Richard Harrington Levet

This case involved a copyright infringement dispute between two novelty and giftware companies over a coin bank design featuring a comic girl with four mood-expressing faces. Plaintiff Goldman-Morgen, Inc. claimed ownership of a valid copyright (Registration No. Gp 43212) for its 'Moody Mary Bank,' which it had registered in 1964 after commissioning the design in Japan, and alleged that defendant Dan Brechner & Co. copied and sold an identical version. The court found the copyright valid, noting that the plaintiff had properly affixed the copyright notice to all copies and that the design was original to the plaintiff. It further determined that the defendant's bank was identical in all material respects, establishing infringement through access and copying. The court granted an injunction against further infringement, awarded damages to be determined by a magistrate, costs, and $4,500 in attorney's fees due to the defendant's bad faith in settlement negotiations.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a maritime collision in dense fog on May 10, 1973, in Ambrose Channel near New York Harbor between the oil tanker Wilmington Getty owned by plaintiff Getty Oil and the vessel Ponce De Leon operated by defendant Transamerican Trailer Transport, Inc. After a bench trial, the court found both vessels at fault for the incident. The reasoning centered on the Wilmington Getty's decision to anchor outside the normal area without placing engines on standby, failing to repeat a security call or properly use radar to avoid the other vessel, combined with the Ponce De Leon's own navigational shortcomings in the congested, low-visibility conditions. The court therefore entered an interlocutory decree apportioning damages 80% to the defendants and 20% to the plaintiff.

torts & liability

The case concerned claims by Hong Kong Export Credit Ins. Corp. against Dun & Bradstreet for breach of a written subscription agreement and an alleged oral cabling agreement, along with negligence, gross negligence, and fraud, based on the defendant's alleged failure to timely mail a credit report regarding a company called Belcrest. The court considered the defendant's motion for a directed verdict under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), which requires granting the motion when the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict. It found that an exculpatory clause in the contract barred liability for ordinary negligence, requiring the plaintiff to prove gross negligence equivalent to recklessness, but the evidence of the defendant's mailing practices showed no such recklessness or indifference. The court also determined that the alleged oral cabling agreement lacked sufficiently definite terms to form an enforceable contract. Accordingly, the court granted the directed verdict for the defendant on all claims and entered judgment in its favor.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved railroad employees suing their employer under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act for false arrest and malicious prosecution after being arrested for attempted burglary of a boxcar, with the criminal charges later dismissed. The court dismissed the FELA claims, holding that these torts are not actionable under the Act because it is intended to compensate for physical injuries resulting from negligence in employment. The court found questions of fact regarding the malicious prosecution claim under diversity jurisdiction and denied summary judgment on that ground, while noting the false arrest claim was time-barred under state law. It granted leave to amend the complaint to properly allege diversity jurisdiction for the malicious prosecution claim.

criminal lawlabor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

Republic Corporation sued Procedyne Corporation for breach of contract and express/implied warranties, claiming that two electrical control consoles supplied for Polytherm's thermoforming machines failed to maintain temperature within the promised plus or minus 10° F variance, causing damages of $61,217.29. Procedyne denied any breach, asserted that Republic had accepted the consoles as delivered, and counterclaimed for $2,377.10 for post-delivery work. After trial, the court found that Republic failed to prove it was free from fault or that Procedyne breached the contract or warranties, that Republic had unconditionally accepted the consoles, and that any revocation was untimely and unsupported. The court therefore dismissed Republic's complaint and entered judgment for Procedyne on the counterclaim in the amount of $2,377.10 plus interest.

business & regulatory

This case involved a breach of contract claim by Joseph Ingrassia against Shell Oil Company over unpaid severance benefits. Ingrassia, a longtime employee in New York, continued working until his role was eliminated during Shell's relocation of operations to Houston in 1970-1971, relying on the company's August 1969 memorandum that promised special severance payments to employees who stayed until their services were no longer needed, provided they were not offered a roughly equivalent position in the New York area. Shell argued that Ingrassia had been offered such a position as Senior Representative—Industrial Sales and thus did not qualify. The court, applying New York law after a bench trial, found that the offered role represented a reduction in rank and responsibilities compared to Ingrassia's prior national sales position, making it not roughly equivalent, and therefore held that Shell breached the agreement by refusing payment. The court awarded Ingrassia the stipulated amount of $19,461.68 plus interest from July 1971.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a barge owned by Bouchard that grounded and was damaged while being towed by the Tug Gillen Brothers to a Texaco terminal on the Hudson River. Bouchard sued both the tug operator Gillen for negligent towage and Texaco for failing to maintain a safe approach to its pier and warn of shallow waters. The court determined that both defendants were negligent, with Gillen's improper navigation and Texaco's removal of a navigational buoy and lack of warning each contributing equally to the incident. As a result, the court held Gillen and Texaco each liable for 50% of the damages to the barge.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a male New York City public school teacher, Gary Ackerman, who was denied unpaid child care leave under a Board of Education by-law (Section 107) that applied only to female teachers for maternity and child care purposes; after denial, he stopped working and later had his teaching license terminated for unrelated reasons. The suit alleged sex discrimination under federal law, seeking injunctive relief, declaratory relief, monetary damages for lost substitute teaching wages, and attorneys' fees. After the Board amended its by-laws in 1974 to extend child care leave to any parent, the court found the equitable claims moot and ruled that Ackerman failed to prove any economic loss from the denial. It further held that the plaintiffs were not the prevailing party entitled to attorneys' fees because the policy change resulted from the 1972 Title VII amendments rather than the lawsuit itself. The court therefore dismissed the complaint in full.

civil rightslabor & employment

This diversity case involved plaintiff Jose Borrello, who delivered two $10,000 checks payable to defendant Perera Company, Inc. to a broker with instructions to hold the funds pending further authorization for a bond purchase; the checks were instead delivered to a third party, Marfinco, which deposited them with Perera, and Perera credited the funds to Marfinco's account and permitted withdrawals without any inquiry into Marfinco's authority. The court entered judgment for Borrello in the amount of $20,000 plus interest. The core reasoning was that Perera, as payee on the checks, had a duty to inquire of Borrello regarding the purpose of the funds before disbursing them and that its failure to do so rendered it liable for conversion of the funds, with no showing of negligence or estoppel by the plaintiff.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

Plaintiff James Spearing, a seaman aboard Manhattan Oil Transportation Corporation's barge Betty K, sued Manhattan and Hudson Tank Storage Company after falling on an improper walkway at Hudson's oil tank farm in New Jersey while the barge was discharging oil. Spearing alleged negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness under general maritime law against Manhattan, along with related direct claims against Hudson. Manhattan cross-claimed and filed a third-party complaint against Hudson. After trial, the court found that Spearing failed to prove liability against either defendant under the Jones Act or maritime law and determined that his own negligence was the sole cause of his injuries. The court therefore dismissed the complaint and third-party complaint, entering judgment for the defendants.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentprocedure

In Hutchins v. Bethel Methodist Home, plaintiff Mildred Hutchins sued the defendant retirement home for breach of contract after entering into an agreement in 1960 that required her to pay a founder's fee in exchange for lifetime occupancy, board, care not exceeding $160 per month, and all necessary medical services including use of the home's infirmary. When Hutchins required skilled nursing care beyond what the infirmary could provide in 1972, Bethel arranged for her care at a separate nursing home facility, which charged higher rates regulated by the state, leading to additional expenses for Hutchins. The court held that Bethel breached the contract by failing to provide the promised medical services and infirmary access, rejecting defenses based on regulatory requirements and the separation of the facilities as irrelevant to the contractual obligations. The court awarded Hutchins damages of $19,718.35.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involved Robert F. Williams suing Transworld Airlines (TWA) for refusing to transport him from London to Detroit in 1969, claiming the refusal was due to racial and political discrimination, leading to his imprisonment in London. The court found that TWA was authorized under 49 U.S.C. § 1511 to refuse transportation to Williams, who was a fugitive with an outstanding FBI warrant. The decision was based on evidence that TWA acted on information from the FBI about Williams being wanted, without proof of discriminatory motive. Consequently, the court dismissed the claims for damages related to the refusal and subsequent imprisonment.

civil rightscriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a New Jersey longshoreman who sued Norwegian shipowners in the Southern District of New York for injuries sustained aboard a vessel moored in Port Newark, New Jersey, in 1967. The plaintiff attempted service of the second amended complaint by mail to the defendants in Norway, relying on New York's long-arm statute (CPLR § 302) on the grounds that the defendants transacted business or committed a tortious act in New York. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, noting that the accident occurred entirely in New Jersey and that any New York business activities were unrelated to the claim. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the required jurisdictional contacts under either CPLR § 301 or § 302, as the cause of action did not arise from any New York activities, and therefore dismissed the action and the related third-party complaint.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a union's lawsuit against Reliance Electric Company to enforce a June 1971 side letter promising that any improvements in employee benefits like Group Insurance made to the Field Service Organization during the term of the collective bargaining agreement would be extended to the New York-Newark bargaining unit. The court dismissed the complaint after a bench trial, holding that the union had not met its burden to prove a breach of the agreement or letter by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence. The core reasoning was that the voluntary group accident policy enhancements provided to non-union employees did not qualify as the "Group Insurance" referenced in the letter, and the agreement and letter did not require extension of benefits unknown to the union at the time of negotiation.

labor & employment

The case involved trustees of a charitable trust suing an investment advisory firm for alleged violations of federal and state anti-fraud laws after the trust's portfolio lost significant value during the firm's management period. The plaintiffs sought damages based on the difference in portfolio value from when the contract started to when it ended. The court, after a bench trial, addressed defenses including ratification, estoppel, and a contractual liability waiver, while confirming jurisdiction under diversity and the relevant statutes. The core reasoning centered on whether the advisor engaged in fraudulent practices under the Investment Advisers Act and New York law, with findings on the parties' roles and the contract terms.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a contract dispute in which Rite Fabrics, Inc. sued Stafford-Higgins Co., Inc. for the unpaid balance on fabric sold and delivered for use in manufacturing women's swimwear, while the defendant counterclaimed for damages based on alleged breaches of warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, also impleading a third-party supplier. The court, after a bench trial, made detailed findings of fact regarding the parties' dealings, including sample orders, telephone and written confirmations specifying swimwear requirements, and the fabric's nonconformity with samples and specifications. Applying New York’s Uniform Commercial Code provisions on contract formation (including § 2-207 regarding additional terms and battle of the forms), express and implied warranties, and installment contracts, the court concluded that the fabric failed to conform, that warranties attached and were not disclaimed, and that the nonconformity substantially impaired the contract value, resulting in liability for the defendant on its counterclaim.

business & regulatory

This case was an admiralty action arising from a 1965 collision on the East River between the City of New York's tug Sanita and the tug Morania No. 12 towing Barge No. 79. The court found both vessels at fault and liable, ordering that damages sustained by the City and by Penn Industries (owner of the barge) be divided equally and determined by a special master. The core reasoning was that the Sanita was unseaworthy due to its instability, which caused it to list and swing into the other vessel when reversing, while the Morania failed to sound required whistle signals, maintain a proper lookout, or maneuver safely out of its slip in violation of navigation statutes.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a merchant seaman who sued the United States under the Public Vessels Act, Suits in Admiralty Act, and general maritime law for injuries allegedly sustained when he slipped on a grease-covered step of a metal ladder aboard the USNS Cowanesque and fell, striking his head. The plaintiff claimed the vessel was unseaworthy and that the defendant was negligent in maintaining the ladder. After a bench trial, the court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his claims by a preponderance of the credible evidence, noting inconsistencies in his accounts regarding the presence of grease, his prior observations that the ladder was clean and dry, the lack of witnesses, and the absence of supporting circumstantial evidence. The court therefore entered judgment dismissing the complaint in favor of the defendant.

torts & liability

The case involved a counterclaim for libel brought by Bernard and Barbara Green against the Church of Scientology of California, Inc., arising from a "Writ of Expulsion" document dated December 3, 1969, which accused Bernard Green of attempted blackmail of parishioners and other misconduct. The Church had originally sued to enjoin the Greens from holding themselves out as bona fide ministers but withdrew all its claims, leaving only the Greens' libel counterclaim for resolution. The sole issue addressed by the court was whether the Church published the document to third parties, as publication is required for a libel claim. After reviewing testimony from the Greens and alleged recipients, along with church records and procedures for creating and distributing the writ, the court found insufficient credible evidence that the Church caused publication to anyone other than the Greens themselves. Accordingly, the court dismissed the counterclaim, concluding that the Greens had not proven the essential element of publication.

torts & liabilityreligious liberty

This case involved a breach of contract claim by plaintiff Kaufman against defendant Diversified Industries arising from a 1968 stock purchase agreement, where Diversified failed to deliver shares, leading to an initial damages award and an indemnity claim for attorneys' fees under the contract's section 6. On remand from the Second Circuit, which had reduced the contract damages from approximately $100,760 to $25,888.50 and directed reconsideration of the indemnity award due to the lower recovery and a contingent fee arrangement, the district court limited the proceedings to adjusting the attorneys' fees without new evidence on plaintiff's intent regarding the shares. The court applied quantum meruit factors including the nature of the litigation, complexity, results achieved, and customary fees to determine a reasonable indemnity amount of $12,000 for fees plus original expenses, while awarding interest on the reduced damages under New York law and denying costs to either party.

business & regulatoryprocedure