Raymond Joseph Dearie

STMicroelectronics sued Credit Suisse Group under Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) as a controlling person, along with state law claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting fraud, alleging that brokers at CSG's subsidiary made unauthorized investments in non-SLARS securities like subprime CDOs and misrepresented the account holdings. The court granted plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, permitted the federal securities claims to proceed, dismissed the unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting claims but allowed the conversion claim to continue, and denied as moot the request to lift the PSLRA discovery stay. The rulings rested on the sufficiency of the amended allegations assumed true for pleading purposes, the existence of a confirmed arbitration award against the subsidiary, and the application of agency and contract principles to the various claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved parents who were arrested and convicted for assault and child endangerment after their infant suffered severe malnutrition from a strict vegan diet they provided, leading to claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, and New York law against police officers, prosecutors, and the city for false arrest, unlawful search, malicious prosecution, and related violations. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. The core reasoning was that prosecutors enjoyed absolute immunity for their conduct, probable cause supported the arrest and charges, and the complaint failed to state viable claims for the remaining allegations.

criminal lawcivil rightsfamily law

This case involved a challenge by candidate Randy Credico and two independent political bodies, the Libertarian Party and the Anti-Prohibition Party, to New York Election Law § 7-104.4(e), which requires that a candidate nominated only by multiple independent bodies appear on only one ballot line. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to have Credico's name placed on both parties' ballot lines, arguing violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court granted the injunction against the Board of Elections commissioners, concluding that the plaintiffs showed a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that the law burdens their rights of political affiliation without sufficient justification. The decision directed that Credico's name be certified on both ballot lines for the 2010 election.

electionsfree speechcivil rights

In Fischer v. NYC Department of Education, a vocational education teacher with multiple sclerosis sued his employer alleging retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act for requesting schedule accommodations and discrimination and retaliation under New York State and City human rights laws for failing to provide requested accommodations such as an early teaching schedule, a cooler classroom, a first-floor room, and a paraprofessional. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case in full. It held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation. The state and city claims were dismissed because the plaintiff did not serve a timely notice of claim as required by N.Y. Education Law § 3813, and the court lacked authority to extend the deadline beyond the one-year statute of limitations.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved J&J Sports Productions suing 291 Bar & Lounge, LLC and its owner Dennis Caba for the unauthorized interception and public exhibition of a closed-circuit telecast of a May 2006 boxing match, in violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605). After the defendants defaulted by failing to respond, the court deemed the complaint's allegations admitted and found that the defendants had willfully intercepted the scrambled satellite signal without a license or payment. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report in full and awarded J&J $3,000 in statutory damages plus $1,332.50 in fees and costs against the corporate defendant under section 605, but awarded no damages against the individual defendant due to insufficient evidence of personal involvement. The decision rested on the default establishing liability for commercial signal theft and on the plaintiff's election of statutory remedies and documented costs.

business & regulatory

The case involves Mohammed Mohsin's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction, based principally on the victim's post-trial recantation of testimony that had linked him to setting a fire along with related claims of perjury and new evidence. The court decided to deny the petition in full after de novo review. The core reasoning is that the recantations and corroborating post-trial materials were not newly discovered smoking-gun evidence but instead amounted to more elaborate versions of the same factual challenges to the victim's credibility that had already been presented to and rejected by the jury at trial through cross-examination and other testimony.

criminal lawprocedure

In this securities fraud class action, plaintiffs alleged that Arotech Corporation and three officers violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by failing to disclose the termination for default of a major government contract held by its newly acquired subsidiary Armour of America, and by making misleading statements in financial filings and press releases about the subsidiary's performance and goodwill valuation during the class period. Count II asserted control-person liability under Section 20(a). Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing lack of materiality, scienter, and particularity. The court denied the motion, finding the complaint's allegations—including details from confidential witnesses about the undisclosed termination and its impact on impairment testing—sufficient to state a claim.

business & regulatory

Plaintiffs, including taxpayer advocacy groups and a Medicare recipient with lung cancer, sued major tobacco companies under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act to recover Medicare expenditures for treating beneficiaries' tobacco-related illnesses, alleging that the companies committed battery by exposing users to addictive nicotine and thus bore primary responsibility for the costs, entitling Medicare to double damages. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the Act requires a primary plan's responsibility to be demonstrated through a prior judgment, settlement, or other means before a private double-damages suit can proceed. The court granted the motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment, holding that the statute's reimbursement obligation and private cause of action are triggered only after responsibility has been demonstrated by one of the specified means, and the complaint failed to allege any such prior demonstration. The decision rested on statutory construction of the MSP's provisions regarding demonstration of responsibility and enforcement, consistent with prior circuit precedents interpreting the Act.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved defendant Mamie Manneh, who was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 545 for importing parts of endangered African primates without the permits and licenses required by the CITES treaty and U.S. wildlife import laws, and for failing to disclose the true contents of the shipment to border officials. She moved to dismiss the indictment under RFRA, claiming that the licensing, permitting, and disclosure requirements substantially burdened her sincerely held religious beliefs. After an evidentiary hearing with testimony and expert evidence on religious and cultural practices, the court denied the motion. The core reasoning was that the defendant failed to demonstrate a substantial burden on religious exercise under RFRA or that the government lacked a compelling interest in enforcing the wildlife protection laws.

criminal lawreligious libertyenvironmentfederal power

The case involves petitioners Abidali Haji and Rashid Khan seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming their convictions for two counts of conspiracy in the second degree under New York law—stemming from a single January 2, 1997 undercover heroin transaction and follow-up efforts to obtain additional drugs—violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court granted the petition, agreeing that the conduct constituted only one conspiracy rather than two separate offenses. The core reasoning is that the evidence, including the initial sale and subsequent recorded conversations, demonstrated a single agreement with the same participants and objectives, making multiple punishments in one proceeding impermissible.

criminal lawprocedure

In this habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, petitioner Rashid Khan challenged his state convictions arising from a drug transaction, raising claims including violations of double jeopardy, improper jury instructions under state law, Confrontation Clause issues with a taped conversation, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court granted the petition on double jeopardy grounds, vacating the two conspiracy counts of conviction on the same basis as in the co-defendant's parallel case, and remanded for further proceedings. The remaining claims were denied because they either involved non-cognizable state-law issues, were procedurally barred, or failed on the merits under federal standards such as Blockburger v. United States for multiple punishments, Crawford v. Washington for testimonial statements, and Strickland v. Washington for ineffective assistance. Core reasoning incorporated prior analysis from the related case and examined the record to reject each additional ground as meritless or defaulted.

criminal lawprocedure

Jose Soto, convicted after a 2001 Brooklyn shooting incident of depraved indifference murder and criminal possession of a weapon as a persistent violent felony offender and sentenced to twenty-five years to life, petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the depraved indifference conviction (arguing it was consistent only with intentional murder), the constitutionality of his sentencing under Apprendi, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise certain claims on direct appeal. The court denied the petition, finding the sufficiency claim unpreserved at trial and unreviewable, the sentencing claim meritless under then-existing precedents, and the ineffective assistance claims either unexhausted or without merit under state and federal standards. The decision rested on procedural defaults, the non-retroactive application of intervening New York Court of Appeals decisions clarifying depraved indifference murder elements, and deference to state court rulings on the merits.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Frank DeChirico, who was convicted in 1990 of second-degree murder, robbery, and weapons offenses for the 1988 killing of art student Judith Anne Wrappe during a purse snatching in Brooklyn. The conviction relied on circumstantial evidence from eyewitnesses describing the attacker, testimony from homeless witness Felipe Morales who identified DeChirico fleeing with the purse, and jailhouse informant Charles Brown who reported admissions by the petitioner. DeChirico challenged the conviction on grounds that the prosecution failed to disclose Brown's prior history as a cooperating witness in other cases, that Brown's testimony was perjured, that Morales's identification was unreliable, and that the courtroom was improperly closed during part of the trial. The court denied the petition and dismissed the case, finding that the undisclosed information about Brown was not material under Brady or Giglio standards, that the perjury claim did not meet the required showing of knowing use by the prosecution, and that the other claims did not warrant relief.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a class action by passengers who purchased tickets through Ritetime for charter flights operated by World Airways between Nigeria and the United States in 2003-2004; after World ceased operations due to Ritetime's unpaid debts, many passengers were stranded or unable to travel, leading to claims under the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions as well as state law claims for breach of contract, fraud, and negligence. The court granted World Airways' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, while denying the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The decision addressed issues including whether the Montreal Convention preempted state law claims, whether plaintiffs were in privity of contract with World or could rely on an agency or ratification theory, and the applicability of the Airline Deregulation Act to negligence and fraud claims. Core reasoning focused on the scope of international treaty preemption, the absence of a direct contractual relationship, and the need to evaluate factual disputes regarding any agency relationship between World and Ritetime.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Joseph Cunningham suing his insurer, Insurance Company of North America (INA), for breach of contract after it denied coverage for his fishing vessel destroyed by fire, claiming violation of the policy's lay-up warranty requiring the vessel to be ashore from December to April; he also sued his broker, Christi Insurance Group, for malpractice, negligence, and breach of contract in procuring the policy. The court granted INA's motion for summary judgment, finding that the vessel was in the water at the time of the fire in March 2004, breaching the unambiguous warranty and precluding coverage, and that the policy did not require explicit language of permanent forfeiture for prior breaches. It also granted Christi summary judgment on the breach of contract claim due to the statute of limitations but denied summary judgment on the negligence claim, concluding it was timely under New York law. The decision relied on contract interpretation principles, undisputed facts about the vessel's location, and applicable limitations periods for broker claims.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement dispute where Van Blarcom Closures, Inc. alleged that Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s child-resistant container cap infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,579,934, which claims abutments located on the side wall of the outer cap. The parties stipulated to claim construction, and the plaintiff moved for summary judgment under the doctrine of equivalents while the defendant cross-moved for non-infringement, arguing that equivalence would vitiate the claim limitation. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the infringement claim. The core reasoning was that the defendant's device places abutments on the cover wall rather than the side wall, and allowing equivalence would entirely eliminate the specific positional limitation from the patent claim, consistent with Federal Circuit precedent on vitiation. The plaintiff's motion and the defendant's discovery request were denied as moot.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Fleming v. State University of New York, an anesthesiologist with sickle cell anemia sued SUNY and his residency supervisor under Title II of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the supervisor improperly disclosed his medical condition to a prospective employer during a credentialing process, causing the loss of a job offer. The plaintiff claimed this violated confidentiality protections and his constitutional privacy rights, while defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, addressing whether Title II covers employment-related disclosures of medical information, the scope of Rehabilitation Act protections, and Eleventh Amendment immunity issues. Core reasoning focused on statutory interpretation of ADA and Rehabilitation Act provisions regarding discrimination and confidentiality, distinguishing between employment discrimination and unauthorized medical disclosures while allowing certain claims to proceed based on the complaint's allegations.

civil rightslabor & employmenthealthcare

In George v. New York City Transit Authority, an Indian national and bus operator sued his employer and a co-worker under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law, claiming a hostile work environment based on race and national origin through repeated ethnic slurs like "Bin Laden" and "camel jockey" plus a physical assault, as well as retaliation via increased monitoring and suspensions. The court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims but granted it on the retaliation claims. The hostile work environment claims survived because evidence showed persistent harassment that could be imputed to the employer due to inadequate responses to the plaintiff's complaints and unclear reporting channels. The retaliation claims failed because the plaintiff did not establish a causal link between his complaints and the adverse actions, and the employer provided legitimate non-discriminatory reasons, such as customer complaints and upheld arbitration decisions, that were not shown to be pretextual. The same standards applied to the state law claims.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this ERISA case, a former legal secretary sued her ex-employer Winthrop Stimson and Prudential after they denied her long-term disability benefits under the firm's plan, claiming her chronic back pain prevented her from working. After denying summary judgment motions, the court conducted a de novo review of the administrative record, including medical reports and the Social Security ALJ's finding of disability. The court concluded that the plaintiff met the plan's definition of total disability and was entitled to benefits, rejecting the insurer's later reversal of its initial approval. The decision turned on the weight of evidence showing she could not perform her job duties, without deference to the plan administrator.

labor & employment

The case involved a lawsuit by The Jewish Sephardic Yellow Pages, Ltd. against DAG Media, Inc. and its CEO for infringing the unregistered trademark “Kosher Yellow Pages” under the Lanham Act and New York law. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the mark was not eligible for protection. The court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and granted summary judgment, holding that even if the mark was descriptive rather than generic, the plaintiff had not established that it had acquired secondary meaning. The reasoning centered on the classification of trademarks, where descriptive marks require proof of secondary meaning to be protected, and the evidence did not show the mark was uniquely associated with the plaintiff's directory.

business & regulatory