The case concerns a homeowner's disputes with a village zoning board and code enforcement officials over building permits, stop-work orders, and variance applications for alterations to her house, which she had expanded over time while operating a day care. After the board revoked her permits and certificate of occupancy, she successfully challenged part of that decision in state court under Article 78, then faced repeated denials of further permits and variances. She sued in federal court alleging First Amendment retaliation by the board and a code officer for her prior litigation and advocacy. On the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court analyzed the retaliation claims, finding triable issues of fact based on circumstantial evidence including procedural irregularities, disparate treatment of her applications compared to others, and a pattern of antagonism, while noting that other harm beyond speech chilling was alleged.
In this case, plaintiff Susan Schlenger sued her former employer IBM for alleged misrepresentations during hiring regarding variable pay and relocation benefits, and sued MetLife and Fidelity over the denial of disability benefits and related claims after she developed back pain and other medical issues while employed. The court granted MetLife's motion for summary judgment on the claims against it and on its counterclaim, granted Fidelity's motion for summary judgment on the claims against it, denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment and request for attorneys' fees, and granted IBM's motion to dismiss the claims against it under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) while granting leave to amend. These rulings rested on the absence of genuine disputes of material fact supporting the benefit claims, the plaintiff's actual notice of employment terms that contradicted her allegations, and the failure to adequately plead elements such as fraudulent intent or necessary accommodations for disability discrimination.
The case involved plaintiffs Leland Eaves and his Florida company Cando, who joined the BETA Plan marketed by defendants Designs for Finance, Moritt Hock law firm, and Prusky Law as a legitimate multiple-employer welfare benefit plan allowing tax deductions for contributions under IRC Section 419A(f)(6). Plaintiffs claimed the defendants promoted it despite knowing it was an illegal tax shelter, failed to warn of 2003 IRS regulatory changes that recharacterized it as deferred compensation and eliminated deductibility, and caused them tax-related harm after they contributed $40,000 annually from 2001 to 2007. The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint asserting RICO, fraud, negligence, contract, and New York deceptive practices claims. Dismissal rested on statute of limitations bars for several claims, failure to adequately plead elements like reliance or consumer-oriented conduct, and lack of a New York transaction for the Section 349 claim.
In Carroll v. City of Mount Vernon, a Caucasian firefighter employed since 1988 sued the city and its mayor under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause, alleging that his race was improperly considered when he was not promoted to lieutenant from the 2004 civil service list despite being eligible and interviewed. The plaintiff ranked high enough for two vacancies that arose in 2007, but the city delayed action after receiving objections from the Vulcan Society citing a prior consent decree, and the list expired before any decision was finalized; later vacancies were filled from a new list. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment and held that the defendants did not make a race-based promotion decision, as they merely considered the objections without reaching a final determination to deny the plaintiff based on race, distinguishing the facts from Ricci v. DeStefano and finding no violation of the consent decree or applicable law.
The case involved a probationary police officer, Jason Jackler, who alleged that he was fired by the Middletown Police Department in retaliation for filing a report corroborating a civilian complaint of excessive force by a sergeant and for refusing orders from superiors, including Police Chief Byrne, to withdraw or alter the report with false information. Jackler brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation, conspiracy, and substantive due process violations. The court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed all claims. It reasoned that under Garcetti v. Ceballos, Jackler's statements were made pursuant to his official duties as a police officer and thus were not protected speech under the First Amendment, and that his refusal to make false statements did not give rise to a viable constitutional claim in this context.
Riverkeeper brought a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act against Mirant Lovett, alleging that the company violated its SPDES permit by repeatedly failing to deploy a required Gunderboom marine life exclusion system at its Hudson River power plant on time. Lovett moved to dismiss, contending that a 2004 consent order with the state DEC had modified the permit deadlines, that the state had diligently prosecuted the violations, and that the claims were moot due to the plant's shutdown, demolition, and Lovett's bankruptcy. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It held that the consent order did not validly alter the permit because it bypassed required public participation procedures, so the citizen suit was not barred, while noting that shutdown and related events could affect claims for injunctive relief but not necessarily civil penalties.