action alleging that the department's reinstatement process discriminated against him on the basis of race by denying him seniority and a corresponding salary, while reinstating similarly situated Caucasian officers with those benefits intact. The court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides the exclusive cause of action for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against state actors, following the Supreme Court's decision in Jett v. Dallas Independent School District and rejecting arguments that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 created a direct private right of action. It denied the City's motion to dismiss, deemed the complaint amended to assert a § 1983 claim, and concluded that the allegations were plausible and the action was timely under the applicable three-year statute of limitations.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a proposed class action by mortgage borrowers against AmTrust Bank alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and New York General Business Law for charging a $350 Table Funding Fee without providing services. After the Office of Thrift Supervision closed AmTrust and appointed the FDIC as receiver, the FDIC denied the plaintiffs' administrative claim, and the court allowed the action to proceed only against the FDIC-Receiver. The defendant moved to strike the class allegations on the ground that no other proposed class members had exhausted their claims through the mandatory FIRREA administrative process by the March 10, 2010 bar date. The court granted the motion, holding that the FDIC satisfied FIRREA's notice requirements through publication and individual notice to the named plaintiffs, that a mere proposed class definition in the complaint did not render absent borrowers "known" creditors entitled to mailed notice, and that only the named plaintiffs had exhausted claims so no class could be maintained.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case involved plaintiffs who had obtained a default judgment in an employment discrimination action against Lyons Professional Services and sought to enforce it against Christopher Lyons and Garrison Protective Services, Inc., as alleged fraudulent transferees or successors. The court addressed whether the judgment creditors had to file a separate special proceeding under New York CPLR 5225(b) or could instead seek the same relief by motion in the original federal action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a). The court held that a separate proceeding was not required and that the motion in the underlying action was sufficient. It reasoned that Rule 69(a) incorporates state substantive procedures but does not mandate strict compliance with state procedural formalities such as commencing a distinct action, especially where personal jurisdiction over the garnishees had been obtained and no prejudice would result.

procedurelabor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved an employment discrimination lawsuit brought by four female plaintiffs against their former employer Lyons Professional Services and two supervisors for harassment under federal, state, and local law. After Lyons and one supervisor defaulted and a damages judgment was entered, the court vacated the default against the supervisor due to lack of willfulness, which raised questions about the finality of the judgment against Lyons under principles from Frow v. De La Vega requiring consistent resolutions. The court decided to vacate the joint and several portion of the judgment applicable to the remaining supervisor but to certify the judgments in favor of three plaintiffs against Lyons as final under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), finding no just reason for delay because those claims were independent of the ongoing claims and immediate execution was warranted given Lyons' uncertain solvency. The reasoning emphasized that the adjudicated claims would not be affected by the outcome against the remaining defendant and could have been brought separately.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a class action lawsuit by civilian NYPD employees against the City of New York alleging violations of the Family Medical Leave Act, which was resolved through a settlement that included an agreement for reasonable attorneys' fees. The court reviewed a proposed stipulation awarding fees to both outside counsel Lewis Brisbois and in-house counsel for the plaintiffs' union, DC 37. The court approved the full requested amount for outside counsel but limited the award to DC 37 to only the actual costs it incurred for its in-house attorney's work, rather than market hourly rates. The core reasoning was that ethical rules prohibit fee-sharing arrangements between law firms and non-lawyer entities like unions, and that in-house counsel fees must be based on documented actual expenses to avoid improper profit or unauthorized practice issues.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In Hamblin v. British Airways PLC, the plaintiff, a passenger injured in a plane crash-landing, sued the airline under the Montreal Convention for damages including the loss of his job at Microsoft, which he attributed to his post-accident inability to travel. The defendant conceded liability for the accident but moved for partial summary judgment to preclude recovery for the job loss, presenting evidence that the termination resulted from a company restructuring and downsizing unrelated to the plaintiff's performance or accommodations. The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff had not provided admissible evidence to rebut the defendant's showing that the restructuring was the sole cause of the termination.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment