David G. Trager

This case involved a New York insurance company, Merchants, seeking contribution and indemnity from MMCA, the lessor of a vehicle involved in a 1997 car accident, after Merchants paid the full amount of a $700,000 jury verdict in a related personal injury suit even though its insureds were only 30% at fault. The dispute centered on whether Merchants could recover from MMCA as a vehicle owner under New York law, given that MMCA's insurer, Reliance, had been declared insolvent before the verdict. The court held that Merchants could not maintain the suit against MMCA because its insurer was insolvent, denying Merchants' motion for summary judgment and granting MMCA's. The core reasoning was that New York law channels claims involving insolvent insurers through liquidation proceedings and guaranty funds rather than allowing direct actions against the insured, to avoid undermining the statutory framework for handling insurer insolvencies.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involves plaintiff Lawrence Hardy suing New York City and State defendants after his October 2007 arrest for an alleged parole violation and subsequent incarceration until March 2008, during which his pre-existing ear condition worsened due to allegedly inadequate medical care. Hardy asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, false arrest, malicious prosecution, assault and battery, and related state-law torts, along with conspiracy and municipal liability allegations. All defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and for summary judgment on certain issues. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing claims such as municipal liability and false arrest based on qualified immunity given the unsettled law in 2007 regarding administratively imposed post-release supervision, while allowing certain deliberate indifference claims to proceed after treating some motions as for summary judgment and reviewing medical records.

civil rightscriminal lawhealthcareprocedure

The case concerned a contract dispute between DNJ Logistic Group, a shipping subcontractor, and DHL Express along with its employee Catapano, arising from alleged misrepresentations about business volumes under a 2007 subcontract that led DNJ to cancel another contract and relocate operations. After removal to federal court on diversity grounds and dismissal of an added federal RICO claim, the sole remaining question was whether the case should be remanded due to Catapano's New York residency destroying complete diversity. The court remanded the action to New York Supreme Court, holding that Catapano had not been fraudulently joined because the original complaint set forth a colorable fraud or fraudulent inducement claim against him under New York law.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves a dispute between two art dealers over ownership of a Salvador Dali painting, with plaintiff Philip Coffaro seeking a declaratory judgment that he is the rightful owner after purchasing it and consigning it for auction, while defendant David Crespo asserted a competing claim based on an alleged prior transfer. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the declaratory judgment claim. The court granted the motion, holding that defendant lacked standing to assert any interest in the painting. The core reasoning was that defendant had not listed the painting or any related claims as assets in his prior bankruptcy proceeding, leaving any such interest as property of the bankruptcy estate rather than the debtor.

propertyprocedure

In this defamation case, plaintiff Jose Ramiro Garza Cantu, a Mexican businessman in the petroleum industry, sued defendant Billy R. Flanigan for creating and sharing a document resembling a legal complaint with a reporter from a widely circulated Mexican magazine; the document falsely accused Cantu of racketeering, money laundering, bribery, drug cartel involvement, and other crimes as part of Flanigan's effort to pressure Cantu into helping collect on an unrelated default judgment. A jury found Flanigan liable and awarded Cantu $38 million in economic damages and $150 million in non-economic damages. On remand from the Second Circuit, which had upheld the economic damages but directed review of whether the non-economic award was excessive, the district court upheld the full $150 million non-economic award. The court reasoned that the award did not deviate materially from reasonable compensation under N.Y. CPLR § 5501(c), given the extortionate context, the inflammatory nature of the accusations presented in a credible medium, and their worldwide distribution.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a construction contract dispute between TADCO Construction Corporation and the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY) over delays and issues in building a dormitory facility on Staten Island, along with claims by TADCO's superintendent Thomas DeMartino regarding two arrests at the job site. TADCO alleges multiple breach of contract claims and a due process violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 stemming from contract termination and payment issues, while DeMartino asserts federal and state claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process against DASNY employees. The defendants moved to dismiss all federal claims as well as DeMartino's state law claims and to decline supplemental jurisdiction over TADCO's remaining state claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part after analyzing the sufficiency of the pleadings, including whether arrests initiated proceedings and whether probable cause existed based on the contract terms.

business & regulatorycivil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves plaintiffs suing UBS AG under the civil provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act for allegedly aiding terrorism by providing banking services to a designated terrorist organization connected to an attack that killed a U.S. citizen's family member. The court had previously denied UBS's motion to dismiss on most grounds, including forum non conveniens, while dismissing one aiding-and-abetting count. UBS then sought reconsideration of the forum non conveniens ruling, arguing that Israel offered an adequate alternative forum if certain stipulations were made regarding damages, and also moved to certify the prior order for interlocutory appeal. The court denied both motions, holding that Israeli law did not provide substantially similar remedies—particularly for emotional and non-economic damages—and that the issues did not present controlling questions of law with substantial grounds for difference of opinion warranting immediate appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Leroy Henry, born in Jamaica in 1959 to unmarried parents, seeking a declaratory judgment under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) that he acquired derivative U.S. citizenship through his father's 1972 naturalization pursuant to former INA § 321(a)(3). Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment on grounds including untimeliness, failure to exhaust remedies, res judicata, and lack of merit on the citizenship claim, while Henry cross-moved for summary judgment; the dispute centered on whether Henry's parents had legally separated and whether he was in his father's legal custody before his eighteenth birthday, despite conflicting affidavits, prior naturalization applications, and a later nunc pro tunc order from Jamaica. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the action was likely time-barred and that even if timely, Henry's evidence did not establish the statutory prerequisites for derivative citizenship. The core reasoning was that the parents were never married, no legal separation occurred before 1977, and custody could not be established under the required legal standards.

immigration

This case involved former board members of Northern Services Group (NSG), a non-profit managing nursing homes, who sought a declaratory judgment that their insurer, Executive Risk, must cover defense costs in underlying state court actions arising from their expulsion from the NSG board following NSG's settlement with the IRS over its tax-exempt status. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on whether the directors and officers liability policy required the insurer to defend the plaintiffs in those actions. The court granted the insurer's motion and denied the plaintiffs', holding that coverage was excluded because the underlying claims had a causal connection to the governance reforms required by the IRS Closing Agreement. The decision rested on the policy language excluding claims arising from that agreement and on New York insurance law principles treating policy statements as representations rather than warranties.

business & regulatorytaxes

The case involved a class action lawsuit by plaintiffs David Ehrich and Camille Weiss against debt collector I.C. System, Inc., claiming that a debt collection letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) due to a Spanish sentence at the bottom providing a phone number, which allegedly overshadowed the required English validation notice about disputing the debt. The defendant moved for summary judgment, but the court denied the motion and held as a matter of law that the letter violated the FDCPA. Applying the least sophisticated consumer standard, the court reasoned that the Spanish sentence could mislead consumers into calling rather than exercising their rights to written notice and verification under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, even though the main text complied with the statute. The opinion addressed standing, the strict liability nature of the FDCPA, and rejected arguments that the ruling would lead to unreasonable outcomes in other scenarios like notices to illiterate consumers.

business & regulatory

In Zynger v. Department of Homeland Security, plaintiff Margaret Zynger, a TSA security screener at JFK Airport, sued the agency and officials after being terminated for a positive random drug test for cocaine, claiming the result was inaccurate due to possible lab error or lidocaine injections and that the process violated her rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Fifth Amendment. She had appealed internally to the Disciplinary Review Board, which upheld the firing after two independent lab confirmations and review of her defenses. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), finding that the multiple layers of agency review provided adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, satisfying any procedural due process requirements, and that her other claims failed to state a viable cause of action or lacked jurisdiction.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned a plaintiff's product liability claims against Stryker and Howmedica for injuries allegedly caused by a defective Trident Ceramic Acetabular System artificial hip implant that was surgically placed in her body in 2005. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing preemption under the Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and improper pleading of the remaining claim. The court granted the motion in full, holding that the device was a Class III medical device that had received FDA premarket approval, so the plaintiff's state-law claims were preempted unless they paralleled specific federal requirements, which they did not adequately allege. The breach of express warranty claim was also dismissed for failing to reference the device's name or identify any specific warranty that was breached.

business & regulatoryhealthcaretorts & liabilityfederal power

In this case, King Pharmaceuticals sued Eon Labs for infringing two patents on methods of administering the muscle relaxant metaxalone with food to increase its bioavailability in the blood. Eon moved for summary judgment of invalidity, arguing that prior art publications anticipated the patented methods. The court granted the motion, holding that the patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because multiple earlier references, including clinical studies and drug references from the 1960s and later, had already described administering metaxalone with meals or food. King's motion to dismiss Eon's counterclaims was granted as moot given the invalidity ruling. The decision rested on the finding that the prior art expressly disclosed each element of the patent claims.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

In Espinal v. Bennett, petitioner Ramon Espinal challenged his 1991 state convictions for two counts of second-degree murder and one count of attempted second-degree murder arising from 1988 shootings in Brooklyn, for which he received a sentence of 58 and 1/3 years to life; he sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on grounds including ineffective assistance of trial counsel and a freestanding claim of actual innocence. The district court granted the petition, finding that Espinal had established a Strickland violation because his counsel failed to investigate or present available exculpatory evidence, notably a redacted police report that could have supported his alibi defense, and that this deficiency prejudiced the outcome. Although the trial evidence was legally sufficient to support the convictions and actual innocence was not proven to the high standard that would be required if such a claim were cognizable, the court concluded that the constitutional ineffectiveness claim could not be dismissed as harmless and therefore ordered habeas relief.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves U.S. purchasers alleging that Chinese vitamin C manufacturers formed a cartel to fix export prices and limit supply in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and related Clayton Act provisions. Defendants moved to dismiss, contending their conduct was compelled by the Chinese government through the Ministry of Commerce and a trade association that set minimum prices and export quotas. The court reviewed the complaints, historical market data showing price increases after 2001, Ministry statements asserting mandatory regulation, and deposition testimony indicating some review of contracts for compliance with minimum prices. It determined that the record did not conclusively establish sovereign compulsion at the pleading stage and that further discovery was warranted on the degree of voluntary coordination among defendants before denying dismissal on comity or foreign sovereign compulsion grounds.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a dispute between importers of Russian candies in which plaintiff Krasnyi Oktyabr claimed an exclusive license from the Russian manufacturer and sued defendant Trilini Imports and related parties for trademark infringement under Sections 32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act, along with related state-law claims of unfair competition and tortious interference, after defendants began selling the same branded products purchased from third-party distributors. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of standing, that the goods were genuine, and insufficient evidence on the supplemental claims, while also asserting their own counterclaims. The court granted summary judgment to defendants on the Lanham Act claims, holding that because the candies were genuine there was no likelihood of consumer confusion regarding origin or sponsorship. The opinion also addressed the state claims and counterclaims on the record presented.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Michael Wasser, a man with muscular dystrophy who was a client of the New York State Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID), suing VESID and two officials under the Rehabilitation Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Wasser challenged VESID's denial of various benefits and services, including technology and support during his education, as well as the agency's decision to close his case in 2000 after he passed the bar exam and secured employment as an attorney, claiming the decisions violated his rights and that procedural irregularities occurred in administrative hearings. The court dismissed all remaining claims, holding that VESID had provided adequate services totaling around $132,000 to help Wasser meet his Individualized Written Rehabilitation Program goal of becoming a corporate lawyer. The court further reasoned that the record showed VESID's benefit decisions were supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the case closure was justified because the employment outcome was achieved, and any alleged procedural violations caused no substantive harm to Wasser.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

Evelyn Correa, formerly Human Resources Manager at Mana Products, brought claims of retaliatory discharge under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging she was terminated for investigating and reporting employee complaints of national-origin discrimination and for participating in internal probes into those issues. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. It held that Correa's internal complaints and investigations did not qualify as protected activity under either the participation or opposition clause of Title VII, that no causal connection to her termination was shown, and that the employer's explanation—loss of trust in her investigative judgment—was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Woodard v. New York Health and Hospitals Corp., the plaintiff, a former HHC employee and military service member, brought claims under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) alleging that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of military service and failed to provide appropriate reemployment after her return from duty, plus a separate claim that HHC overcharged her under a Military Pay Reimbursement Agreement. The defendant moved for leave to amend its answer to add a counterclaim and for summary judgment on the plaintiff's three claims. The court allowed the amendment and granted summary judgment to the defendant in full, concluding that the record lacked evidence of discriminatory animus or violations of USERRA's reemployment provisions and that the pay reimbursement claim did not support liability.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves record companies suing an individual defendant for copyright infringement, alleging she used the KaZaA peer-to-peer network to download and share copyrighted music files. The court denied the defendant's motion to exclude expert testimony from Dr. Doug Jacobson, who analyzed data from third-party services showing over 700 files on the relevant account and IP address, finding the testimony admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 due to the expert's qualifications in computer networking and forensics and the reliability of his methods. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to strike the affirmative defense of copyright misuse, concluding that the record companies' coordinated infringement suits lacked any anticompetitive or illegal purpose and did not meet the legal requirements for such a defense. The decision rested on the absence of supporting case law for the defense and the potential prejudice from allowing related discovery.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty