In Baptiste v. Ercole, an inmate convicted by a New York jury of two counts of second-degree depraved indifference murder and one count of second-degree criminal weapon possession sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising claims of insufficient evidence, improper admission of post-arrest statements, exclusion of a rebuttal witness, and ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel. The district court denied and dismissed the petition in full. The court reasoned that several claims were procedurally defaulted under independent and adequate state grounds, that the state courts' merits rulings were not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under AEDPA standards, and that the petitioner failed to show prejudice or deficient performance meeting Strickland v. Washington requirements for ineffective assistance claims.
The case concerned claims by a class of registered nurses that Albany-area hospitals, including Albany Medical Center and Ellis Hospital, violated the Sherman Act by conspiring to suppress RN wages from 2002 to 2006 and by exchanging non-public compensation information that facilitated the alleged restraint. Plaintiffs relied on expert testimony to establish anticompetitive effects, injury, and damages, while defendants moved to exclude that testimony under Daubert and sought summary judgment. The court evaluated the reliability of methodologies such as using agency-nurse pay rates as a competitive benchmark, analyzing the impact of information exchanges on wage decisions, and assessing underutilization of nurses, focusing on whether the experts' approaches were consistent with their conclusions and supported by the evidence.
The case involved a federal prisoner, Ronald Hill, who filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Bureau of Prisons' calculation of his 24-month sentence, which was partly concurrent and partly consecutive to a state term, and the application of good conduct time (GCT) credits under 18 U.S.C. § 3624. The court granted the petition, finding that Hill was entitled to immediate release because the BOP had improperly credited GCT to the beginning of the sentence rather than subtracting it from the expiration date of the full term. The core reasoning was that the statute requires first determining the term's expiration date and then deducting GCT, consistent with BOP policy statements and the incentive purpose of the credits, which would be undermined by upfront crediting; this yielded a release date of May 3, 2010, instead of the BOP's July 13, 2010 projection.
In this case, plaintiff Michael Baszto sought judicial review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner's final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits, which alleged inability to work since 2006 due to cognitive deficits, adjustment disorder, epilepsy, arthritis, and effects from brain surgeries. The magistrate judge recommended affirming the denial after finding the ALJ's conclusions supported by substantial evidence, and the district court conducted a de novo review of the record and objections before adopting that recommendation. The court granted the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the complaint in full. The core reasoning was that the Commissioner's determination applied correct legal standards and was backed by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
This case involved plaintiffs seeking to enforce a $1.787 billion default judgment issued by the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe's tribal court against non-Native American defendants, following the dismissal of two prior federal actions based on reported settlements. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the current action was barred by a prior settlement in Arquette II and that plaintiffs were improper parties due to an assignment violating New York law. The court analyzed whether the prior oral or stipulated settlement was enforceable under New York law, considering factors like apparent authority of attorneys, detrimental reliance from discontinuing litigation, and the lack of material differences between federal and state standards for such agreements. It concluded that the settlement was binding and dismissed the action, as the parties' conduct and stipulations demonstrated a valid resolution of the enforcement claims.
The case involves a wood products manufacturer suing IT consulting companies for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of good faith, economic duress, fraudulent conveyance, successor liability, and alter ego claims after an IT system installation proved faulty and ineffective, causing business losses. After a default judgment on liability against one defendant, the remaining defendants moved for summary judgment on multiple claims under New York law. The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim because an enforceable contract covered the subject matter, rejected the economic duress claim for insufficient evidence that the plaintiff was compelled to make payments without free will, and addressed the successor and fraudulent conveyance claims by applying standards requiring proof of insolvency without fair consideration or specific exceptions to non-liability for asset purchases.