Carol Bagley Amon

Plaintiff Houraney, proceeding pro se, brought a diversity action in federal court against Burton & Associates, P.C. and Bernard Burton alleging breach of contract, negligence, and legal malpractice arising from the firm's representation in real estate and related litigation matters. After the close of discovery, the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to add a fraud claim. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, finding that the proposed amendment failed to plead fraud with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and would cause undue prejudice to the defendants by reopening discovery and delaying the case. The district judge reviewed the report and recommendation de novo, overruled the plaintiff's objections, and adopted the recommendation in full, thereby denying leave to amend.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involves the City of New York suing state-licensed cigarette stamping agents for allegedly violating the federal Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act by shipping more than 10,000 unstamped cigarettes to reservation retailers for resale to the public, on the theory that New York Tax Law § 471 requires tax stamps on such sales. Defendants moved for reconsideration of the court's prior denial of their motion to dismiss, citing a state appellate decision in Day Wholesale that held New York Tax Law § 471-e was not yet in effect due to the state's failure to distribute tax exemption coupons. The court denied reconsideration, reasoning that the state ruling addressed only the enforceability of § 471-e and did not change the scope or applicability of § 471 for purposes of the federal CCTA claim.

taxescriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiffs Karen and Daniel Best suing BWIA West Indies Airways for injuries Mrs. Best allegedly suffered when forcibly removed from a LIAT flight during a layover in Trinidad on a trip from New York to Grenada that BWIA had ticketed. BWIA removed the action to federal court under the Montreal Convention and moved for summary judgment after discovery. The court granted the motion, holding that BWIA was not liable under Article 39 of the Convention because it was not the performing carrier on the leg where the incident occurred and there was no express agreement assuming liability for the entire journey. The court further found no evidence of an agency relationship between BWIA and LIAT that would impose liability on BWIA under common law principles. Judgment was entered for the defendant.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves an NBA referee and two co-conspirators who engaged in schemes to bet on NBA games using non-public information and to transmit wagering picks, leading to guilty pleas for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to transmit wagering information. As a victim, the NBA sought restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (and alternatively the Victim and Witness Protection Act for one defendant) for costs including legal fees incurred while assisting the government's investigation and prosecution. The court awarded the NBA a total of $217,266.94 in restitution, to be imposed jointly and severally in part and apportioned among the defendants in part. The core reasoning was that the MVRA permits recovery of costs directly tied to assisting the prosecution of the offenses of conviction, such as document production and attendance at proceedings, while excluding costs from unrelated prior conduct or insufficiently documented expenses.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the City of New York suing state-licensed cigarette wholesalers for allegedly violating the federal Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act by selling large quantities of unstamped cigarettes to reservation retailers, who then sell them to the public without paying taxes required under New York Tax Law. The wholesalers moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds including lack of standing, failure to state a claim due to a state forbearance policy on taxing reservation sales, and failure to join the State of New York as a necessary party. The court denied all motions to dismiss, finding that the City had standing, the claims were viable despite the forbearance policy, and the State was not a necessary or indispensable party under federal rules. The core reasoning centered on interpreting the tax laws, the scope of federal authority over cigarette trafficking, and procedural requirements for joinder.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In Gristede's Foods, Inc. v. Unkechauge Nation, a supermarket chain sued two Indian tribes, their smoke shops, and associated individuals, alleging unauthorized sales of untaxed cigarettes to non-tribe members through physical stores, the internet, and advertising, which the plaintiff claimed created an illegal market harming its business. The complaint asserted civil RICO claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1962, a Lanham Act false advertising claim, New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 violations, common law unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. The court granted the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions in part, dismissing the RICO, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment claims for failure to adequately plead proximate cause, direct dealings between the parties, and related elements under Twombly standards, while denying dismissal of the Lanham Act and New York statutory claims; it also granted leave to amend to properly name the defendants. The rulings relied on precedents like Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. for the RICO analysis and case law requiring a substantive relationship for unjust enrichment.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatorytaxesprocedure

The case involved Lutheran Medical Center challenging the denial of its appeal regarding a 1997 Medicare reimbursement determination by its fiscal intermediary, Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, specifically concerning the calculation of a disproportionate share hospital (DSH) adjustment under HCFA Ruling 97-2. Lutheran sought judicial review claiming the denial was arbitrary and capricious and requested mandamus relief to compel the Secretary of Health and Human Services to reopen or recalculate the reimbursement. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the intermediary had no mandatory duty under 42 C.F.R. § 405.1885 to reopen the decision because CMS had not provided timely notice or explicit direction to do so within the three-year period, and that the regulation's language did not support reopening based on an existing ruling. The court further found no clear, non-discretionary duty for mandamus relief, aligning with precedent that Ruling 97-2 did not trigger reopening obligations.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

The case arose when plaintiff Richard Singh and his wife sued North American Airlines in state court for negligence, emotional distress, false arrest, and related claims after Singh was detained and incarcerated for nearly nine months based on drugs found in luggage bearing his name; the drugs had actually been placed by airline employees, and the criminal charges against Singh were later dropped. After removal to federal court and various procedural maneuvers, the plaintiffs moved to remand the action to state court, contending there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the motion, ruling that the Warsaw Convention completely preempts claims falling within its scope and thereby supplies federal jurisdiction. It reasoned that the injury-causing event—the mislabeling of narcotics-laden luggage with Singh’s identification—occurred during the operations of embarkation, bringing the claims within Article 17 of the Convention.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involves two appeals from orders of the bankruptcy court in the Chapter 11 proceedings of Benjamin Hirsch, which arose alongside divorce proceedings between him and his former wife Nachama Hirsch. The disputes center on the size of Nachama's proof of claim for equitable distribution of marital property, including assets that the state court found had been fraudulently conveyed, as well as whether Nachama violated the automatic stay by seeking entry of a divorce judgment in state court after the bankruptcy filing. The bankruptcy court reduced the claim amount and found a stay violation, while also denying full relief from the stay. On appeal, the district court examined the proper valuation of the claim in light of an IRS lien and other figures from the state court decision, concluded that the lien and certain discrepancies should have been considered, and addressed the limited scope of stay relief granted. The court suggested remand for further proceedings, including possible abstention in favor of the state matrimonial court.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In United States v. Locascio, the government moved to empanel an anonymous and partially sequestered jury for the trial of defendants alleged to be members or associates of the Gambino organized crime family, who faced charges including racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, and related offenses arising from large-scale fraudulent schemes. The defendants opposed the motion, arguing it would violate their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The court granted the motion, holding that an anonymous jury was warranted under settled Second Circuit precedent when there is strong reason to believe the jury needs protection and reasonable precautions are taken to protect the defendants' rights. The court found such reasons present based on the seriousness of the charges, the defendants' alleged dangerousness and ties to organized crime, their motive and ability to interfere with the judicial process, and the expected public attention, while minimizing prejudice through neutral jury instructions and a detailed questionnaire.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an indictment charging eleven defendants with RICO violations, money laundering, mail and wire fraud, and related offenses tied to alleged schemes including unauthorized telephone charges and misleading internet billing practices connected to adult entertainment websites. Some defendants were alleged to be members or associates of the Gambino Crime Family, with proceeds from the frauds purportedly laundered to pay tribute within the organization. The court addressed multiple defendants' motions to sever their trials under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14, as well as the government's motion to disqualify Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP as counsel for defendant Norman Chañes. The court granted severance only for defendants Nadell, Schaeffer, and Levy, denied the remaining severance requests, and granted the disqualification motion. These rulings rested on assessments of potential prejudice, judicial efficiency, and conflicts arising from counsel's prior representation and possible need to testify.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendants convicted after trial of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering arising from a scheme that defrauded investors of millions of dollars through sham currency trading companies Evergreen and First Equity. The court addressed whether to apply a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(8) on the ground that the offenses substantially jeopardized the safety and soundness of a financial institution. The court declined to apply the enhancement, holding that the guideline does not cover sham entities created solely to perpetrate fraud. The reasoning was that the provision protects legitimate institutions from destruction, while investor losses are addressed by a separate guideline provision, and the companies here served no legitimate purpose.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a nonprofit organization dedicated to Falun Gong and 67 individual practitioners suing two Chinese-language newspapers and their writers for publishing articles critical of Falun Gong and its members. The plaintiffs alleged a federal conspiracy to interfere with civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), along with New York common law claims for defamation, defamation per se, and prima facie tort, and a violation of New York Civil Rights Law § 40-c. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the entire complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The federal claim was dismissed for failure to adequately allege a conspiracy or protected rights, while the defamation claims failed under the group libel doctrine because the statements concerned the broader Falun Gong group rather than the specific plaintiffs and thus were not "of and concerning" them; the other state claims lacked required elements such as facts supporting harassment.

civil rightsfree speechreligious libertytorts & liability

This case involved former TWA flight attendants integrated into American Airlines after its acquisition of TWA, who faced furlough under a Restructuring Agreement negotiated with their union APFA amid the airline's financial difficulties. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to block the agreement's implementation and their scheduled layoffs, alleging that APFA breached its duty of fair representation through discriminatory concessions and collusion with AA, that AA aided and abetted the breach, and that AA committed fraud by withholding information on executive bonuses. The court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing, concluding that the balance of hardships weighed against relief because an injunction would likely force AA into bankruptcy, leading to additional widespread furloughs beyond those already planned under the agreement.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a class action by borrowers of federally guaranteed student loans who sought discharge of their debts under 20 U.S.C. § 1087(c) after alleging false certification of their ability to benefit from proprietary school programs; they challenged a Department of Education policy, issued via Dear Colleague letter, that treats the absence of adverse findings by oversight agencies as evidence against discharge and requires borrowers to provide additional corroboration beyond their sworn statements. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, while denying plaintiffs' cross-motion, holding that the policy is facially consistent with the Higher Education Act and its implementing regulations and was validly adopted without notice-and-comment rulemaking. The court further reasoned that the record was insufficiently developed to decide whether the policy is arbitrary and capricious in light of evidence that licensing and accreditation agencies provide inadequate oversight of the schools in question.

federal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether a roughly $460,000 judgment entered on a 1995 settlement agreement resolving claims that Roger Detrano had breached his fiduciary duties and committed fraud while serving as trustee of Elizabeth Chase's trust was dischargeable in Detrano's Chapter 7 bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to Detrano, concluding that the debt arose solely from a contractual obligation and was therefore dischargeable. The district court vacated that ruling, explaining that the settlement agreement did not include a stipulation or admission of the underlying misconduct and that general releases executed as part of the settlement did not preclude litigation of the dischargeability issue. It remanded the case for a determination on the merits of whether the debt was incurred through fraud or a breach of fiduciary duty while Detrano acted as trustee.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Collado v. Miller, a Hispanic defendant convicted in New York state court of multiple weapons, arson, and related offenses sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He argued that the prosecutor violated Batson v. Kentucky by using peremptory challenges to strike prospective jurors with Hispanic surnames during voir dire for alternate jurors, and that the trial court erred by not requiring the prosecutor to provide race-neutral explanations. The district court denied the petition, holding that the state courts had reasonably concluded on the merits that the defense failed to establish a prima facie case of purposeful racial discrimination based on the record of challenges and the overall jury composition. Under AEDPA, the federal court deferred to the state court's factual and legal determinations, finding no objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

criminal lawcivil rights

In King v. Hasty, pro se petitioner Eugene T. King, Jr. filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging denial of due process because the Parole Commission did not hold a revocation hearing within 90 days of his arrest for violating parole conditions by using cocaine. The district court denied the petition, noting that King received a revocation hearing at which he admitted the violation, was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment within the applicable guidelines, and suffered no prejudice from the delay. The core reasoning was that an untimely hearing without prejudice does not warrant habeas relief, the Commission did not act in bad faith or predetermine the sentence, and the proper remedy would have been mandamus rather than release from custody.

criminal lawprocedure

In Rivera v. Apple Industrial Corp., plaintiff Alfredo Rivera, a security guard with diabetes and vision impairment, sued his former employers Apple Industrial Corporation and Effective Security Systems under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that he was discriminated against and discharged because of his disabilities and that defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodations or retaliated against him. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that Rivera did not establish a prima facie case under the ADA, as he failed to show he was disabled within the meaning of the statute, that he was qualified for the position with or without accommodation, or that any adverse actions were motivated by his disabilities; it also found his accommodation request was not properly raised and that some harassment claims were time-barred.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this case, tenured professor Catherine Ruggieri sued St. John's University and its president under Title VII, claiming retaliation for her earlier 1993 discrimination lawsuit through incidents such as temporary denial of a teaching reduction, exclusion from certain committees, non-appointment to a deanship, and cancellation of summer courses; the defendants counterclaimed for breach of the 1995 settlement agreement that resolved the prior suit. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all of Ruggieri's claims but denied it as to the counterclaim. The core reasoning was that none of the alleged incidents amounted to an adverse employment action sufficient to support a retaliation claim, as they either lacked evidence of retaliatory motive, were supported by legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons, did not violate the settlement's terms regarding administrative positions or other benefits, or fell outside the statute of limitations, while factual disputes remained on the counterclaim.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure