Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Stockbridge, a recognized Indian tribe, appealed from the district court's dismissal of its claims asserting title of a tract of land in upstate New York. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that it was well-settled that claims by an Indian tribe alleging that it was unlawfully dispossessed of land early in America's history were barred by the equitable principles of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility. View "Stockbridge-Munsee v. State of New York, et al." on Justia Law

Taxpayer donated a facade conservation easement to the National Architectural Trust, and claimed a charitable deduction under I.R.C. 170(f)(3(B)(iii). On appeal, Taxpayer challenged the Tax Court's judgment finding that the easement had no negative impact on the value of her property. The court concluded that the Tax Court's conclusion that the facade easement did not reduce the fair market value of Taxpayer's house was supported by substantial evidence. The court rejected Taxpayer's claim under I.R.C. 7491. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Scheidelman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's federal claim for relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. The court declined to review plaintiff's lack of notice claim. The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances, even when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, compelled the legal conclusion that he rendered services at a high school as a public agency volunteer, thereby exempting the DOE from the minimum and overtime wage requirements of the FLSA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, and the court concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's New York Labor Law claim without prejudice to refiling in state court. View "Brown v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction for tax evasion. The court concluded that the Government violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by seizing and indefinitely retaining non-responsive computer records, and then searching them when it later developed probable cause. Therefore, defendant's personal records, seized in the execution of the November 2003 warrant and retained for two-and-a-half years, should have been suppressed. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order a new trial where a juror posted comments about the trial on his Facebook page and became Facebook friends with another juror during the trial. The court reversed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, vacated the judgment of conviction, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Ganias" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from an order of the bankruptcy court holding that a mistakenly filed UCC-3 termination statement was unauthorized and therefore not effective to terminate a secured lender's interest in a debtor's property. The court certified to the Delaware Supreme Court the following question: Under UCC Article 9, as adopted into Delaware law by Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, art. 9, for a UCC-3 termination statement to effectively extinguish the perfected nature of a UCC-1 financing statement, is it enough that the secured lender review and knowingly approve for filing a UCC-3 purporting to extinguish the perfected security interest, or must the secured lender intend to terminate the particular security interest that is listed on the UCC-3? View "In Re: Motors Liquidation Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion in the district court presenting claims based on the Supreme Court's holding in Peugh v. United States, and evidence that was purported to be newly discovered. The court held that the rule announced in Peugh does not constitute "a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court." Therefore, the court could not authorize the filing of petitioner's successive motion on this basis. While it was possible that petitioner did not previously know New York's pre-2009 DWI requirements, he has not alleged, and the record does not suggest, that he could not have discovered this information through the exercise of due diligence prior to the filing of his section 2255 motion in 2008. Accordingly, the court could not authorize petitioner's successive section 2255 motion on the basis of this purportedly newly discovered evidence. The court denied the motion for leave to file a successive section 2255 motion. View "Herrera-Gomez v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Peru, sought review of a 2011 order of the BIA affirming a 2009 decision of the IJ, which pretermitted his application for cancellation of removal under section 240A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a), and for a waiver under the former INA 212(c), 8 U.S.C. 1182(c). The court concluded that petitioner was properly deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) and a single confusing reference to a Class B misdemeanor did not compel a different conclusion. The court saw no basis for concluding that Vartelas v. Holder overruled Domond v. INS sub silentio; the court adhered to Domond's teaching that the legal regime in force at the time of an alien's conviction determines whether an alien is entitled to seek section 212(c) relief; and because petitioner's conviction for a controlled substance post-dated the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546 et seq., he was ineligible for a waiver of deportation under section 212(c). Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for review. View "Centurion v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Governor and DCJS on plaintiff's as-applied constitutional challenges to the enforcement of certain amendments to the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), N.Y. Correct. Law 168-h. The amendments were enacted after plaintiff pleaded guilty to misdemeanor attempted possession of a sexual performance by a child, as a result of which he was classified as a level-one sex offender required to register under SORA. The court concluded, among other things, that requiring plaintiff to comply with these post-plea amendments did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Fourth Amendment, nor deprived him of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and concluded that they were without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Doe v. Cuomo" on Justia Law

D'Amico filed suit to enforce an English court's judgment on a forward freight agreement (FFA) between D'Amico and Primera. On appeal, D'Amico challenged the district court's dismissal of its complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court granted Primera's motion to dismiss, holding that the suit did not fall under the federal courts' admiralty jurisdiction because the English judgment was not rendered by an admiralty court and the claim underlying the judgment was not deemed to be maritime under English law. The court concluded that, under 28 U.S.C. 1333, United States courts have jurisdiction to enforce a judgment of a foreign non-admiralty court if the claim underlying that judgment would be deemed maritime under the standards of U.S. law. Because the district court did not consider this question, the court remanded to the district court to make that determination in the first instance. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment and remanded. View "D'Amico Dry Ltd. v. Primera Maritime, et al." on Justia Law

This declaratory judgment action under New York law involves Hartford's issuance to Euchner of comprehensive general liability insurance with an endorsement covering the company's employee benefits program. Hartford denied coverage and refused a defense as to a suit in which plaintiff alleged that she was sexually harassed and that she was coerced into accepting a changed status that Euchner improperly classified as an independent sales position. Euchner appealed from the district court's grant of Hartford's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the underlying suit alleged only intentional wrong. The court concluded that a reasonable possibility existed that some claims in the former employee's (amended) complaint might implicate the coverage extended by endorsement, and that Hartford therefore owed a duty to defend. The court did not reach the issue of indemnity. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded in part. The court affirmed the dismissal of the claim brought under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 349. View "Euchner-USA, Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co." on Justia Law