Thomas James McAvoy

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.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

healthcarelabor & employment

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.

procedurefederal power

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.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Harley-Davidson entities suing their former motorcycle dealer for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, dilution, and breach of contract after terminating the dealer agreement based on alleged record-keeping and compliance violations. The dealer asserted counterclaims for breach of contract and violations of the New York Franchised Motor Vehicle Dealer Act, claiming the termination was improper and that a franchise transfer request was unreasonably denied. The court treated the motion as one for summary judgment due to submission of materials outside the pleadings. It dismissed all counterclaims against H-D Michigan, LLC because it was neither a contract signatory nor a franchisor under the statute, dismissed the dealer's second, third, and fourth counterclaims against Harley-Davidson Motor Company on grounds including the statute of limitations and the reasonableness of refusing transfer during termination proceedings, and denied the motion as to the remaining breach-of-contract counterclaim due to triable factual issues about the audit and termination process.

business & regulatory

In Mastec North America, Inc. v. MSE Power Systems, Inc., MasTec petitioned under the Federal Arbitration Act to confirm a unanimous arbitration award of over $2.65 million arising from payment disputes on two Pennsylvania construction subcontracts, while MSE cross-moved to vacate the award on grounds that it was denied a full and fair opportunity to present evidence and that the panel exceeded its authority by issuing an irrational decision. The court reviewed the matter under the FAA's deferential standard, which strongly favors confirmation of arbitration awards and requires vacatur only upon a showing of specific statutory grounds such as arbitrator misconduct, partiality, or exceeding powers, with substantially identical standards applying under New York law. After examining the extensive discovery, hearings, and briefing in the arbitration, the court determined that MSE had not carried its heavy burden to establish any basis for vacatur and therefore confirmed the award.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved pro se plaintiffs Robert and Bonnie Krug asserting dozens of federal constitutional, ADA, and state law claims against county, city, and individual defendants arising from Robert Krug's arrest, prosecution, and conviction for attempted armed robbery. After the conviction was reversed on appeal and following multiple extensions due to medical issues, the plaintiffs failed to file timely opposition papers to the defendants' motions to dismiss or for summary judgment despite court warnings and deadlines. The court treated the motions as ones for summary judgment and decided them on the existing record without further discovery or argument, analyzing issues such as consent to searches, qualified immunity, false arrest claims, grand jury testimony, and Younger abstention for ongoing state proceedings. The core reasoning focused on the absence of genuine issues of material fact supporting the claims, the validity of consents and procedures used by law enforcement, and procedural rules requiring timely responses from the plaintiffs.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which the plaintiff alleged that two Onondaga County Jail employees violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by filing a false disciplinary report in retaliation for an insult and failing to prevent his resulting 49-day confinement in the Special Housing Unit without basic necessities. The defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds including failure to allege or establish constitutional violations, municipal liability under Monell, collateral estoppel, and qualified immunity. After de novo review of the magistrate judge's report recommending dismissal, the district court adopted the recommendation in full, granted the motion, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved LCO Destiny, LLC suing BP Industries Incorporated over BP's marketing of picture frames under the mark "TIMELESS ELEGANCE," which LCO claimed infringed its registered "TIMELESS FRAMES" trademark, along with related claims including breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. After BP had promised in correspondence to abandon its trademark application and phase out use of the mark, LCO alleged that BP continued selling the products and had never intended to comply. BP moved to dismiss the fraudulent misrepresentation count under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion and dismissed the fraud claim without prejudice, holding that New York law does not allow a fraud claim to proceed alongside a breach-of-contract claim when the only alleged misrepresentation concerns an intent not to perform the contract itself rather than a collateral promise.

business & regulatory

This case involved a pro se prisoner plaintiff with sickle cell anemia who sued multiple prison medical staff and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming they were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment by mishandling his implanted port-a-cath and failing to adequately treat pain crises. The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to the defendants, finding no evidence of deliberate indifference given the care provided, the plaintiff's occasional refusals of treatment, and the medical judgments exercised. After de novo review of the record and objections, the district court adopted the recommendation in full. It therefore granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the entire action.

civil rightscriminal law

The United States brought this action to enjoin defendants Robert Schulz and his two nonprofit organizations from promoting a tax avoidance scheme known as the Tax Termination Package, which provided instructions and false forms to help individuals stop withholding and paying federal income taxes. The government alleged that the scheme relied on knowingly false statements about the voluntary nature of the tax system, the invalidity of the 16th Amendment, and the non-taxability of wages, in violation of Internal Revenue Code provisions governing abusive tax shelters. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12, while the United States cross-moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, seeking injunctive relief under section 7408 based on conduct penalized by section 6700. The court examined the five statutory elements for an injunction, including organization of a plan, false statements about tax benefits made with knowledge or reason to know of their falsity, materiality, and the need to prevent recurrence, while applying summary judgment standards that require no genuine issue of material fact.

taxesfederal power

This case involved property owners who sued Clinton County, New York, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the county violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by foreclosing on two vacant lots for unpaid taxes without proper notice, and challenging the constitutionality of New York Real Property Tax Law §§ 1125 and 1131. The court granted the county's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action in full. The core reasoning was that the county provided constitutionally adequate notice through multiple first-class mailings to the address on the tax rolls, a certified mailing that USPS records showed as delivered, and publication in local newspapers; the county reasonably believed the notices were received based on the returned receipt and tracking data. The court also rejected equal protection claims for lack of differential treatment and dismissed the surplus proceeds claim as meritless under Supreme Court precedent in Nelson v. City of New York.

civil rightspropertytaxesprocedure

Defendant Ramatulai Barry was indicted for false personation, misuse of a passport, and false use of a passport after presenting false documents at the U.S. border while seeking asylum from Guinea. She moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that her prosecution violated due process rights because U.S. treaty obligations as a signatory to the Refugee Treaty prohibit criminal prosecution of refugees who use false documents to enter. The court denied the motion, following its prior decision in a similar case, because the treaty permits prosecution when a refugee fails to immediately notify authorities of an asylum claim or has settled in another country first, facts present here as Barry entered from Canada and only disclosed her asylum intent after repeated false statements. The court further reasoned that Barry remained free to apply for asylum in the immigration process and that no authority supported dismissal of the criminal charges.

immigrationcriminal law

This case arose after the Ethan Allan sank in Lake George in 2005, prompting multiple lawsuits; the Lake George Steamboat Company, owner of the Mohican whose wake was alleged to have caused the sinking, filed a petition under the Limitation Act (46 U.S.C. § 181 et seq.) to limit its liability to the value of its vessel and to enjoin other actions. Shoreline Cruises and the Ethan Allan's captain moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the petition and granted the motion to dismiss, holding that Lake George is not a navigable water of the United States because La Chute River contains waterfalls, rapids, and dams that prevent it from serving as a continuous highway for interstate or foreign commerce. The Limitation Act therefore did not apply, and the court lacked admiralty jurisdiction.

procedurefederal power

The case concerned FiberMark's claims against Brownville for producing and selling imitation pressboard with a printed mottled appearance that allegedly copied FiberMark's Type I Genuine Pressboard trade dress, asserting violations of the Lanham Act Section 43(a), common law unfair competition, and New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 360-1. After a jury trial, the jury found secondary meaning in the mottled appearance but no likelihood of confusion, resulting in verdicts for the defendant on the federal trade dress, unfair competition, and anti-dilution claims, while awarding the plaintiff nominal damages of one dollar on the deceptive acts and practices claim. The parties filed cross-motions for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) and for new trials under Rule 59(a), with the court applying standards that permit such relief only upon a complete absence of supporting evidence, overwhelming contrary evidence, or a seriously erroneous verdict amounting to a miscarriage of justice.

business & regulatory

The case involves plaintiff Garrett Barmore, an African-American student at Guilderland High School, who brought federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 along with related state claims against school district defendants, alleging discrimination and constitutional violations arising from school disciplinary actions including an extended suspension. Defendants moved under Rules 12(c) and 56 to dismiss certain claims against certain defendants. The court applied the standards for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, accepting the complaint's allegations as true where appropriate and considering limited extrinsic evidence. It granted the motion in part and denied it in part, specifically denying qualified immunity to defendant Aidala because the record did not establish his entitlement to the defense.

civil rightsprocedure

In Wilson v. IBM, plaintiff Caroline Wilson sued IBM and a supervisor under Title VII and New York Human Rights Law, claiming her layoff was motivated by gender and pregnancy discrimination. She had taken maternity leave in 2000, during which a male colleague filled her sales role; upon a 2001 reduction in force while she was still on leave, IBM selected her for termination rather than the colleague, citing the colleague's ongoing customer relationships and revenue-generating work. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no evidence that the decision—which was made before her return and by multiple managers—was based on her protected status, and concluding that an innocuous post-notification conversation about breastfeeding did not indicate discriminatory animus or influence the outcome. The claims failed because plaintiff could not establish circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case concerned plaintiffs Car-Freshner Corporation and Julius Samann LTD suing defendants Big Lots Stores, Inc. and Midwestern Home Products, Inc. for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and related claims arising from defendants' sale of tree-shaped air fresheners resembling plaintiffs' registered Royal Pine and Tree Design marks. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on trademark priority, validity, and likelihood of confusion, while defendants cross-moved for summary judgment on the availability of punitive damages under New York law and whether the case qualified as exceptional under the Lanham Act for attorneys' fees. The court granted plaintiffs' motion and denied defendants', holding that the trademarks were valid and prior, that confusion was likely based on the similar appearance and packaging of the products, and that issues of fact remained on willfulness and damages such that punitive damages could be available even with only nominal damages and the case could be found exceptional.

business & regulatoryprocedure