Roger Jeffrey Miner

The case concerned Monica Tenesaca Delgado, a native and citizen of Ecuador, who petitioned for review of an ICE decision reinstating a prior order of removal against her. Delgado had been removed in 1999 after attempting to enter the United States with fraudulent documents and later reentered without inspection in 2000; she subsequently married a U.S. citizen and applied for adjustment of status and related waivers. The CIS denied her applications, finding her inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) with no available waiver or exception, and notified the ICE, which reinstated the removal order. The court denied the petition, holding that INA § 241(a)(5) renders an alien who reenters illegally after removal ineligible for any relief under the INA, including adjustment of status, and that this bar applies regardless of when the application was filed.

immigration

The case involves a New York State Assembly employee who alleged that legislative officials discriminated against her on the basis of age and sex by denying her a promotion to director of budget studies and subjecting her to unequal compensation and working conditions. She brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII, the ADEA, and the Equal Pay Act. The court granted summary judgment to some defendants on all claims and to all defendants on the § 1983 and EPA claims, finding those actions protected by legislative immunity. It denied summary judgment on the Title VII and ADEA claims against the remaining defendants but allowed renewal after further discovery on whether the plaintiff qualified as an “employee” and whether those defendants qualified as “employers” or “agents.”

civil rightslabor & employment

The case concerned commercial disputes over a patented mobile hayfeeder, including alleged breaches of exclusive sales and royalty agreements, trademark and trade name infringement, conversion of property, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff originally filed in New York state court, but the defendants removed the action to federal district court, citing patent registration and Lanham Act trademark claims as bases for federal question jurisdiction. The plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that the complaint raised only state-law claims without diversity of citizenship. The court held that none of the claims arose under federal law in a manner conferring original jurisdiction, because federal patent or trademark rights were not essential elements of the causes of action pleaded, and therefore granted remand to state court while dismissing the patent-related claims over which jurisdiction would have been exclusive.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case concerned plaintiff Dorlesca Salanger's termination from her position as a customer service agent with U.S. Air (and its predecessors) after an internal investigation into suspected misappropriation of funds led to her arrest on grand larceny charges that were later dismissed by a grand jury; the airline refused her request for reinstatement. Salanger alleged breach of an implied employment contract, based on oral statements during training and company personnel policies providing grievance procedures for "for cause" terminations, that limited the employer's right to fire her only for just cause, as well as a violation of New York Executive Law § 296(16) prohibiting adverse employment actions based on dismissed criminal accusations. After a bench trial, the court applied New York at-will employment doctrine and the standards from Weiner v. McGraw-Hill for establishing contractual just-cause protections, reviewed the employment history, grievance process, and evidence of the investigation, and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on the contract and statutory claims.

labor & employmentcriminal law

This case involved a First Amendment challenge by the Knolls Action Project, an anti-nuclear advocacy group, to the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory's revocation of permission for the group to distribute leaflets on KAPL property near employee access roads. After a bench trial, the court upheld the complete ban on non-business leafletting by any outside group. The core reasoning was that the relevant portions of the KAPL property constituted a nonpublic forum, so content-neutral restrictions on access were permissible if reasonable in light of the facility's security needs, liability concerns, and classified nuclear research mission, as supported by precedents such as Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n.

free speechcivil rights

The case involved Hassan Kadah seeking a refund of a 100% penalty assessment paid under I.R.C. § 6672 for Custom Technology Corporation's unpaid withholding and FICA taxes covering the third and fourth quarters of 1976 and the first quarter of 1977. Kadah had purchased a controlling interest in CTC, assumed the role of chairman and later president with check-signing authority, and directed corporate operations starting in October 1976. The court determined that Kadah was not a responsible person during the third quarter of 1976 but became one thereafter and willfully failed to ensure payment of the taxes for the subsequent periods, leading to judgment in his favor only as to the third-quarter assessment and for the government on the remaining claims.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a defaulted bank loan secured by farm equipment and dairy cattle, after which the bank and its counsel repossessed nine cows from the plaintiffs' farm with the assistance of county sheriff's deputies. The plaintiffs sued the bank, its officers, and the law firm under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging federal constitutional violations stemming from the repossession and related state-court default judgment proceedings. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment. It reasoned that the repossession constituted private self-help under the Uniform Commercial Code without sufficient state action to support a § 1983 claim, that the limited presence of deputies did not convert the conduct into state action, and that prior state-court rulings barred relitigation of key issues under res judicata.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

This case involves a challenge by handicapped children, their parents, and private schools to New York State's procedures for setting tuition reimbursement rates for private placements of children who cannot be served in public programs, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA), and the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiffs alleged that the revised rate-setting methodology violated due process and equal protection rights as well as statutory requirements for a free appropriate public education. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment and determined that the children's substantive claims under the EHA were premature because they had not yet exhausted available administrative processes or demonstrated that such remedies would be futile or inadequate. It further noted that broad injunctive relief might be available in limited circumstances but declined to reach the merits of the placement or rate challenges at that stage. The opinion discusses the statutory framework requiring individualized education programs and state-approved private placements at no cost to families, while emphasizing the EHA's comprehensive scheme for resolving disputes.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

The case concerns Legi-Tech, Inc., a company providing electronic summaries and data on New York legislative activity, which was denied access to the state's new Legislative Retrieval Service (LRS) after the legislature passed Chapter 257 excluding competitors offering similar electronic systems. Legi-Tech sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the denial and statute violated the First Amendment by restricting speech and press, as well as equal protection, due process, and the bill of attainder clause. The court addressed the company's motion for a preliminary injunction, setting out findings of fact on the facts of exclusion and the statute's text, then applying the Second Circuit's standard for such relief while analyzing standing and the merits of the constitutional challenges.

free speechcivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

The case involved New York State's challenge to a decision by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requiring the state to return approximately $1.55 million in federal financial participation (FFP) under the Medicaid program for overpayments to healthcare providers that had been identified but not yet recovered. The court reviewed the Departmental Grant Appeals Board's (GAB) upholding of the disallowance, focusing on whether the Secretary could adjust FFP based on such identified overpayments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1396b(d). The court determined that the statutory language and legislative history supported the federal government's right to recoup its share when overpayments are established through audits, treating them as adjustments to prior expenditures, even prior to actual recovery by the state.

healthcarefederal power

This case was a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which plaintiffs James Norris and Mary Keyes alleged due process, equal protection, and Fourth Amendment violations by Albany police officers, the city, and the police chief arising from officers entering the Norris property, pursuing and arresting Mitchell Keyes, and detaining or injuring Mary Keyes during a confrontation in the early morning hours. After a bench trial, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law resolving disputed testimony based on witness credibility and demeanor. The court determined that officers had lawfully traced the suspect's vehicle, responded to resistance during the arrest attempt, and used force amid the resulting turmoil, while rejecting certain accounts of plaintiffs' conduct as not credible and noting Mitchell Keyes' conviction for resisting arrest.

civil rightscriminal law

This case arose from claims by former New Haven Railroad engine service employees that Conrail and two unions violated collective bargaining agreements and the unions' duty of fair representation by placing them on unfavorable seniority rosters after the 1968 Penn Central merger and 1969 inclusion of the New Haven, and that an ICC order protecting employee rights was breached. Jurisdiction was asserted under the Railway Labor Act, Rail Passenger Service Act, and Interstate Commerce Act. On defendants' motions for summary judgment, the court dismissed the ICC-order claim under the primary-jurisdiction doctrine, found the Rail Passenger Service Act inapplicable, and held that the remaining claims were time-barred under the six-month limitations period applicable to hybrid breach-of-contract and duty-of-fair-representation actions.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by a New York police officer seeking FBI records on an unfounded 1980 civil rights complaint lodged against him in his official capacity. The FBI released eight of sixteen pages with substantial redactions and affirmed that decision on administrative appeal. The plaintiff sued for full disclosure, and both sides moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants after in camera review, holding that the redactions were proper under FOIA exemptions 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(D) to protect the privacy of FBI personnel and third parties as well as the identity of a confidential source in law enforcement investigatory records.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

This case involved federal kidnapping, conspiracy, and ransom-related charges against multiple defendants, including Yong Bing-Nam and Leong Hoong-Siew, arising from the October 1983 abduction of a restaurant owner's wife in New York. The court ruled on pre-trial motions to suppress pre-arraignment statements obtained after extended interrogations and to enforce a cooperation agreement. It granted Yong Bing-Nam's suppression motion, finding his statements involuntary due to the cumulative effect of prolonged custody without arraignment, repeated questioning, and discussions of leniency, but denied enforcement of any plea deal. Leong Hoong-Siew's suppression motion was denied because his statements were determined to be voluntary after proper Miranda warnings. The core reasoning focused on the totality of circumstances affecting voluntariness under Fifth Amendment standards and 18 U.S.C. § 3501.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved multiple related lawsuits filed by pro se plaintiff Alan Taylor against various defendants, including Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., in which the defendants sought attorneys' fees as sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The court found that Taylor's filings across six actions were frivolous, harassing, and not grounded in fact or law, causing unnecessary expense to defendants and burdening the judicial system. It granted the sanctions motions in four actions, awarding reduced fee amounts totaling $50,000 after reviewing time records and adjusting for some duplicative work by counsel. The core reasoning was that Rule 11 requires imposition of sanctions for improper filings to compensate victims and deter abuse, though the court noted the potential chilling effect on pro se litigants.

procedure

In Michelson v. Daly, individual plaintiffs and a coalition alleged violations of their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and related provisions after a search of plaintiff Michelson's apartment, seizure of items including documents, and arrests on charges of possessing fireworks and marijuana, all in connection with organizing a protest against a South African rugby team's match. The federal defendants moved for a protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to prevent disclosure of a confidential informant's identity during discovery. The court granted the motion in part, prohibiting disclosure of the informant's identity while requiring production of all other information provided by the informant. It reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their need for the identity outweighed the government's privilege, based on an in camera review confirming the informant's existence, reliability, and potential danger if revealed, and distinguishing the facts from precedents like Hampton v. Hanrahan.

civil rightscriminal lawfree speechprocedure

The case concerned the Secretary of Labor's challenge to CSEA Local Union 1000's 1982 mail ballot election under Section 401(e) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, focusing on whether the union's nominating procedures imposed unreasonable candidacy requirements that denied members the right to run for statewide offices. The district court granted the Secretary's motion for partial summary judgment on this claim, determining that the process—under which an appointed nominating committee selected candidates without written guidelines or qualifications, automatically included incumbents, and required rejected candidates to obtain over 3,800 signatures in six weeks—violated the Act's mandate for reasonable, uniformly applied qualifications. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents such as Wirtz v. Hotel Employees and Usery v. Steelworkers, which invalidated rules excluding the vast majority of members from eligibility, and concluded that the procedures here unduly interfered with democratic elections, necessitating a new election.

labor & employmentelections

This case concerned whether a "no-docking" clause in a collective bargaining agreement between BASF Wyandotte Corporation and Local 227 violated section 302(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, which generally prohibits employers from making payments to union representatives. The company had stopped paying union officers for time spent on union business (except actual meetings with management) and sought a declaratory judgment that such payments were unlawful. The court denied summary judgment to the employer, holding that the payments fell within the statutory exception in section 302(c)(1) for compensation "by reason of" an employee's service, as the provision resulted from arms-length bargaining and did not create a risk of improper employer influence over union officials. The decision noted that the NLRB had already found the repudiation to be an unfair labor practice, and the court lacked jurisdiction to address that aspect.

labor & employment

This citizens’ suit under section 505 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act alleged that Conrail had repeatedly violated the effluent limits in its state-issued NPDES/SPDES permit for discharges from a locomotive repair facility into the Hudson River and South Albany Creek. The plaintiff environmental group sought injunctive relief and civil penalties after giving the required pre-suit notice; Conrail moved to dismiss, arguing lack of standing and jurisdiction and that a 1979 consent order between Conrail and the New York DEC, which set a compliance schedule and imposed penalties, constituted diligent state prosecution that barred the action under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(B). The court held that the consent order and the DEC’s ongoing oversight qualified as diligent prosecution equivalent to a court action, thereby precluding the citizen suit, and accordingly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

environment

This case involves motel owners who sued various Olympic-related entities and state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that New York’s Chapter 912 and actions by the Olympic Accommodations Control Corporation effected an uncompensated taking of their property by imposing rate controls and a preferential leasing right over their rooms for the 1980 Winter Games. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court held that the plaintiffs’ Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims accrued no later than spring 1979, when they learned of the regulatory scheme and signed agreements limiting their use of the motels, and were therefore barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The decision rested on the principle that a final decision to impose the restrictions had occurred well before the Games, even if the events themselves were later subject to cancellation, and that subsequent effects did not restart the limitations period.

propertycivil rightsprocedurebusiness & regulatory