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

Plaintiffs sought to avail themselves under terms of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA), 15 U.S.C. 1701-20, by bringing suit for revocation of a purchase agreement they executed with defendants for a luxury condominium unit in New York City. Plaintiffs asserted that the agreement failed to comport with ILSA's disclosure requirements. Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the purchase agreement was revocable because it did not contain "a description of the lot which makes such lot clearly identifiable and which is in a form acceptable for recording" under section 1703(d)(1) of ILSA. The court held that section 1703(d)(1) required the description and not the agreement itself be "in a form acceptable for recording" and that the description at issue in this case satisfied ILSA's requirements. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions that the district court enter judgment for defendants. View "Bacolitsas v. 86th & 3rd Owner, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of his action against the Museum for its acquisition, possession, display, and retention of a painting that had been confiscated by the Russian Bolshevik regime from plaintiff's great-grandfather in 1918. On appeal, plaintiff contended principally that the district court erred in holding that the painting was taken pursuant to a valid act of state despite factual allegations in his Amended Complaint to the contrary. The court found that it was clear that the Amended Complaint, on its face, showed that plaintiff's action was barred by the act of state doctrine. The court considered all of plaintiff's arguments and concluded that they were without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Konowaloff v. The Metropolitan Museum of Art" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Serbia, petitioned for review of an order of the BIA affirming the oral decision of the IJ, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ rejected petitioner's claim of past persecution, explaining that his failure to demonstrate that the abuse he suffered had a sufficient nexus to a protected ground. The court concluded, however, that the proposed group of cooperating witnesses was a particular social group under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A). Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's order, and remanded for the agency to consider whether petitioner was a member of the group, whether the 2005 attacks and threats directed against petitioner amounted to persecution, and, if so, whether that persecution was on account of his membership in the group. View "Gashi v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former employee of the DEP, claimed that he failed to prevail in a prior employment-related suit because of false statements and deliberate omissions in an investigative report issued by defendant. The court held that "backward-looking" access-to-court claims were not cognizable when plaintiff had knowledge of the crucial facts and an opportunity to rebut opposing evidence, because such a plaintiff necessarily had adequate access to a judicial remedy. The court also held that the district court's opinion in the prior suit demonstrated that it did not rely on statements or omissions in defendant's report, and therefore no reasonable factfinder could find that defendant's actions denied him a right of access to the courts in violation of his federal constitutional rights. View "Sousa v. Marquez" on Justia Law

This declaratory judgment action involved a dispute over liability insurance coverage for property damage alleged to have been caused by the policyholder during construction of a residential building. The policyholder filed suit against Interstate seeking a declaration that its insurer was obligated to defend and indemnify. The district court ruled that the property was a "residential property" construction but not an "apartment" at the time the damage occurred and thus, the policyholder had no coverage. Because the court concluded that the property was an apartment building as defined by the insurance policy when the damage occurred, the court held that the policyholder was covered by the policy and therefore reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Ment Bros. Iron Works Co., Inc v. Interstate Fire and Casualty Co." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the judgment of the district court convicting him of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. 1326, following a conditional plea. While defendant's 1998 immigration proceedings were pending, he was arrested for robbery and detained in New York. Although he notified the INS of his new address, the INS did not properly process the address change and failed to notify defendant of his ongoing immigration proceedings, so that he was ordered removed in absentia. Defendant was removed to Jamaica but he subsequently returned to the United States. He was arrested again and indicted for illegal reentry. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was given no notice of the 1998 removal proceedings. Because the district court properly considered defendant's completed criminal conduct in ruling that the entry of the removal order against defendant in abstentia was not fundamentally unfair because there was no reasonable probability that defendant would have obtained relief had he received notice of the removal proceeding and been present, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Daley" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. At issue was whether the "public safety" exception to the requirement of Miranda warnings applied where police officers had reason to believe that a suspect could have left a gun in a public place, but where interrogation occurred an hour or more after the suspect's arrest. The court held, principally, that police officers had an immediate and objectively reasonable need to protect the public from a realistic threat and the "public safety" exception was applicable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ferguson" on Justia Law

Appellants, the M/V Akili, its owner, and manager, appealed from the district court's judgment holding that it was liable in rem for damage to cargo shipped aboard the vessel. Ferrostaal cross-appealed from the holding that the owner and manager were not liable in personam under a bailment theory. At issue was whether (1) an in rem proceeding rendering the Akili liable for damage to, or loss of, cargo was unavailable in this matter because a vessel was not a "carrier" within the meaning of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), 46 U.S.C. 30701, and (ii) the free-in-and-out provision in the Voyage Charter Party purportedly absolving the Akili of in rem liability was enforceable. The court held that the first issue was essentially irrelevant because a vessel's in rem liability for damage to cargo existed under maritime common law, not COGSA, for a violation of a carrier's contractual or statutory obligations. The court resolved the second issue against enforcement of the free-in-and-out provision so far as it might be construed to prevent in rem liability of the vessel. In doing so, the court did not decide whether COGSA applied as a matter of law to this voyage because, even if it did not, the Voyage Charter Party's Clause Paramount contractually incorporated the Hague-Visby rules prohibiting a carrier from contracting for a waiver of its obligations regarding damage to cargo. The court also held that there was no in personam liability for the owner and manager where the carriers remained responsible for delivery of the goods and maintained exclusive control and custody over the cargos through agents they hired directly. View "Man Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Akili" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of theft of government property arising from the fraud she carried out to obtain subsidized housing benefits in New York City. The district court ordered her to pay $11,274 in restitution to the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) and to forfeit $11,274 to the United States. The court concluded that because the money defendant was ordered to forfeit was "obtained" by her "indirectly" as a result of her offense, was "traceable to" that offense, and constituted the "net gain" from that offense, the forfeiture order was authorized by the plain language of the relevant forfeiture statue, 18 U.S.C. 981. Although defendant did not challenge the order of restitution, the court also concluded that the imposition of both forfeiture and restitution orders was proper in this case because the orders would be paid to different entities, were authorized by different statutes, and served different purposes. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Torres" on Justia Law

The Government appealed from an order of the district court suppressing cocaine and other physical evidence uncovered during a search of defendants' car, as well as post-arrest statements made by defendants. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that defendants' car was illegally stopped, that the consent to search the car was tainted by the illegal stop, and that defendants did not waive their Miranda rights when they made the post-arrest statements. View "United States v. Murphy" on Justia Law