Frederic Block

The case involved plaintiff Juan Jose Santillan seeking recovery of unpaid overtime wages, spread of hours pay, and liquidated damages from his former employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law after he worked more than forty hours per week from 2000 to 2010. The defendants defaulted by failing to appear or respond to the complaint. The magistrate judge recommended, and the district court adopted without de novo review, entry of default judgment awarding the plaintiff a total of $60,193.42 consisting of $44,242.94 in damages, prejudgment interest, $7,770 in attorneys' fees, and $440 in costs, accepting the well-pleaded allegations as true and finding the requested amounts reasonable based on the submitted evidence.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a dispute over insurance coverage under a directors’ and officers’ liability policy issued by Landmark American Insurance to Hollis Park Manor Nursing Home. The policy excluded coverage for malpractice and professional errors and omissions but included carve-backs for derivative or shareholder class action claims. Hollis Park sought coverage for a claim by the New York Attorney General arising from staff falsification of patient records, arguing that its liability was derivative of employee acts and thus covered. The court granted summary judgment to Landmark, holding that the policy did not cover the claim because the term “derivative” in the carve-back referred only to shareholder derivative suits brought on behalf of the company, not to vicarious liability from staff misconduct, based on the policy’s context as a D&O policy, standard legal usage, and related statutes.

business & regulatoryhealthcaretorts & liability

This case involves a motion by the United States under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend a prior judgment awarding Lillian Carter $300,000 in damages for emotional distress. The underlying claim arose from a federal employee's negligent misrepresentation of an address to law enforcement, which caused agents to search the wrong home and placed Carter in fear for her safety, resulting in a diagnosis of PTSD. The court denied the motion in full, adhering to its earlier findings on liability under New York tort law, the availability of damages for purely emotional injuries when supported by a guarantee of genuineness, foreseeability, proximate cause, and the reasonableness of the compensatory award after accounting for other stressors in the plaintiff's life.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Linda Velez sued Betsy Sanchez, her relatives, and others, alleging she was trafficked from Ecuador as a minor and forced to perform unpaid household and childcare labor in the Sanchez home for over two years in exchange for promises of education, housing, and legal status. The claims included two under the Alien Tort Statute, one under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and multiple state-law claims for wages, emotional distress, fraud, and assault; the defendants asserted counterclaims and a third-party claim. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all federal claims, holding that the ATS claims did not allege violations of the law of nations and that Velez was not an employee under the FLSA's economic-reality test given the familial living arrangement. It then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, counterclaims, and third-party claims, resulting in dismissal of the entire case.

immigrationlabor & employmentcivil rightscriminal law

In Carter v. United States, plaintiffs sued federal officers under Bivens and the United States under the FTCA after armed law enforcement officers raided their home in February 2004 based on incorrect information that suspect Kinte Carter lived there. A jury found the individual officers not liable, but the court awarded plaintiff Lillian Carter $300,000 for emotional distress after determining that a Postal Service employee negligently misinformed law enforcement by erroneously reporting the plaintiffs' address as a 'good' one for the suspect. The court found that the employee failed to use due care when transcribing handwritten notes from her address verification inquiry, leading to the mistake that prompted the raid, and that this negligence fell outside the discretionary function exception to FTCA liability.

criminal lawtorts & liabilitycivil rights

The case involved a petition by the Regional Director of the NLRB seeking interim relief against One Stop Kosher Supermarket under the National Labor Relations Act, requiring the company to bargain with Local 338 union and provide relevant information pending final adjudication of an unfair labor practices complaint. One Stop had refused to honor a recognition agreement signed by its labor consultant, arguing it was unauthorized, a sham, or lacked majority employee support. The district court granted the petition after finding reasonable cause to believe unfair labor practices had occurred, based in part on an administrative law judge's recommendation, and concluding that the requested relief was just and proper to prevent irreparable harm to the union's bargaining position.

labor & employment

In Keating v. New York, Patrick Keating sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after his 1996 state conviction for depraved-indifference murder and related charges arising from a drunk-driving incident that killed Roseann Sorrentino. Keating raised multiple claims, including an unexhausted one alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to challenge the trial court's admission of an irrelevant and prejudicial videotaped post-arrest statement. The court stayed the habeas proceeding to permit exhaustion of that constitutional claim in state court, denied the other unexhausted claims on the merits under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2), and held the exhausted claims in abeyance, reasoning that the stay-and-abeyance procedure was appropriate to allow full consideration of the potentially meritorious unexhausted issue without dismissing the petition.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Marin Canales's challenge to the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits based on his claims of back pain and depression following a 2005 accident. The ALJ had found only one severe physical impairment, concluded Canales could perform sedentary work, and denied benefits under the Medical-Vocational Guidelines. The court vacated the Commissioner's determination and remanded for further proceedings, holding that new evidence from a treating psychiatrist supported mental impairment claims, the ALJ had not properly applied the treating physician rule to the primary care doctor's findings, and the ALJ had not correctly considered the licensed social worker's assessment under agency regulations.

federal powerhealthcare

In this case, tenured nursing professors at Medgar Evers College sued their department chair and the college president under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation for complaints about departmental elections, course assignments, staffing, committee processes, and administrative decisions. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that the plaintiffs' statements addressed only internal workplace disputes rather than matters of public concern and thus did not constitute protected speech under the First Amendment. The opinion characterized the lawsuit as an attempt to elevate a personal feud into a constitutional claim.

free speechcivil rights

The case involved John Alleva, a former employee of the New York City Department of Investigation terminated at age 71, who alleged age discrimination in his termination, multiple failures to promote, retaliation, and a hostile work environment in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. The DOI moved for summary judgment, which the court granted in full, dismissing the complaint. The court reasoned that Alleva offered no admissible evidence beyond the bare allegations in his complaint to support his claims, while the DOI presented undisputed facts showing legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the termination based on Alleva's admitted policy violations; isolated age-related comments were either self-directed or not tied to adverse actions, and many promotion claims were time-barred or unsupported.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Liberty Mutual Insurance Company suing Fast Lane Car Service, Inc. and its owner for breach of contract and misrepresentation after discovering that the defendants had provided inaccurate information about their business operations on an insurance application, resulting in underpaid premiums. The defendants failed to appear for proceedings, leading to a default judgment. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation without further review due to the lack of objections and absence of plain error, awarding Liberty Mutual $174,193 in damages for the unpaid premiums along with prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Calderon v. Astrue, the plaintiff sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his disability insurance benefits application, claiming severe pain prevented him from working as a jeweler. After multiple administrative decisions and prior court remands, the administrative law judge found the plaintiff not disabled by altering a prior step-four determination that he could not return to his past work. The court remanded the case solely for the calculation of benefits, reasoning that the ALJ had exceeded the scope of the court's mandate by failing to address the identified step-five error and instead changing earlier findings without explanation, in violation of the law of the case doctrine, after years of proceedings.

federal powerprocedurehealthcare

This case involves a Title VII employment discrimination lawsuit in which the plaintiff prevailed against the County of Nassau for failing to hire her as a police officer, securing compensatory damages, front pay, and an initial award of attorney's fees. On remand from the Second Circuit in light of Simmons v. New York City Transit Authority, the district court reconsidered the fee award and applied the presumption favoring prevailing hourly rates in the Eastern District of New York. The court determined that the plaintiff had not overcome the Simmons presumption to justify higher out-of-district rates, set lead counsel's rate at $400 per hour based on current prevailing rates and experience, and awarded supplemental fees and costs for work opposing the County's unsuccessful appeal after excluding certain unreasonable charges.

civil rightsprocedurelabor & employment

The case involved a former NYPD officer who suffered seizures on duty in 2003, was placed on restricted duty, and was involuntarily retired in 2006 after NYPD doctors determined he posed a risk due to potential recurrence while carrying firearms or operating emergency vehicles. He sued the City under the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, claiming disability discrimination based on being regarded as disabled. The court granted summary judgment to the City, dismissing the federal ADA claim with prejudice and the state claims without prejudice. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to show he was perceived as substantially limited in a broad class of jobs, as opposed to just NYPD-specific duties, and thus did not qualify as disabled under the ADA.

civil rightslabor & employment

In United States v. Cioffi, defendant Matthew Tannin, charged with conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud related to hedge funds at Bear Stearns, moved to suppress emails seized from his personal Gmail account. The court granted the motion to suppress. The warrant authorized seizure of all emails up to a cutoff date without limiting them to evidence of the charged crimes, and the supporting affidavit was not attached to or incorporated into the warrant itself. This rendered the warrant an invalid general search that failed to satisfy the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement.

criminal lawprocedure

Plaintiffs, trustees of Teamsters Local 282 benefit funds, sued Tadco Construction Corp. under ERISA for violating a collective bargaining agreement and trust agreement by failing to submit required remittance reports and produce books and records for audit to determine owed fringe benefit contributions. After Tadco defaulted by not appearing or defending the action, the district court found the allegations sufficient to establish liability and ordered production of records; when none were provided, it applied contractual estimation formulas to calculate damages. The magistrate judge recommended a default judgment of $238,133.21, which the district court adopted after no objections were filed and no plain error was found.

labor & employmentprocedure

Bejaze Durakovic sued the Building Service 32B-J Pension Fund under ERISA after her application for a disability pension was denied, claiming she was totally and permanently disabled due to chronic back, neck, and knee pain from a 1999 car accident. The plan granted the trustees sole discretion to determine disability based on satisfactory medical evidence, and the Funds denied the claim and appeal after two independent medical examiners concluded that Durakovic could perform sedentary work. The court reviewed the denial under the arbitrary and capricious standard and granted the Funds' motion for summary judgment, finding the decision supported by the medical evidence in the record and procedurally proper. Durakovic's cross-motion for summary judgment and alternative request for additional discovery were denied, resulting in dismissal of the complaint.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, nine indigent New York City residents with HIV or AIDS living in public housing sued state and city agencies to enforce 30% rent cap provisions under the federal Section 8 program and HOPWA regulations after the agencies announced plans to increase tenants' required rent contributions to nearly all of their income. The defendants moved to dismiss the suit as moot. The court granted the motion, holding that the controversy had ended because the agencies had reached a permanent agreement to maintain the 30% cap, had resolved the underlying reimbursement dispute, and had no reasonable expectation of reverting to the higher contribution policy. The court further noted that a preliminary injunction had been issued earlier but that subsequent policy changes rendered further litigation unnecessary.

civil rightsfederal powerhealthcareprocedure

In this case, former employees of Garden City Irrigation, Inc. and Garden City Maintenance, Inc. sued the companies, their owner, manager, and bonding companies for unpaid wages and retaliation under federal and state labor laws, with additional plaintiffs joining later. Plaintiffs later moved to add state labor law claims against Tedesco, a former shareholder of the companies who had been brought into the case via third-party claims, seeking for those claims to relate back to the June 2003 original complaint. The court overruled the magistrate judge's September 2008 ruling that the claims related back to 2003 and instead held that they relate back only to December 31, 2007. The core reasoning was that New York relation-back doctrine requires a mistake in not naming the new defendant initially, but plaintiffs' conduct, including their delayed request and arguments, showed no such mistake or intent to sue Tedesco from the outset.

labor & employmentprocedure

In United States v. Cohan, a dentist facing charges of health care fraud and false statements moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 to suppress evidence seized from his dental office, claiming the search warrant lacked sufficient specificity under the Fourth Amendment. The court denied the motion from the bench. The opinion explains that an affidavit must be attached to and expressly incorporated in a warrant to cure any particularity defects, while observing that case law remains unclear on whether omitting a time frame for business-record seizures renders a warrant unconstitutionally overbroad.

criminal lawprocedure