MARVIN M. BRANDT REVOCABLE TRUST et al. v. UNITED STATES -
In an action in which the government sought to quiet title to a right of way through defendant-landowner’s property that had been granted pursuant to the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875, but had been abandoned by the railroad, summary judgment for the government is reversed and remanded, where the right of way was an easement that was terminated by the railroad’s abandonment, leaving defendant-landowner’s land unburdened.
Guryev v Tomchinsky -
Condominium defendants sought indemnification from the owner of an individual condominium unit pursuant to an “Alteration Agreement” that was entered into between the parties for renovation work in the unit. The Second Department found that the indemnification provision was triggered based upon the allegations of a worker who was injured while performing the subject renovation work, and that the condominium defendants had demonstrated that they were free from negligence. The Court held that the indemnification provision, even if broadly worded, was nevertheless enforceable because: (1) General Obligations Law 5-322.1, which applies to agreements collateral to a lease, was inapplicable to the condominium unit; (2) the clause did not require the unit owner to indemnify the defendants for their own negligence and (3) since the condominium defendants demonstrated that they were free from fault, the agreement, “as applied, does not run afoul of the proscriptions of General Obligations Law 5-322.1.”
Simon v Granite Bldg. 2, LLC (2014 NY Slip Op 00983) -
Plaintiff and his decedent wife arrived at a newly constructed office building to hang wallpaper. When they were unable to enter the front of the building, the decedent drove the van they were in through a fence into an as yet uncompleted parking structure adjacent to the building. Once on the second floor of the parking structure, the decedent attempted to stop the van but it slid on ice, broke through a cable guard rail and fell 32 feet. The plaintiff was able to exit the van before it fell, but the decedent fell to her death.
In dismissing the plaintiff’s Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, the Second Department found that wallpapering is not an enumerated activity under the Labor Law and that the work to be performed was not part of the larger construction construction project. While the Court acknowledged that it should not “isolate the moment of injury,” it concluded that, “under the circumstances presented, the accident occurred before the plaintiff and his decedent had begun any work that conceivably could have been covered under these sections of the Labor Law”
BG GROUP plc v. REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA -
The decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that arbitrators lacked authority to decide a dispute between the parties arising under an investment treaty between the United Kingdom and Argentina, which contained a local litigation requirement, is reversed and remanded, where: 1) a court of the United States, in reviewing an arbitration award made under the treaty should interpret and apply “threshold” provisions concerning arbitration using the framework developed for interpreting similar provisions in ordinary contracts; 2) under that framework, the local litigation requirement is a matter for arbitrators primarily to interpret and apply; 3) courts should review their interpretation with deference; and 4) while Argentina is entitled to court review (under a properly deferential standard) of the arbitrators’ decision to excuse plaintiff’s noncompliance with the litigation requirement, that review shows that the arbitrators’ determinations were lawful.
ROSEMOND v. UNITED STATES -
Defendant’s conviction for aiding and abetting a violation of 18 U.S.C. section 924(c), using or carrying a gun in connection with a drug trafficking crime, is vacated and remanded, where: 1) the Government establishes that a defendant aided and abetted a section 924(c) violation by proving that the defendant actively participated in the underlying drug trafficking or violent crime with advance knowledge that a confederate would use or carry a gun during the crime’s commission; and 2) the trial court’s jury instructions were erroneous because they failed to require that defendant knew in advance that one of his cohorts would be armed.
LAWSON et al. v. FMR LLC et al. -
The whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 contained in 18 U. S. C. section 1514A include employees of a public company’s private contractors and subcontractors when they report covered forms of fraud.
LAW v. SIEGEL, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE -
The Bankruptcy Court exceeded the limits of its authority when it ordered that the $75,000 protected by the debtor’s homestead exemption be made available to pay the bankruptcy trustee’s attorney’s fees, which were incurred by the trustee in overcoming the debtor’s fraudulent misrepresentations.
UNITED STATES v. APEL -
Under 18 U. S. C. section 1382, which makes it a crime to reenter a “military installation” after having been ordered not to do so by any officer or person in command, the term “military installation” encompasses the commanding officer’s area of responsibility, and includes Vandenberg Air Force Base’s highways and protest area. The Ninth Circuit’s holding otherwise is therefore vacated and remanded.
CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP v. TROICE et al. -
The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 does not preclude the plaintiffs’ state-law class actions, which allege that defendants helped Allen Stanford and his companies perpetrate a Ponzi scheme by falsely representing that uncovered securities (certificates of deposit in Stanford International Bank) that plaintiffs were purchasing were backed by covered securities.
FERNANDEZ v. CALIFORNIA -
The rule of Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U. S. 103 (2006), that the consent of one occupant to a search is insufficient when another occupant is present and objects to the search, does not extend to the very different situation in this case, where consent was provided by an abused woman well after her partner, the defendant, had been removed from the apartment they shared.