United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (2024)

Senior judges:
Richard Berman, Vincent L. Briccetti, Naomi Buchwald, Kevin Castel, Denise Cote, Paul Crotty, George Daniels, Paul Gardephe, Charles Haight, Alvin Hellerstein, Lewis Kaplan, John Keenan, Victor Marrero, Colleen McMahon, Loretta Preska, Jed Rakoff, Louis Stanton, Sidney Stein, Kimba Wood

Jeannette Vargas

Joe Biden (D)

Harvard College, 1995

Yale Law School, 2000

Sarah Netburn

Joe Biden (D)

Brown University

University of California

John Koeltl

Bill Clinton (D)

Georgetown University, 1967

Harvard Law, 1971

Laura Swain

Bill Clinton (D)

Harvard-Radcliffe College, 1979

Harvard Law, 1982

Kenneth Karas

George W. Bush (R)

Georgetown University, 1986

Columbia University Law, 1991

Cathy Seibel

George W. Bush (R)

Princeton University, 1982

Fordham University Law, 1985

James Paul Oetken

Barack Obama (D)

University of Iowa, 1988

Yale Law, 1991

Paul A. Engelmayer

Barack Obama (D)

Harvard, 1983

Harvard Law, 1987

Edgardo Ramos

Barack Obama (D)

Yale, 1982

Harvard Law, 1987

Andrew L. Carter Jr.

Barack Obama (D)

University of Texas, 1991

Harvard Law, 1994

Jesse Furman

Barack Obama (D)

Harvard, 1994

Yale Law, 1998

Ronnie Abrams

Barack Obama (D)

Cornell University, 1990

Yale Law School, 1993

Lorna Schofield

Barack Obama (D)

Indiana University, 1977

New York University Law, 1981

Katherine Failla

Barack Obama (D)

College of William & Mary, 1990

Harvard Law, 1993

Analisa Torres

Barack Obama (D)

Harvard, 1981

Columbia Law, 1984

Nelson S. Roman

Barack Obama (D)

Fordham University, 1984

Brooklyn Law, 1989

Vernon Broderick

Barack Obama (D)

Yale, 1985

Harvard Law, 1988

Gregory Howard Woods

Barack Obama (D)

Williams College, 1991

Yale Law, 1995

Valerie Caproni

Barack Obama (D)

Tulane University, 1976

University of Georgia Law, 1979

Mary Kay Vyskocil

Donald Trump (R)

Dominican College of Blauvelt, 1979

St. John's University School of Law, 1983

Lewis Liman

Donald Trump (R)

Harvard College, 1983

Yale University Law School, 1987

Philip M. Halpern

Donald Trump (R)

Fordham University, 1977

Elizabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, 1980

John Peter Cronan

Donald Trump (R)

Georgetown University, 1998

Yale Law School, 2001

Jennifer Rochon

Joe Biden (D)

University of Michigan, 1992

New York University School of Law, 1997

Jennifer Rearden

Joe Biden (D)

Yale University, 1992

New York University School of Law, 1996

Arun Subramanian

Joe Biden (D)

Case Western Reserve University, 2001

Columbia Law School, 2004

Jessica Clarke

Joe Biden (D)

Northwestern University, 2005

Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law, 2008

Dale Ho

Joe Biden (D)

Princeton University, 1999

Yale Law School, 2005

Margaret Garnett

Joe Biden (D)

University of Notre Dame, 1992

Columbia Law School, 2000

Charles Haight

Gerald Ford (R)

Yale University, 1952

Yale Law School, 1955

Louis Stanton

Ronald Reagan (R)

Yale University, 1950

University of Virginia School of Law, 1955

John Keenan

Ronald Reagan (R)

Manhattan College, 1951

Fordham University Law, 1954

Kimba Wood

Ronald Reagan (R)

Connecticut College, 1965

Harvard Law School, 1969

Sidney Stein

Bill Clinton (D)

Princeton University, 1967

Yale Law, 1972

Jed Rakoff

Bill Clinton (D)

Swarthmore College, 1964

Harvard Law, 1969

Victor Marrero

Bill Clinton (D)

New York University, 1964

Yale Law School, 1968

Alvin Hellerstein

Bill Clinton (D)

Columbia, 1954

Columbia Law, 1956

Lewis Kaplan

Bill Clinton (D)

University of Rochester, 1966

Harvard Law, 1969

Richard Berman

Bill Clinton (D)

Cornell University, 1964

New York University School of Law, 1967

Denise Cote

Bill Clinton (D)

St. Mary's College, 1968

Columbia Law School, 1975

Naomi Buchwald

Bill Clinton (D)

Brandeis University, 1965

Columbia Law School, 1968

Paul Crotty

George W. Bush (R)

University of Notre Dame, 1962

Cornell Law School, 1967

Loretta Preska

George H.W. Bush (R)

College of St. Rose, 1970

Fordham University School of Law, 1973

Kevin Castel

George W. Bush (R)

St. John's University, 1972

St. John's University School of Law, 1975

Colleen McMahon

Bill Clinton (D)

The Ohio State University, 1973

Harvard Law, 1976

George Daniels

Bill Clinton (D)

Yale, 1975

University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1978

Vincent L. Briccetti

Barack Obama (D)

Columbia University, 1976

Fordham University Law, 1980

Paul Gardephe

George W. Bush (R)

University of Pennsylvania, 1979

Columbia Law, 1982

Barbara Moses

Dartmouth University

Harvard Law School

Debra Freeman

Yale University

New York University

James L. Cott

Harvard College, 1981

Northeastern School of Law, 1985

Kevin Fox

Columbia University

Brooklyn Law School

Gabriel Gorenstein

Yale University, 1979

Columbia Law, 1984

Paul Davison

Harvard College, 1980

New York University Law, 1985

Sarah Netburn

Brown University

University of California

Judith C. McCarthy

Barnard College

City University of New York Law School

Katharine Parker

Robert Lehrburger

Stewart Aaron

Ona Wang

Sarah Cave

Andrew Krause

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Yale University, 2000

Harvard Law School, 2005

Jennifer Willis

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Columbia University

New York University School of Law

Kim Berg

Source: United States Courts, "Explanation of the Judicial Caseload Profiles for United States District Courts," accessed September 25, 2018

Articles:

Articles:

Articles:

On May 1, 2014, Judge P. Kevin Castel ruled that a negligence lawsuit filed by the family of a mentally-ill man shot and killed by the New York Police Department (NYPD) may move forward in court.^[5]

In the underlying case, in 2012, NYPD officers entered the apartment of Mohamed Bah, an emotionally unstable man, after his mother called 911 to get him medical attention. The police claimed that upon their arrival, Bah allegedly started to swing a knife at them. Once inside, officers attempted to subdue Bah with Tasers. One officer accidentally struck another officer with his Taser, prompting the second officer to believe he'd been stabbed by Bah.^[5] Officers then fired ten shots at Bah, and hit him eight times, wounding him fatally. Bah's survivors filed a $70 million suit against the City and the NYPD, with claims that the officers were negligent and unlawfully entered Bah's apartment.^[6]

In his ruling on the matter, Judge Castel dismissed the family's claims of negligence, but allowed allegations of unlawful entry and improper supervision to stand, noting, "Based on the facts alleged, it is plausible that immediate action was not necessary as the [Emergency Service Unit] officers, at minimum, may have been able to enlist Mrs. Bah’s help in speaking with Bah and did not have reason to believe that Bah posed a threat to anyone." A spokesperson for the New York City Law Department pledged that the City's attorneys would "vigorously defend this lawsuit.”^[5][6]

On April 24, 2014, Judge Paul Crotty found that the State of New York's $150,000 yearly limit on campaign contributions to independent groups -- in particular, political groups known as super PACS -- was unconstitutional under the First Amendment in light of a Second Circuit ruling and the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.^[7][8]

In the fall of 2013, the New York Progress and Protection PAC (NYPPP), a group that supported conservative candidate Joe Llota's failed bid for the New York City mayorship, filed suit seeking an injunction against the state's election laws, specifically requesting that the six-figure cap on campaign contributions be suspended.^[7][8] NYPPP did not initially receive its injunction, but when the case was brought to the Second Circuit, the appeals court found that the law which limited financial contributions was likely unconstitutional, and in October 2013, lifted the cap for the duration of the New York City mayoral election.^[9]

When the case returned to the federal district court, Judge Crotty bemoaned the Second Circuit and Supreme Court rulings, referring to the decisions as "misguided," but applicable nonetheless, noting, "Our Supreme Court has made clear that only certain contribution limits comport with the First Amendment." Following the "clear guidance" received from both courts above his own, Crotty granted a NYPPP motion for summary judgment, effectively striking down New York's campaign contribution limits as to individual groups.^[7][8]

A spokesperson for New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman expressed his "disappointment" with the decision.^[7][8] Notably, Shaun McCutcheon, the plaintiff in the precedential Supreme Court case, pledged to contribute "at least $200,000" to NYPPP during Llota's unsuccessful bid for the New York City mayorship.^[7][9]

On March 10, 2014, Judge Kimba Wood sentenced Kevin Neville, a former Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) dispatcher, to twenty-one months in prison for his rampant filing of fraudulent disability claims.^[10]

Neville was part of a "massive, decadelong scheme" where former LIRR employees made fraudulent claims to the federal Railroad Retirement Board. Neville collected about $200,000 after claiming that he had very bad back pain. In the prosecution of the case against Neville, the government found that the man was an avid golfer and shoveled snow in the winter months, despite assertions that he couldn't "bend or stretch."^[10]

Neville's lawyer asked that Judge Wood sentence his client to probation, but she declined to do so, citing Neville's "greed." Neville was sentenced to one year and nine months in jail in the hope of deterring future fraud.^[10]

On March 4, 2014, Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled in favor of Chevron, an oil and natural gas company, in a case alleging that a multibillion dollar pollution judgment against it, issued by a foreign court, had been obtained through illegitimate means of fraud and corruption.^[11]

In the underlying case, Judge Nicolas Zambrano of Ecuador found Chevron liable for polluting the Lago Agrio rainforest on February 14, 2011, assessing about $19 billion in damages and fines against the company. Chevron refused to pay the fines or accept responsibility for the pollution, and the company brought this case on U.S. soil, alleging that much of the evidence used to obtain judgment was fabricated by lead attorney Steven Donziger. Donziger denied the allegations, but the evidence against him detailing the fraud upon the court, up to and including bribing Judge Zambrano, was overwhelming. In an almost 500-page ruling, Judge Kaplan noted, "an innocent defendant is no more entitled to submit false evidence, to co-opt and pay off a court-appointed expert or to coerce or bribe a judge or jury than a guilty one."^[11]

Judge Kaplan further noted that Donziger and his team subverted justice in their actions, writing:

Donziger pledged to appeal the ruling, calling it an "appalling decision from a deeply flawed proceeding."^[11]

On December 27, 2013, Judge William Pauley granted the government's motion to dismiss in this case, ruling that the National Security Agency's (NSA) collection of telephone data was constitutional, and creating a split of authority within the federal judiciary. In the underlying case, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit against the government in June 2013, alleging Fourth Amendment privacy violations and First Amendment free speech and association violations following the Guardian newspaper's revelation of the extent of the NSA's domestic spying protocols, specifically, the collection of "bulk telephony metadata" from all phone calls made in America. Pauley dismissed the ACLU's complaint, referring to the NSA's tactics as an anti-terrorism "counter-punch," and further noting that the agency's "blunt tool only works because it collects everything." One week prior to Pauley's ruling, Judge Richard Leon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the NSA's collection of telephone metadata en masse was unconstitutional, calling the program "almost Orwellian." On January 2, 2014, the ACLU appealed Pauley's ruling to the Second Circuit.^{[13][14][15][16][17]}

On December 16, 2013, Judge Charles Haight ordered that Scott Lewis, a Connecticut man imprisoned after a double homicide conviction in 1995, be freed within 60 days unless the state should decide to retry him. Lewis pressed his innocence from the time of his arrest and throughout nearly two decades spent in prison, working feverishly to win his freedom despite his 120-year sentence. He represented himself without an attorney for 14 years before Professor Brett Dignam of the Columbia Law School's Mass Incarceration Clinic stepped in to assist with his case. Based on information from prior court proceedings -- including two state court habeas petitions, FBI intervention and investigation, and a federal court habeas petition -- Judge Haight, in examining whether Lewis received a fair trial and without commenting on his innocence, determined that Lewis was "entitled to federal habeas relief because the state suppressed exculpatory and impeachment evidence" (i.e., the state withheld evidence that a key witness had been coached by police and that a police informant who died before trial notified authorities that another man committed the crime). A representative from the Connecticut state attorney's office noted that the case was under review following Judge Haight's ruling.^[18][19][20]

In March 2012, Ear Booker Enterprises, a company owned by parodist Weird Al Yankovic, filed suit against Sony Music Entertainment alleging that the artist was owed approximately $5 million in unpaid music royalties. Specifically, Ear Booker alleged that the record label treated digital downloads as sales as opposed to licenses, resulting in income to the singer of 15 percent rather than 50 percent. In addition, Ear Booker requested payments from settlements reached by Sony with third party music programs such as Spotify, Vevo, Napster, Kazaa, and Grokster. On December 16, 2013, the parties settled the case and filed a stipulation of dismissal, signed by Judge Analisa Torres. The details of the settlement were not disclosed to the public.^[21][22][23]

On November 21, 2013, lead plaintiff Yuliana Avalos filed a class action lawsuit against IAC/InterActiveCorp and its subsidiaries Match.com and People Media alleging numerous causes of action, including trademark, copyright, fraud, negligence, and Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations. Avalos said that while she never had a profile on the dating site Match.com, or any of the other dating sites that were run by the company, the dating site knowingly and intentionally used her photographs in "hundreds if not thousands of fraudulent profiles," and "thousands if not millions of photographs of class members in fraudulent profiles." Avalos alleged that Match.com "conspired with criminals operating from locations including Internet cafes in Nigeria, Ghana and Russia" to create the fraudulent profiles. Avalos further claimed on behalf of the class that Match.com failed to police fraudulent profiles and refused to act on complaints received about them. Avalos requested $500 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages. Match.com released a statement and asserted that the suit was "filled with outlandish conspiracy theories," expressing surety that the Southern District of New York would "dismiss this case in short order." The case is before Judge Jesse Furman.^[24][25]

In March 2012, Jeremy Hammond was arrested and indicted for his involvement in the Stratfor email leak. Hammond was jailed for approximately eight months before Chief Judge Loretta Preska denied him bail at a pretrial hearing. At the same hearing, Judge Preska informed Hammond that he could be sentenced to life in prison for his crimes. Months later, in February 2013, Hammond's defense team filed a motion asking that Judge Preska recuse herself, raising the possibility that she could be biased due to her husband's connection to the case. Chief Judge Preska's husband, Thomas Kavaler, is a partner at the law firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel, and his emails were leaked in the Stratfor hack. Prior to joining the bench, Judge Preska was employed as a partner at the same firm. Moreover, several of the law firm's clients were victims of the hack. Chief Judge Preska denied the motion, ruling that these facts did not meet the legal standard used to question a judge's impartiality in a case. On May 28, 2013, pursuant to a plea agreement, Hammond pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to engage in computer hacking. On November 15, 2013, Chief Judge Preska sentenced him the maximum of 10 years in prison.^{[26][27][28][29][30]}

On November 4, 2013, Judge Jesse Furman ruled that New York City's (NYC) inadequate accommodations for disabled residents during emergency situations violated federal law. In the underlying case, two nonprofit groups and two disabled individuals filed suit after Hurricane Irene in 2011, seeking class-action status on behalf of all disabled individuals in NYC. Plaintiffs alleged that NYC failed to do all of the following during emergencies and disasters: plan for evacuation, provide Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)-accessible shelter, attend to their needs during power outages, communicate during emergencies, and account for them in recovery operations. In November 2012, following Hurricane Sandy, Furman granted the plaintiffs' request. In a 119-page decision, one which acknowledged that NYC often performed an "outstanding job" with regard to its emergency preparedness planning, Furman wrote that while there was no indication of intentional discrimination on NYC's part, there appeared to be "benign neglect." Furman found that NYC's plans were "inadequate to ensure that people with disabilities [were] able to evacuate before or during an emergency; they fail[ed] to provide sufficiently accessible shelters; and they [did] not sufficiently inform people with disabilities of the availability and location of accessible emergency services." He did not go so far as to suggest possible remedies to these problems, noting that "complexity and potential expense involved." This is the first ruling following a trial where a federal judge has found that a city's emergency plans violated the ADA.^[31][32]

U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer presided over a minimum-wage violation class action suit filed on behalf of nearly 2,000 current and former strippers employed at Rick's Cabaret, a Manhattan gentlemen's club. Like many strip clubs, Rick's classified its exotic dancers as independent contractors, without paying hourly wages; they earned income solely from customer tips. Because of the "tight control, indeed, control fairly described as micromanagement" Rick's enforced upon its dancers, often in the form of stringent guidelines and hefty fees and fines, Judge Engelmayer ruled that they ought to be classified as employees deserving of a minimum wage, rather than as independent contractors. Attorneys for the club have said that an appeal is a likely next step.^[33][34][35]

U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan presided over a copyright infringement case filed against the Beastie Boys by record licensing entity TufAmerica. The company alleged that in the 1980s, the hip-hip group illegally sampled music from the band Trouble Funk, an R&B group whose licensing rights are owned by the company. TufAmerica claimed the Beastie Boys illegally used six samples of Trouble Funk’s music for a total of 20 seconds, thus infringing upon the R&B group’s rights. The Beastie Boys moved to dismiss the claims.

Judge Nathan was tasked with the duty of determining how the song samples ought to be compared. The Beastie Boys requested that the ordinary observer test be applied, while TufAmerica requested that the fragmented literal similarity test be applied. Judge Nathan agreed with TufAmerica, noting that "[t]he real question at this stage - more so than the question of how to label the relevant test - is whether (as to each sample) plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the sample is quantitatively and qualitatively important to the original work such that the fragmented similarity becomes sufficiently substantial for the use to become an infringement.”

Judge Nathan ruled that four of the six samples failed to rise to the level of infringement, but that the remaining two may pass the muster of the fragmented literal similarity test. In doing so, however, she limited TufAmerica’s claims to the three-year statute of limitations set forth in the U.S. Copyright Act, declaring that the licensing entity could not seek monetary damages for any alleged instances of infringement that had occurred before May 12, 2009.^{[36][37][38][39][40]}

On August 27, 2013, Judge Alvin Hellerstein upheld a nearly $400 million international arbitration award owed to Corporacion Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral (COMMISA), a Mexican subsidiary of KBR, by Pemex-Exploracion y Produccion (Pemex), a Mexican oil company. In the underlying case, COMMISA and Pemex contracted to build offshore natural gas platforms, and later, in 2004, accused each other of contractual breach. A lengthy legal battle ensued: Pemex proceeded to rescind its contracts with COMMISA, while COMMISA brought its claims to an International Chamber of Commerce arbitration panel. COMISSA was awarded $289 million in damages and $7.5 million in attorneys' fees and expenses. In 2010, Judge Alvin Hellerstein confirmed enforcement of the award in the United States. At the same time, Pemex brought litigation in Mexico to invalidate the arbitration award, and in 2011, the company succeeded. The Eleventh Collegiate Court for the Federal District, a Mexican appeals court, found that based on legislation brought about after the litigation was initiated, Pemex's rescission was non-arbitrable, thus nullifying the award. Thereafter, the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit vacated and remanded Judge Hellerstein's enforcement action to his court. Judge Hellerstein, evaluating the case once more, reaffirmed COMMISA's arbitration award, noting that because the Eleventh Collegiate Court applied a law that did not exist at the time the parties contracted, and because the applicable statute of limitations had since expired, COMMISA would have been denied the opportunity to go to trial. In concluding his analysis of the case, Judge Hellerstein wrote that the Mexican "decision vacating the award violated basic notions of justice."^[41]

In August 2013, Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the New York Police Department's (NYPD) "stop-and-frisk" rule, which the NYPD credited with saving lives, disregarded the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Judge Scheindlin also found that officers used racial profiling during the process, unfairly targeting minorities.^[42]

The judge didn't rule out use of the program in the future, since the stop-and-frisk procedure was ruled constitutional in some circ*mstances previously by the Supreme Court of the United States (in Terry v. Ohio in 1968). However, Judge Scheindlin suggested steps to make the process more equitable, including a pilot project where police officers wear body cameras to record interactions and the solicitation of public feedback on the program.^[43][44]

Update One

In October 2013, the Second Circuit removed Judge Shira Scheindlin from Floyd v. City of New York and put the remedies proposed by the judge on hold. The previous court order was stayed until an appeal was heard by the panel. ^[45]

Judge Scheindlin was removed from the case as a result of interviews with the media in May 2013 which made the court question her impartiality. In response to the accusation that she violated the Code of Conduct for federal judges, Scheindlin said:

Update Two

On November 22, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit, composed of Judge Jose Cabranes and Senior Judges John Walker and Barrington Parker, refused in a per curiam decision to vacate Judge Scheindlin's prior ruling which struck down the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy. The judges denied motions filed by New York City to transfer the court's October 2013 stay of Scheindlin's ruling into its vacation, and further denied as moot motions filed by Scheindlin in opposition to the City's previously described motions. Judge Scheindlin's groundbreaking "stop-and-frisk" decision still stands.^[47]

Judge Scheindlin presided in a class-action lawsuit over 309 cases in which shareholders of tech stocks accused underwriters of artificially inflating the value of stock in technology companies that went public in the 1990s. The judge approved a settlement of $586 million. The defendants include, among others, Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. The tech burst happened in 2000 after many technology-laden stocks crashed after evidence found that stock brokers issued false information that mislead investors.^[48]

Judge Chin presided in a copyright case involving Google after Google was taken to court by the Authors Guild and the American Association of Publishers over alleged copyright violations in the tech giant's attempt to digitize books.

On September 9, 2009, it was reported that Google would enter into a $125 million dollar settlement with the Authors Guild and the American Association of Publishers. However, there was widespread opposition to a possible settlement from not only the U.S. government, but also the governments of Germany and France along with Japanese authors, on the grounds of not letting authors have free choice over which parts of their works were published on the search engine.^[49]

Judge Chin, on September 25, 2009, announced that he would delay a planned October 7, 2009, settlement hearing in the Google books case. Both sides asked for the delay over the possibility of the settlement being anti-competitive. However, both sides planned to meet on October 7, 2009, over case management plans to move the case to a final resolution.^[50] During the hearing, Judge Chin set a deadline of November 9, 2009, in which Google must have a settlement plan ready for the judge to approve. The previous settlement proposal was thrown out.^[51]

On November 19, 2009, Judge Chin gave preliminary approval of a settlement made between Google and book publishers. Google asked Judge Chin on February 11, 2010, to accept a $125 million dollar settlement in relation to the case. Attorneys for Google felt that if no settlement was reached, that it would set precedence for similar cases to backload court dockets resulting in litigation that could take years to rule on. The brief filed by Google was to convince the judge that the settlement would allow for more competition in the virtual book market amid Justice Department objections.^[52][53]

Judge Chin on February 18, 2010, held a hearing on whether to accept the settlement by Google. Judge Chin had to delay the ruling because of so much information being presented that according to the judge it was "too much to digest."^[54] However, on March 22, 2011, Judge Chin rejected the controversial settlement agreement "on copyright and antitrust grounds."^[55]

The long-standing case was resolved, at least for publishers, on October 4, 2012, when the Association of American Publishers (AAP) and Google announced a settlement. The AAP, acting on behalf of five publishers named as plaintiffs in the suit, issued a statement stating "Google is said to 'acknowledge the rights and interests of copyright-holders,' and U.S. publishers can 'choose to make available or choose to remove their books and journals digitized by Google for its Library Project.'"^[56]

While Google and the AAP were able to resolve their suit, an additional aspect of the suit remained: "barring a settlement with the Authors Guild, the fair use questions at the heart of the Google program could still be adjudicated by Judge Chin.^[57]

• Scans of court documents involved in the case, as well as transcripts of some hearings, can be found here.

U.S. District Judge Harold Baer presided over a minimum-wage violation case against Hearst Corporation's Harper's Bazaar, a major fashion magazine. In July 2012, Judge Baer ruled that a federal lawsuit against the Hearst Corporation could go forward under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of all unpaid interns who previously worked in the corporation’s magazines division. The suit was brought on behalf of Xuedan Wang, who was an unpaid intern at the magazine. Joined by almost 3,000 interns from other Hearst publications, the lawsuit was a class action suit.^[58]

The claim is one of three claims brought by the same law firm, Outten & Golden, all revolving around minimum-wage violation claims by interns of major media organizations.^[58]

• • Complaint: Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc 1:2011cv06784
    
  • Complaint: Lucy Bickerton v. Charles Rose and Charlie Rose, Inc No. 650780/2012
    
  • Complaint: Wang v. Hearst Corporation 1:2012cv00793

On July 10, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed the decision of Judge Jed Rakoff, ruling that federal regulations preempted a city ordinance that required cigarette distributors to post gruesome photos of cigarette related illnesses at the point of sale. The court held that the 1965 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempted the local law, thus rendering the local ordinance unconstitutional. Philip Morris USA alongside twp other manufacturers, two major retailers, and two trade unions challenged this city law in federal court last year. Despite admitting the risks of smoking, Rakoff agreed with the cigarette producers, stating in his opinion, "Even merchants of morbidity are entitled to the full protection of the law." The Second Circuit concurred, though they believed that the city could launch its own anti-smoking campaign using the images, but could not require retailers to do it. The case was heard by Judges Peter Hall, Gerard Lynch, and Denny Chin, with Chin writing the opinion of the court.^[59][60]

Judge Rakoff announced on October 14, 2011, that he would take over a lawsuit between Irving Picard, the liquidator of Bernard Madoff’s firm, and 32 trustees who withdrew money before the firm's 2008 bankruptcy. Judge Rakoff took the cases after being asked by investor Gerald Blumenthal, who was being sued by Picard, whether the Madoff estate owed him the money reflected on his Madoff brokerage statements. Blumenthal was then joined by 31 other investors facing similar lawsuits, which inspired Judge Rakoff to take all the cases because of their similarity to each other.^[61]

In October 2011, Judge Oetken gave his approval of a settlement between the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and AT&T. The commission had originally filed suit against AT&T claiming that the company violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 by refusing to rehire employees who had previously retired. Under the terms of the settlement, AT&T "will not maintain any policy prohibiting the rehiring of employees who left AT&T under the relevant retirement programs," and, furthermore, will not retaliate against anyone involved in the litigation.^[62]

Judge Sullivan rejected a lawsuit by a former Madison Square Garden executive that claimed George Steinbrenner gave the idea for the YES Sports Network.

Bob Gutkowski, who used to run Madison Square Garden, said that he was promised compensation for helping start up the YES Network and was seeking $23 million dollars in lost compensation.

The case was thrown out after finding that there was not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove that Steinbrenner was liable.^[63]

Judge Rakoff ruled on June 1, 2010, that credit rating agencies like S & P and Moody's were not underwriters of securities. A group of plaintiffs sued the two credit rating agencies on claims that they used credit ratings to obtain $63 million dollars in mortgage-backed securities. The judge wrote in his ruling that the plaintiffs in the case had a very broad view of what an underwriter does and found no evidence that S & P and Moody's were involved in underwriting.^[64]

Judge Rakoff ruled on February 10, 2010, that Galleon Group founder Raj Rajaratnam and his associates turn over wiretaps that were used in the discovery of evidence for their criminal case to be used in a civil case. The Securities and Exchange Commission asked the court for Rajaratnam to turn over the wiretaps as they had filed a civil lawsuit over insider trading charges. Judge Rakoff said in his ruling that it would be unfair to have one side have important information such as wiretaps and felt it was important for Rajaratnam and his associates to turn over the wiretaps to the SEC.^[65]

Judge Koeltl presided in the trial of hedge fund manager Arthur Nadel. Nadel was charged with securities fraud after bilking millions of dollars from investors and pleading guilty on February 24, 2010, to the charges.^[66] Nadel was sentenced to 14 years in prison and died in April 2012 while serving his time.^[67]

Judge Pauley denied a request by former New York State Senator Hiram Monserrate to stop a decision made by the New York Senate to expel him on February 9, 2010.^[68]

Monserrate was expelled after being convicted of domestic violence towards his girlfriend which is considered a misdemeanor.^[68]

The case was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, but the appellate court ruled that the district court "did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Monserrate Appellants failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of any of the claims they press on appeal. We thus need not reach any of the other arguments advanced by the parties. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction."^[69]

On March 18, 2010, Judge Pauley ruled against striking down a regulation that prohibited collusion between investment bankers and analysts at Wall Street firms. The ruling came after the largest firms on Wall Street in 2009 wanted a 2003 rule that prohibited unsupervised contact between investment bankers and analysts overturned. The judge emphasized in his decision that there needed to be separation between independent analysts and bankers if confidence in the markets could be improved.^[70]

Judge Swain tossed out a copyright infringement lawsuit against Jessica Seinfeld on September 10, 2009, after the judge found that a recipe in a cookbook did not infringe upon that of a competing author.^[71]

Missy Chase Lapine sued the wife of comedian Jerry Seinfeld claiming a chicken breast recipe infringed on her similar recipe and competed unfairly. The judge found that because the styles of the books differed, there was no evidence that Seinfeld's wife committed plagiarism.^[71]

The case was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Two appellate judges, Reena Raggi and Peter Hall, ruled against Missy Chase Lapine and affirmed the decision by Judge Swain. The judgment can be read here.^[72]

In 2010, Missy Chase Lapine sued Jerry Seinfeld for slander as a result of an interview Mr. Seinfeld participated in on the David Letterman television show. The New York Supreme Court dismissed the claim as being without merit in 2011. The judgment can be read here.^[73]

Judge Rakoff presided over a lawsuit between the Bank of America and the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2009. The SEC alleged that Bank of America failed to disclose to investors an agreement to pay $5 billion in bonuses when it took over Merrill Lynch.^[74][75]

On September 14, 2009, Judge Rakoff rejected the settlement deal between Bank of America and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The veteran judge called the settlement deal worth $33 million "unreasonable and unfair" after the two sides first agreed to settle on charges Bank of America misled investors.^[76]

The judge approved the settlement between Bank of America and the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2010. The two sides agreed to a settlement of $150 million. As part of the settlement, Bank of America also had to agree to oversight changes. Rakoff still had criticisms over the new settlement, calling the agreement "half-baked justice," but said that the $150 million settlement was "better than nothing".^[77]

Click here for a copy of the settlement agreement.

Judge Rakoff was the presiding judge in the case of Marc S. Dreier, a former New York City attorney who pleaded guilty to committing a securities investment fraud scheme.

Dreier faced a possible prison sentence of up to 145 years. On July 13, 2009, Judge Rakoff sentenced Drier to 20 years in prison and criticized federal prosecutors that asked for a 145-year sentence. "Is the government serious about asking for 145 years? To me, for the government to ask for 145 years is to demean the sentence Judge Denny Chin imposed on Mr. Madoff," he said.^[78]

Judge Lynch presided over the perjury trial of rap artist Lil' Kim in 2005. He sentenced her to a year and a day in jail.^[79]

On October 23, 2009, Judge Batts upheld the legality of a new state law in New York that required deposits for bottled water.

Judge Batts issued an order that on October 31, 2009, there must be a five cent recycling deposit added on to the normal selling price for bottled water.

Business groups in New York filed suit over the law claiming that the law violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States.^[80]

Judge Crotty was the presiding judge in a case involving Bristol-Meyers Squibb in a patent dispute with Canadian drug maker Apotex over the blood thinner Plavix.^[84]

On August 18, 2009, Judge Crotty approved a preliminary settlement that the drug maker and its former chief executive would pay $125 million in damages to settle litigation against Aptoex.^[84]

The settlement came after a 2007 case in which Bristol-Meyers was fined $1 million by the Federal Trade Commission over making false statements in a failed settlement attempt with Aptoex.^[84]

On August 24, 2009, Judge Preska ruled that the Federal Reserve must disclose the recipients of emergency loans and aid during the economic downturn.^[85]

Bloomberg News took court action after the nation's central bank refused to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request. According to the network, Bloomberg News hoped that if it made public the recipients of bailout money it would deter more bailout money from being handed out.^[85]

As part of her order, Preska gave the Federal Reserve five days to hand over the documents. On August 28, 2009, Judge Preska delayed her order requiring the Federal Reserve to disclose bailout recipients. Preska also allowed the Fed to file an appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.^[86]

The case was subsequently argued in front of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on January 11, 2010, and decided on March 19, 2010. The appellate court judges, Dennis Jacobs, Pierre Leval, and Peter Hall, upheld the decision reached by Judge Preska.^[87]

Judge Sullivan ordered the New York Police Department to release arrest records of 1,800 protesters arrested and detained at the 2004 Republican National Convention. This came after the New York Civil Liberties Union demanded a review of the arrest records. This ruling served as another order from the judge to the New York Police to release the records.^[88]

Judge Sullivan presided in the case of Frank DiPascali, a former associate of disgraced investment banker Bernie Madoff. DiPascali on August 11, 2009, pleaded guilty to charges that he aided the investment banker in a Ponzi Scheme.^[89]

Despite DiPascali's cooperation with prosecutors, Judge Sullivan ordered him jailed until his sentencing as the judge deemed him a flight risk.^[89]

Court documents

• Letter to the Court in United States v. Frank DiPascali dated August 7, 2009
• Victim Notification Order in United States v. Frank DiPascali dated August 7, 2009
• Government’s August 10, 2009 Letter to the Court Regarding Bail in United States v. Frank DiPascali
• Charges the Government Expects to File in United States v. Frank DiPascali Jr
• Criminal Information filed in United States v. Frank DiPascali on August 11, 2009
• Transcript of August 11, 2009 Plea Proceeding in United States v. Frank DiPascali
• October 16, 2009 Government Motion to Reconsider Frank DiPascali's Bail Conditions
• Court's October 20, 2009 Order Regarding Bail Hearing in United States v. Frank DiPascali, Jr
• Transcript of October 28, 2009 Bail Hearing in U.S. v. Frank DiPascali, Jr.
• December 17, 2009 Order Concerning Reconsideration of Bail in U.S. v. DiPascali, 09 Cr. 764 (RJS)
• 03/01/2010 Judge Sullivan’s Order re: Victim Correspondence in US v. DiPascali
• April 21, 2010 Application by the Government for a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture
• April 22, 2010 Order Regarding Victim Comments to Government’s April 21, 2010 Application in U.S. v. DiPascali, 09 Cr. 764 (RJS)
• June 16, 2010 Stipulation and Order between the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the defendant, and the defendant’s wife and family
• June 16, 2010 Stipulation and Order (Payment of $504,459.76, Including Interest, of Funds Transferred to a Third Party)
• June 16, 2010 Preliminary Order of Forfeiture (Final as to the Defendant)

Judge Sotomayor ruled (and was upheld on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, that SAT: The Seinfeld Aptitude Test infringed on the copyright of the television show Seinfeld. The case is often used in law schools as a modern application of the fair use doctrine.^[90][91]

Sotomayor ruled in favor of the New York Times when it was sued by freelance journalists claiming the newspaper did not have the right to include their work in the electronic archival database LexisNexis. Sotomayor's decision was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and that reversal was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in a 7-2 vote (Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissenting).^[92][93][94]

In 1995, Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of the Wall Street Journal allowing it to print a photocopy of the final note written by Clinton White House deputy counsel Vince Foster who died in 1993. While the death of Vince Foster was ruled a suicide, it remained a mystery to many and a source of many conspiracy theories. As a result, Sotomayor ruled that the "substantial" public interest in the Foster story outweighed any violation of his family's privacy.^[95][96][97]

Judge Sotomayor's decision to grant a temporary injunction against the Major League Baseball owners on March 31, 1995, ended the 232-day baseball strike of 1994. The injunction prevented the owners from installing replacement players and temporarily reinstated a five-year-old collective bargaining agreement allowing the 1995 season to take place and allowing players and owners to come to a new agreement nearly a year later. Her decision was later upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.^{[98][99][100][101][92][102]}

Judge Lasker presided in the high-profile insider trading trial of Wall Street trader Ivan Boesky in what was considered the biggest trading scandal of the 1980s. Lasker in 1987 sentenced Boesky to three years in prison after being convicted on charges of insider trading. Boesky got a lighter sentence from the judge after cooperating with federal prosecutors. In a separate civil trial, Boesky settled to pay $100 in damages.^[103]

Judge Lasker will be remembered for a series of rulings in the 1970s and 1980s in which he forced New York City to change how it conducted business in its jails. During that time, the Legal Aid Society of New York City filed numerous lawsuits against the City of New York for civil rights violations in the Manhattan House of Detention and Rikier's Island.^[103]

The City of New York was found liable in the lawsuits after there was evidence that the jails had severe overcrowding issues that led to numerous other problems. In one case involving Rikier's Island, the City of New York was found liable for not providing access to inmates for medical care and phone calls. Lasker in 1974 ordered The Tombs, another detention facility in Manhattan, closed after Lasker found the jail also had severe overcrowding and inmates were forced to sleep on the floor, along with dealing with filthy conditions such as co*ckroaches and mice.^[103]

Chief Judge:Laura Swain•Kenneth Karas•John Koeltl•Cathy Seibel•Andrew L. Carter, Jr.•Nelson S. Roman•Analisa Torres•J. Paul Oetken•Paul A. Engelmayer•Edgardo Ramos•Jesse Furman•Ronnie Abrams•Lorna Schofield•Katherine Failla•Valerie Caproni•Vernon Broderick•Gregory Howard Woods•Mary Kay Vyskocil•Lewis Liman•Philip Halpern•John Cronan (New York)•Jennifer Rearden•Dale Ho•Jessica Clarke•Jennifer Rochon•Arun Subramanian•Margaret Garnett

Victor Marrero•Kimba Wood•Richard Berman•Naomi Buchwald•Kevin Castel•Denise Cote•Paul Crotty•George Daniels•Paul Gardephe•Charles Haight•Alvin Hellerstein•Lewis Kaplan•John Keenan (New York)•Colleen McMahon•Loretta Preska•Jed Rakoff•Louis Stanton•Sidney Stein•Vincent L. Briccetti•

Michael Mukasey•Morris Lasker•Harold Baer•Deborah Batts•Robert Carter (New York)•Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum•Denny Chin•William Conner•Thomas Griesa•Richard Holwell•Barbara Jones•Shirley Kram•Peter Leisure•Gerard Lynch•Lawrence McKenna•Richard Owen•Robert Patterson (New York)•William Pauley•Stephen Robinson (New York)•Shira Scheindlin•John Sprizzo•Richard Sullivan (New York)•Robert Sweet•William Peter Van Ness•Samuel Rossiter Betts•Samuel Blatchford•Sonia Sotomayor•William Gardner Choate•Pierre Leval•Wilfred Feinberg•John Walker (New York)•Barrington Parker•Lawrence Pierce•Addison Brown•George Bethune Adams•George Chandler Holt•Charles Merrill Hough•Learned Hand•Julius Marshuetz Mayer•Augustus Noble Hand•John Clark Knox•Martin Thomas Manton•William Bondy•Henry Warren Goddard•Francis Asbury Winslow•Frank Joseph Coleman•Thomas Day Thacher•Alfred Conkling Coxe, Jr.•John Munro Woolsey•George Murray Hulbert•John William Clancy•Vincent Leibell (New York judge)•Samuel Mandelbaum•Edward Conger•Robert Porter Patterson, Sr.•Kevin Duffy•Gerard Goettel•Charles Metzner•Arnold Bauman•Alexander Bicks•Dudley Bonsal•Charles Brieant•John Bright•Vincent Broderick•Frederick Bryan•Francis Caffey•John Cannella•Richard Casey•John Cashin•Kenneth Conboy•Irving Cooper•Thomas Croake•Richard Daronco•Archie Dawson•Edward Dimock•David Edelstein•Marvin Frankel•Louis Freeh•Lee Gagliardi•Murray Gurfein•William Herlands•Irving Kaufman•Samuel Kaufman•Percy Knapp•Richard Levet•Mary Lowe•Lloyd MacMahon•Walter Mansfield•John McGohey•Edward McLean•Harold Medina•Constance Motley•Gregory Noonan•Edmund Palmieri•Milton Pollack•Simon Rifkind•Sylvester Ryan•Allen Schwartz•Abraham Sofaer•Charles Stewart•Sidney Sugarman•Charles Tenney•Harold Tyler•Lawrence Walsh (New York judge)•Robert Ward•Edward Weinfeld•Henry Werker•Inzer Wyatt•John S. Martin (New York)•Thomas Francis Murphy (New York)•Alison J. Nathan•Katherine Forrest•

Kimba Wood•Colleen McMahon•Loretta Preska•Lisa Smith (New York)•John Clark Knox•William Bondy•John William Clancy•Charles Brieant•David Edelstein•Lloyd MacMahon•Constance Motley•Sylvester Ryan•Sidney Sugarman•

What's on my ballot? |Elections in 2024 |How to vote |How to run for office |Ballot measures

Who represents me? |U.S. President |U.S. Congress |Federal courts |State executives |State legislature |State and local courts |Counties |Cities |School districts |Public policy