Jack Bertrand Weinstein

The case involved Dr. Boris Sachakov, who was charged in a superseding indictment with one count of health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347 and five counts of health care false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1035 for allegedly defrauding private insurers and Medicare through improper billing. The defendant moved to dismiss all charges with prejudice, arguing a Speedy Trial Act violation from more than seventy days of unexcluded time, that the superseding indictment acted as a government motion to dismiss, that the fraud statute was unconstitutionally vague and omitted an interstate commerce element, and that a bill of particulars was needed. The court dismissed only the fraud count without prejudice because it inherited the expired speedy trial clock from the original indictment due to the government's failure to seek an exclusion that would have been granted, while denying dismissal of the false statements counts (which did not share the same clock) and rejecting the constitutional and discovery motions as meritless, since the indictment provided adequate notice and extensive discovery had been or would be provided.

criminal lawprocedurehealthcare

In Graves v. Smith, petitioner Carlos Graves, convicted in state court of murder and attempted murder during a 1995 bodega robbery, moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) to vacate the district court's 2003 denial of his habeas corpus petition. He argued that the court violated due process by denying the petition without an evidentiary hearing and that the prosecution suppressed the key witness's criminal record in violation of Brady v. Maryland. After reviewing the full state court record, the court assumed a constitutional violation from the nondisclosure but denied the motion on the merits, concluding that the suppressed evidence was not reasonably probable to produce a different outcome because the witness's prior consistent statements would have confirmed his trial testimony if his credibility were challenged. The decision emphasized constraints from AEDPA, comity, and the lack of prejudice under the applicable legal standards.

criminal lawprocedure

In Polanco v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, three former employees sued their employer, a hospital, claiming they were not paid for work performed during designated lunch breaks and after their regular shifts, in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were preempted or precluded by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) because a collective bargaining agreement governed the terms of employment. The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiffs' statutory wage claims under FLSA and NYLL asserted independent rights that did not require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement and thus were not subject to preemption or preclusion. The decision emphasized that even if the agreement addressed similar issues like overtime or break time, parallel statutory protections remain enforceable separately.

labor & employment

In Rochford v. Woodloch Pines, Inc., the plaintiff sued the golf course owner for negligence after slipping and falling on wet stairs near the fifteenth hole during a rainstorm, breaking his ankle. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff assumed the open, obvious, and avoidable risk of walking on wet steps in the rain, there was no unusual hazard, and building code standards cited by the plaintiff's expert did not apply to outdoor golf course stairs.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves the sentencing of two defendants, Lior Hanuka and Andrew Ilayayev, whose violations of supervised release stemmed from drug addiction, with Hanuka's originating from a lawful oxycodone prescription after an accident and Ilayayev's from recreational use of multiple substances including ecstasy and heroin. The court revoked Ilayayev's supervised release, imposing one day of incarceration followed by a new term of supervised release that required inpatient drug treatment, while emphasizing treatment-focused approaches for both defendants. The core reasoning was that addiction intertwined with criminal violations warrants minimizing incarceration in favor of intensive, supervised medical treatment to facilitate rehabilitation and community reintegration, as prison tends to exacerbate addiction, psychiatric issues, and barriers to employment. The opinion also reviewed the properties and regulation of oxycodone, medical prescribing obligations, and the prevalence of opioid abuse to contextualize the need for coordinated medical-legal responses.

criminal lawhealthcare

The case involves a dispute between neighboring homeowners over a narrow strip of land between their properties, with plaintiff Martha Stickler claiming title through adverse possession under New York law and also asserting claims for trespass, ejectment, conversion, nuisance, and punitive damages, while defendants Eris and Hanoch Halevy relied on their record title and had erected a fence. The court denied summary judgment to either side on the adverse possession claim and related property claims because material factual questions remained about the elements of possession, hostility, and continuity, as well as possible easements for light, air, and access. It granted summary judgment to the defendants on the nuisance and punitive damages claims, reasoning that their actions in fencing the area were based on reliance on public records and could not be deemed intentional or unreasonable interference. The court also dismissed the claim for damages to a hedge under RPAPL § 861 as de minimis. A trial was deemed necessary to resolve the remaining issues.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This interpleader action concerned competing claims to the proceeds of a deceased New York teacher's annuity administered under ERISA: his ex-wife, designated as sole beneficiary on a 2002 form, versus his estate. The court granted summary judgment to the estate and denied the ex-wife's motion, holding that she had waived all rights to the annuity. The waiver appeared in the 2004 modification to the parties' separation agreement under a 'Pension Plans' heading, where she expressly relinquished 'any and all claims' to the husband's pension and retirement benefits and agreed to execute any required spousal waivers; the agreement was incorporated but not merged into the 2005 divorce judgment. The court found the language sufficiently explicit, voluntary, and specific to be enforceable, and determined that neither version of New York EPTL § 5-1.4 altered the effect of such an explicit waiver.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Vam Check Cashing Corporation suing Federal Insurance Company for denying coverage under a crime insurance policy for a $120,000 loss resulting from imposters deceiving a cashier into handing over the money. The court granted summary judgment to VAM, holding that the incident constituted a "robbery" under the policy's "On Premises" clause. The reasoning centered on New York law requiring ambiguities in insurance contracts, such as the terms "overt" and "cognizance," to be construed against the insurer, and determining that the cashier had sufficient awareness and control over the transaction for it to qualify as robbery even without realizing it was fraudulent.

business & regulatory

This case involved a disabled student, L.K., whose parents challenged the New York City Department of Education's proposed public school placement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), seeking reimbursement for private school tuition on the grounds that bullying by other students substantially interfered with her ability to receive an appropriate education. The court denied the DOE's motion for summary judgment on the bullying-related claim, ruling that an evidentiary hearing was required to assess whether the bullying deprived the student of a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The court developed and applied a standard under which schools must take reasonable steps to address bullying that significantly restricts a disabled student's learning opportunities, drawing on IDEA requirements and precedents from other circuits. The court granted summary judgment to the DOE on the separate claim that the student's individualized education program was improperly predetermined without meaningful parental participation.

civil rights

CGS Industries sued its insurer, Charter Oak, for breach of contract and indemnification after Charter Oak refused to defend or indemnify CGS in a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by Five Four against CGS and Wal-Mart. The commercial general liability policy covered advertising injuries from trademark infringement but included a contractual liability exclusion. CGS had settled the underlying case for $250,000 and sought reimbursement for both its own payments (including amounts imputed to Wal-Mart) and Wal-Mart's $57,379.44 in defense costs. The court had previously ruled that Charter Oak had a duty to defend CGS. On the indemnification claim, the court granted partial summary judgment to Charter Oak, holding it had no obligation to cover Wal-Mart's defense costs because the policy did not explicitly depart from the American rule requiring each party to bear its own attorneys' fees absent clear contractual language assuming such liability.

business & regulatory

The case United States v. Bannister concerned the sentencing of three defendants convicted of participating in a drug trafficking conspiracy operating in the Louis Armstrong Houses public housing project in Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood. The district court imposed individual sentences on Damien Bannister, Darrell Bannister, and Christopher Hall after reviewing their personal backgrounds, roles in the offense, and the applicable federal sentencing statutes. The court's reasoning featured a detailed examination of the historical roots of segregation and poverty, the legislative history and racially disparate effects of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986's mandatory minimum provisions, the societal costs of mass incarceration, and the relative effectiveness of deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation for low-level nonviolent drug offenders under 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal power

The case involves a defendant convicted of possessing and receiving child pornography through the Internet. The court imposed a five-year prison sentence as required by the Second Circuit's mandate under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(1), along with five years of supervised release, a special assessment, and sex offender registration. The reasoning notes that the applicable sentencing guidelines range of 135 to 168 months was grossly excessive given the defendant's personal history, lack of criminal record, and low risk to others, but the statutory minimum must still be applied; the court also permitted self-surrender on a later date rather than immediate detention to avoid unnecessary hardship.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved charges against Kenneth Marsh for wire fraud, securities fraud, securities fraud conspiracy, and investment adviser fraud conspiracy, based on allegations that he and coconspirators used false names, credentials, and lies about expertise through their business Gryphon Financial to steal over $20 million from investors. The court ruled on the government's motion to preclude testimony from a defense psychiatrist who proposed to opine that Marsh's mental condition precluded the required mens rea. The court granted the motion to exclude the testimony, reasoning that the psychiatrist lacked forensic expertise, his impostor theory did not negate an intent to defraud, Marsh knowingly told lies without believing them to be true, there was no basis for an insanity defense, and the proposed evidence was irrelevant and unreliable under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, 702, and Daubert standards.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves wine and spirits retailers suing their credit card processing services provider after customer credit card data was allegedly stolen through unauthorized remote access to the plaintiffs' point-of-sale system, which the defendant had installed and supported. The plaintiffs brought claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act along with state-law counts for gross negligence, negligent supervision, conversion, and breach of contract, plus a request for declaratory relief regarding potential future liabilities. The defendant moved to dismiss all counts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion, accepting the plaintiffs' factual allegations as true, drawing reasonable inferences in their favor, and concluding that the pleadings were adequate to allow discovery and trial, particularly to determine the identity and employment status of the alleged culprit.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

CGSI sued Charter Oak for breach of an insurance contract, alleging the insurer failed to defend it in an underlying trademark and trade dress infringement suit brought by Five Four over apparel bearing allegedly unauthorized marks. The policy at issue covered damages for advertising injury arising from infringement of title or slogan committed in the course of advertising goods. The court granted CGSI's motion for partial summary judgment on the duty to defend and denied Charter Oak's cross-motion, reasoning that the underlying complaint alleged facts potentially falling within the policy's coverage for slogan or title infringement and that the knowledge-of-falsity and first-publication exclusions did not clearly preclude a defense obligation. The court noted that an insurer must defend unless there is no possible factual or legal basis for indemnification.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Haney v. Miller's Launch, Inc., a deckhand sued his employer after being injured when the vessel Marguerite struck a pier during docking, claiming negligence, unseaworthiness, delayed medical care, and entitlement to additional maintenance and cure payments for back and neck injuries including pain treatment and surgery. The defendant moved for summary judgment or limitation of liability under maritime law. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the vessel owner's duties to provide a competent crew, follow internal maintenance policies, and promptly deliver medical aid, as well as whether the accident caused or exacerbated the plaintiff's condition and whether palliative care for pain qualifies as "cure." The decision rests on unresolved factual disputes about the incident, preexisting conditions, and the scope of maritime obligations, requiring a trial.

torts & liabilityprocedurelabor & employment

In Sclafani v. Spitzer, former NYRA employees sued a former New York State Attorney General and other officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that criminal investigations and prosecutions for fraud—by allowing overweight jockeys to ride, falsifying records, and accepting bribes—were improperly initiated for political and public-relations motives. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants and dismissed the complaint in full. It held that state officials enjoyed absolute and qualified immunity, private actors were not acting under color of state law, and no conspiracy was shown. The malicious-prosecution claims failed for lack of malice and the presence of probable cause, while the stigma-plus due-process claims did not establish a constitutional violation because any reputational harm was not accompanied by a tangible alteration of legal status.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involves a challenge under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by M.S., through his parents, against the New York City Department of Education's recommended placement of the child in a public special education school. The parents had unilaterally placed him in a private school and sought tuition reimbursement after exhausting administrative remedies, where the Department's placement decision was upheld. The court granted the Department's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's, dismissing the case as moot because the parents had already received full payment for the private placement without needing this federal action. The core reasoning was that the proposed IEP was substantively and procedurally appropriate under IDEA standards, providing a free appropriate public education, and that the attorney had not achieved any additional significant result in the litigation warranting fees.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

Daryl Graham was convicted in state court of second-degree depraved indifference murder for stabbing his former girlfriend and sought federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. After an initial denial and a remand from the Second Circuit for an evidentiary hearing with appointed counsel, the district court granted the petition. The court concluded that counsel performed deficiently by failing to investigate and obtain records of Graham's longstanding mental health issues, which prejudiced the defense by forgoing a competence hearing, a mens rea defense at trial, and mitigating evidence at sentencing. Other claims were rejected as meritless. The writ issued, with the state given sixty days to retry Graham or take other appropriate action.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is part of multidistrict products liability litigation in which plaintiff Jennifer Carpentier, an Oregon resident, sued Eli Lilly alleging that its antipsychotic drug Zyprexa caused her to develop diabetes and other conditions because Lilly failed to adequately warn patients and physicians of the risks of weight gain, hyperglycemia, and diabetes. The plaintiff sought damages on negligence and failure-to-warn theories under Oregon law. The district court granted Lilly's motion for summary judgment, holding that the action was time-barred by Oregon's statute of limitations. The court reasoned that the limitations period began to run in May 2002 when the plaintiff's medical records showed an elevated glucose level manifesting some injury attributable to Zyprexa, that subsequently discovered or additional injuries such as pancreatitis did not restart the clock, and that the 2007 filing was therefore untimely.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure