John Thomas Curtin

This case concerned the enforcement of the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (FETRA), under which the federal government imposes quarterly assessments on tobacco product manufacturers and importers to fund a trust that compensates farmers for the end of production quotas. The United States sued Native Wholesale Supply Co. (NWS), a company importing cigarettes manufactured by a Canadian Native-owned firm, for unpaid assessments totaling millions of dollars from 2005 onward, plus failure to submit required removal documentation. NWS cross-moved for summary judgment, contending that assessments were miscalculated using an improper base period, that a customs broker rather than NWS was the true importer, and that enforcement violated treaty rights, due process, and the Takings Clause. The court granted the government's motion, denied NWS's, and held that NWS qualified as the importer responsible for assessments based on its own self-reported removal data, with no statutory or constitutional barriers to collection. It ordered NWS to supply the missing documents and required the government to submit a final accounting before entry of a monetary judgment.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In this diversity jurisdiction case removed from New York state court, plaintiff Alesia Mueller sued defendant Seatainer Transport, Ltd., a Canadian trucking company, for non-economic damages arising from a November 2006 rear-end collision on Interstate 290 that allegedly caused her neck, back, wrist, and related injuries. Defendant moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Mueller had not met the "serious injury" threshold under New York's no-fault statute, N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102(d), which would bar her pain-and-suffering claim. After reviewing deposition testimony, MRI results, and multiple medical reports, the court denied the motion, holding that the chiropractor's affidavit supplied a sufficient qualitative assessment of objective medical evidence to raise a triable issue on both the existence of a serious injury and its causal link to the accident, notwithstanding prior incidents.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Kaminski v. Anderson, a longtime employee of the Town of Amherst Highway Department sued the town and its superintendent under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that her First Amendment rights were violated when she faced adverse job changes after announcing her candidacy for the superintendent position against the incumbent. The plaintiff claimed that after declaring her run as the Democratic nominee in 2007, her office was closed, her responsibilities were altered to less desirable duties like scrap-yard oversight, and her supervisor monitored or altered her work orders. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no retaliation and that qualified immunity applied. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether the actions were motivated by retaliatory animus and concluding that disputed facts on intent precluded a legal determination of objective reasonableness for qualified immunity purposes.

free speechcivil rightselections

This ERISA case involved a former employee seeking long-term disability benefits under his employer's plan, which was sponsored and administered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield. The plan capped benefits at 24 months for disabilities caused primarily by mental illness, and the administrator applied this limit after reviewing medical records and concluding the plaintiff's cognitive and other symptoms stemmed mainly from psychiatric conditions like depression and personality disorder rather than physical ailments. The plaintiff appealed the denial of further benefits, arguing an undiagnosed physical condition was the root cause. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the administrator's determination was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious given the supporting evaluations from psychiatrists, psychologists, and other physicians.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case involved a worker injured during demolition of a coal hopper at a salt mining facility, who sued the property owner under common-law negligence and New York Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6), with the owner then seeking indemnification from the worker's employer. The court granted summary judgment dismissing the section 240(1) claim and one predicate for the section 241(6) claim, but denied summary judgment on the remaining negligence, section 200, and other section 241(6) claims, as well as the cross-motions on indemnification. It reasoned that a wall collapse during demolition does not qualify as the type of elevation-related hazard covered by section 240(1), while factual disputes existed regarding supervision and control for the other claims and whether the owner was free from negligence for indemnification purposes.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This ERISA case was brought by three participants in the Niagara-Genesee & Vicinity Carpenters Local 280 Pension and Welfare Funds as a derivative action against twelve former trustees and two former plan managers, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(2) and (a)(3) through retroactive benefit increases, subsequent reductions in future accruals, a secret meeting to accelerate benefits, and related conduct from 1993 to 2007 that allegedly depleted fund assets and favored certain participants. The allegations overlapped substantially with a prior lawsuit, LaScala v. Scrufari. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part, dismissing claims against the Empire State Carpenters Funds and certain time-barred or non-fiduciary claims while denying dismissal as to other counts involving alleged concealment and breaches by specific trustee groups, based on ERISA's statute of limitations, the fiduciary nature of the acts, and the sufficiency of the pleadings.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case is a patent and trademark infringement action brought by Jake Lee, owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,418,936 for a tobacco pipe and the 'Six Shooter' mark, against Accessories by Peak, Inc. and its owner for selling nearly identical pipes under the '6 Shooter' name. The parties previously entered a consent order declaring the patent valid and permanently enjoining further infringement by the defendants. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on his claim for enhanced damages based on willful infringement, along with an order for an accounting of damages. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that the defendant had actual notice of the patent as early as 2003 but continued selling the products, while applying the relevant standards for willfulness and summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a personal injury claim brought by Edward Kwitek against the United States Postal Service under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging negligence when he was required to load mail containers himself at a post office, contrary to usual practice. The government sought to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity did not apply due to the plaintiff's status as an independent contractor and the discretionary function exception. After a bench trial, the court denied the motion, reasoning that the decision about who loads the mail did not involve the type of discretionary judgment protected by the exception, as both parties expected USPS employees to handle loading.

federal powerproceduretorts & liability

This case involves claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) by the State of New York against Solvent Chemical Company, Inc. and its parent ICC Industries for costs to remediate environmental contamination at three neighboring industrial sites in Niagara Falls, New York, including Solvent's former chemical refining facility, an adjacent Olin Corporation property known as the Hot Spot, and Gill Creek. After conducting a non-jury trial, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on liability and equitable allocation of responsibility among the parties and other potentially responsible entities for the response costs incurred. The court determined the shares of costs based on evidence of historical operations, chemical handling and disposal practices, sources of contaminants such as chlorinated benzenes, and consistency of the remedies with the National Contingency Plan, while applying CERCLA provisions on contribution rights and rejecting certain claims on procedural grounds. The analysis drew from trial testimony, exhibits, deposition designations, and prior court rulings in the long-running litigation.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This employment discrimination case was brought by a former employee against her employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging failure to promote, denial of training opportunities, a gender-based hostile work environment, retaliation, and wrongful discharge based on gender and disability. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint in full. The court reasoned that isolated inappropriate comments at meetings did not meet the threshold for a hostile work environment claim, that the plaintiff offered no evidence creating an inference of discrimination regarding the promotion denial or layoff, and that she neither alleged nor proved she was disabled or perceived as disabled under the ADA.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this case, plaintiff alleged that he donated over $1.3 million to defendants' monastery after being told it was affiliated with the Order of St. Benedict and that he could become a Benedictine monk there, but later discovered these representations were false and sued for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and related claims to recover the funds. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the First Amendment barred adjudication of the dispute as it would require interpreting religious doctrine. The court denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning that the claims turned on factual questions of affiliation and misrepresentation rather than religious interpretation or doctrine, and it granted plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint while denying the parties' cross-motions for contempt and sanctions.

religious libertytorts & liabilityprocedure

In this case under the Administrative Procedure Act, plaintiff Acquest Wehrle LLC sought a judicial determination that its property in Amherst, New York, was exempt from wetlands regulation under the Clean Water Act, relying on a prior Corps determination that the wetlands were isolated and non-navigable. The United States, EPA, and Army Corps of Engineers moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, while the plaintiff sought leave to amend. The court granted the motion to dismiss the complaint against the federal defendants and denied leave to amend. The decision rested on the absence of final agency action reviewable under the APA and the plaintiff's failure to identify a valid basis for jurisdiction or relief after the Supreme Court's Rapanos decision and subsequent EPA jurisdictional determination finding the wetlands subject to CWA authority due to their hydrological connection to navigable waters.

environmentfederal powerproperty

The case involved a former employee who sued her employer for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act after her position was eliminated. The employer moved to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, pointing to an arbitration policy contained in revised employee handbooks distributed over multiple years and made a condition of continued employment, as well as an arbitration clause in the separation agreement the plaintiff signed upon termination. The court granted the motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that the parties had agreed to arbitrate under ordinary contract principles and that the Federal Arbitration Act required enforcement of the agreement. The plaintiff’s lack of recollection of receiving the handbook was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding agreement to arbitrate.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, a former Erie County highway employee sued his supervisors and the county under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that he faced harassment and constructive discharge because of his perceived political ties to the prior administration and in retaliation for reporting internal misconduct and illegal activities to a union and the FBI, violating his First Amendment rights to political association and free speech. The court denied the plaintiff's request for additional discovery and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. It reasoned that the political association claim failed because the plaintiff and defendants were all registered Republicans with no evidence of demands for political contributions or specific affiliation-based animus, and the free speech claim failed because most statements concerned personal or internal workplace matters not protected by the First Amendment while the protected FBI report lacked any causal connection to adverse actions due to lack of knowledge by the supervisors and the timing of events. The court concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact supporting either constitutional violation.

free speechlabor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerned a challenge by environmental groups to the Department of Energy's (DOE) plans for managing and disposing of radioactive waste at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center under the West Valley Demonstration Project Act. Plaintiffs argued that DOE's revised approach to waste disposal, including low-level and transuranic waste, breached a 1987 stipulation from prior litigation and violated NEPA by failing to prepare an adequate environmental impact statement. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment after reviewing the administrative record and the history of DOE's vitrification efforts and ongoing negotiations with New York State. It denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion, holding that DOE's actions complied with the stipulation and NEPA requirements.

environmentfederal power

In this employment discrimination case, plaintiff Brenda Whitlow, an African-American employee at the Visiting Nurse Association of Western New York, alleged violations of Title VII and the ADA based on her race and Graves’ disease diagnosis, claiming she faced adverse changes in job duties and evaluations after requesting medical accommodations and FMLA leave. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that Whitlow could not establish a prima facie case or show that the employer’s documented performance concerns and reassignments were pretextual or motivated by discriminatory intent, as her own admissions and medical records confirmed ongoing work deficiencies unrelated to protected characteristics.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerns an inmate's lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against New York State prison officials, alleging multiple constitutional violations during his time at Attica Correctional Facility, including denial of legal supplies and access to courts in retaliation for prior lawsuits, bias at a disciplinary hearing, and inadequate hygiene items and necessities amounting to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiff also claimed retaliation and excessive force in some instances. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all five causes of action and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on the first claim. It applied the standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, concluding after reviewing the record that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the plaintiff had not established prima facie claims sufficient to survive summary judgment.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedurefree speech

In Bodewes v. Ulico Casualty Co., current and former trustees of employee benefit funds sued their insurer, Ulico Casualty Company, seeking a declaratory judgment that Ulico was obligated under a fiduciary liability insurance policy to defend and indemnify them in an underlying ERISA action alleging breach of fiduciary duty. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied Ulico's motion and granted the trustees' motion, holding that Ulico must provide coverage. The court reasoned that the policy's terms were unambiguous, the underlying claims fell within the coverage grant, timely notice had been provided, and the insured-versus-insured exclusion did not apply because the plaintiffs in the underlying action were fund participants rather than insured trustees.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a claim by Charles Robinson against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained when he slipped and fell on a wet floor in the service area of a USPS cafeteria in Buffalo, New York, while carrying a box as part of his work for a contractor. After a non-jury trial with testimony from multiple witnesses, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52, determining that USPS maintenance staff had mopped the floor shortly before the incident without posting any warning signs. The core reasoning applied New York law's standard of reasonable care under the circumstances, as established in Basso v. Miller, to assess whether the government breached its duty to keep the premises safe for those on the property, along with calculations of damages including future medical expenses subject to collateral source reductions.

torts & liability

This ERISA case concerned whether Santo Scrufari, as Plan Manager of union welfare and pension funds, breached fiduciary duties by unilaterally raising his own and his son's compensation without obtaining required Trustee approval under the trust agreements. After a bench trial, the court reviewed trust documents, meeting minutes, and witness testimony to determine authorization and reasonableness of the payments. The court applied ERISA fiduciary standards and the statute of limitations under 29 U.S.C. § 1133, concluding that certain unapproved increases constituted breaches while others were time-barred or authorized, and directed repayment of unlawfully obtained amounts to the funds.

labor & employmentfederal power