Edward Robert Korman

The case involved claims by Henry Marine and crew members of the tugboat Dorothy J for a marine salvage award after the vessel assisted the Staten Island Ferry Barberi following its allision with a pier in 2003. The court had previously granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their entitlement to a salvage award but, after a bench trial, reconsidered that ruling based on a fuller record of the tugboat's actual role and contributions. The decision held that reconsideration was permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) prior to final judgment, as trial evidence had clarified whether the services achieved a sufficiently useful result under the 1989 Salvage Convention to support an award. Core reasoning emphasized that post-trial fact development justified revisiting the threshold entitlement issue and that plaintiffs had presented relevant evidence on the measure of success obtained.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns the ongoing implementation of a $1.25 billion class-action settlement against Swiss banks for assets belonging to Holocaust victims and their heirs. The court approved adjustments to the presumptive values used for Swiss bank accounts whose records had been destroyed, authorizing additional payments to qualifying members of the Deposited Assets Class who lacked documentation of exact account balances. The ruling relied on new analyses by experts such as Helen Junz showing that earlier presumptive values, derived from Volcker audit data on known accounts from 1933-1945, had understated average balances, with updates to categories like savings and custody accounts based on surviving records and statistical comparisons. The court retained jurisdiction over the claims resolution process administered by the Claims Resolution Tribunal to facilitate these distributions from the settlement fund.

civil rightsprocedure

The case Tummino v. Torti involved plaintiffs challenging the FDA's denial of a citizen petition and related applications to make the emergency contraceptive Plan B available over the counter without age restrictions or with restrictions starting at age 16. The court determined that the FDA's decisions were arbitrary and capricious because they resulted from unreasonable political delays, implausible justifications, and significant departures from the agency's standard procedures for switching drugs to non-prescription status. It vacated the denial of the citizen petition and remanded the matter to the FDA for reconsideration. The court also ordered the FDA to permit Plan B to be sold without a prescription to 17-year-olds within 30 days, citing sufficient scientific data on safety and the time-sensitive nature of the drug.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case arose from the 2003 Staten Island Ferry collision, in which the tugboat Dorothy J and its crew provided immediate assistance to the damaged ferry owned by the City of New York. Henry Marine and crew member Robert Seekers sought a salvage award, arguing their services qualified as marine salvage beyond their existing contract with the City. The court granted summary judgment in part, awarding salvage for the spontaneous post-collision aid rendered before any City order but denying it for subsequent services performed after the City directed the tug to stabilize the ferry under the contract terms. The reasoning centered on the distinction between voluntary salvage efforts and contractual obligations, noting that the later work was routine tug operations already compensated and directed by the City. Seekers was not entitled to a separate award for the contract period because the tasks aligned with his regular duties without exceptional risk or difficulty.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from the October 15, 2003 crash of the Staten Island Ferry Andrew J. Barberi into a maintenance pier, which killed eleven passengers and injured many others. The City of New York petitioned to avoid liability or limit it to the value of the ferry in this admiralty proceeding. After a bench trial on stipulated facts, the court denied the petition and held the City liable. The core reasoning was that the City breached its duty of care by violating its own rule requiring both the captain and assistant captain to be present in the pilothouse while the vessel was underway; the assistant captain became incapacitated due to fatigue without a second pilot present, and this failure was a substantial factor in causing the collision.

torts & liability

In this case, non-parties Sam Chan and Ray Yim objected to disclosing their Social Security numbers during depositions in a civil lawsuit between Entral Group International, LLC and YHCL Vision Corp. The district court reviewed a magistrate judge's denial of their requests to withhold or redact the SSNs. The court granted the motions, holding that the significant privacy interests associated with SSNs outweigh the plaintiff's minimal showing of need for the information to identify the individuals or serve process. The reasoning drew on concerns about potential misuse of SSNs, references to the Privacy Act of 1974, and precedent emphasizing that disclosure should not be routine in discovery without a substantial particularized need.

procedure

The case involved federal criminal charges against Patrick Ryan, the Director of Ferry Operations for the Staten Island Ferry, arising from a 2003 collision that killed eleven passengers after the pilot became incapacitated. The indictment alleged that Ryan violated the Seaman’s Manslaughter Statute by failing to implement and enforce safety rules, including the two-pilot rule and training for pilot disability. On Ryan’s motion to dismiss, the court held that he did not qualify as a “public officer” under the statute, as that term historically referred to federal enforcement officials rather than municipal employees, and applying it here would produce an inconsistent result with the statute’s amendments and legislative history. The court declined to rule on whether Ryan qualified as an “executive officer” but stated it would submit the case to the jury on that theory along with an aider-and-abettor instruction.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a habeas corpus petition filed by Valentin Sorto after his New York state conviction for second-degree murder, second-degree assault, and third-degree weapon possession stemming from a gang-related stabbing. Sorto raised claims that his confession was obtained in violation of Miranda and that the prosecution's peremptory challenges to jurors violated Batson by discriminating on the basis of race or national origin. The court denied the petition, holding that the initial statement did not taint the later confession given after proper Miranda warnings, that the confession was voluntary based on credited police testimony, and that the Batson objections failed either for lack of a prima facie showing or because the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations were credible. The rulings on the state court merits were entitled to deference under AEDPA, and any potential errors were harmless.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In Reyes v. Greiner, petitioner Franklin Reyes, who is Hispanic and was convicted in state court of second-degree murder and related charges arising from a 1993 attempted grocery store robbery in which one victim died, filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging that the prosecutor's peremptory challenges violated the Equal Protection Clause by striking Hispanic prospective jurors in violation of Batson v. Kentucky. The court reviewed the off-the-record and on-the-record portions of voir dire, including the prosecutor's strikes of jurors such as Escobar and the race-neutral explanations offered (such as employment, demeanor, and prior jury service issues), and examined whether the trial judge had credited those explanations. The court concluded that the Batson claim lacked merit because the record supported the trial court's acceptance of the prosecution's non-discriminatory reasons for the challenges, and it therefore addressed no other claims in detail. The petition was denied.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves ongoing appeals in a class action lawsuit concerning the distribution of assets from a historic settlement for Holocaust victims. The court issued a memorandum to clarify that Professor Burt Neuborne, who has filed briefs defending the district judge's prior rulings, does not represent any party in the appeals. Instead, his role is limited to providing an adversarial defense of the court's positions, similar to counsel appointed in mandamus proceedings where no opposing party exists to defend the ruling. The opinion details Neuborne's extensive prior involvement as lead plaintiffs' counsel and in post-settlement matters, while noting that he now also serves in an advisory capacity to the settlement administration without binding authority. The core reasoning emphasizes the judge's fiduciary duty to ensure fair administration of the settlement fund, particularly where class members lack resources or incentive to participate in appeals.

procedurecivil rights

In United States v. Sasson, brothers Ezra and Zakay Sasson faced charges of conspiring to launder proceeds from narcotics trafficking and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. They moved to suppress evidence obtained via a wiretap on a co-defendant's phone, arguing that the wiretap application improperly relied on statements they made during 1993 proffer sessions with prosecutors, for which they received use and derivative use immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 6002 in connection with an earlier crime. The court denied the motion, holding that the immunity was provided as an interim step toward possible transactional immunity for the 1992 offense and did not bar use of the statements in investigating or prosecuting a separate crime committed nearly a decade later. The decision rested on the absence of any constitutional or statutory policy requiring exclusion of logically relevant evidence in these circumstances, particularly where the proffer statements were voluntary and the current charges involved distinct conduct.

criminal lawprocedure

In Vasquez v. Poole, petitioner Absalon Vasquez sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his 1999 New York state conviction for burglary in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree, assault in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child. The district court focused on Vasquez's claims that the trial court improperly admitted the victim's pretrial show-up identification of him at the police station and that admission of evidence about his shirt violated the Confrontation Clause. The court denied the petition in full, holding that the identification was admissible despite suggestive circumstances and that the state courts had not unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court law in rejecting the claims; any arguable Confrontation Clause error was harmless given the strength of the other evidence. The Appellate Division had previously affirmed the conviction, and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns the allocation and distribution of residual settlement funds from a class action involving Holocaust victims' assets. The court addressed arguments presented at a hearing by Professor Thane Rosenbaum, who claimed to speak independently on behalf of survivors and the deceased while advocating for greater shares to American survivors over those in the former Soviet Union. The opinion revealed that Rosenbaum had not disclosed his close personal ties to the attorney for the Holocaust Survivors Foundation-USA and had advanced similar positions to that group's previously rejected arguments. The court reasoned that all individuals persecuted by the Nazis qualify as survivors under the settlement agreement and merit relief based on need, without ranking degrees of suffering or limiting status based on location during the Holocaust.

civil rightsprocedure

Petitioner Uniko Carson sought habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his 1999 New York conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, based on the trial court's exclusion of his ex-mother-in-law from the courtroom during the testimony of one prosecution witness who identified him as having sold cocaine. The court denied the petition, concluding that any violation of the right to a public trial was harmless. The core reasoning was that the partial closure did not affect the trial outcome or the fairness of the proceedings, that state courts had handled the issue with appropriate care, and that federal habeas relief would be vastly disproportionate to the limited nature of the error during one witness's testimony.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns the ongoing distribution of a historic settlement fund from Swiss banks to Holocaust victims and their heirs for assets deposited before and during World War II. The court addresses repeated objections by the bank defendants to the Special Master's Interim Report, including challenges to presumptions used by the Claims Resolution Tribunal for dormant accounts and to providing broader access to bank records. The opinion rejects the banks' claims that they never engaged in systematic document destruction, forced asset transfers, or other deceptive practices, drawing on findings from the Bergier Commission and Volcker Committee reports that document the banks' improper handling of accounts, such as excessive fees that depleted balances and post-war record destruction. The core reasoning is that the banks' objections rest on mischaracterizations of these historical accounts, which support the need for the proposed distribution methods to address the effects of past misconduct.

civil rightspropertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns the allocation of residual settlement funds in the Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation against Swiss banks for claims related to Nazi-era assets. The court responds to filings by the Holocaust Survivors Foundation USA challenging its March 2004 memorandum and order on distribution priorities between survivors in the United States and the Former Soviet Union. It reaffirms its prior approach by explaining the appropriate use of individual survivor accounts to illustrate quantitative survey data from sources like the NJPS, the limitations of small sample sizes and survey phrasing in assessing need, and the focus on the most pressing needs such as basic necessities for survivors in the FSU. The decision treats the latest expert report as additional information but upholds the allocation scheme emphasizing the most needy recipients over broader demographic estimates.

civil rightsprocedure

This case concerns the allocation of residual undistributed funds from an $800 million settlement in the Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation, arising from claims against Swiss banks related to Nazi-era assets. The court denied Disability Rights Advocates' motion for reconsideration of its prior order rejecting a proposed cy pres award that would direct 2-3% of any remaining funds to disability-focused nonprofits without regard to any connection to Holocaust victims. The court reasoned that the cy pres doctrine required prioritizing distributions to needy actual class members (nearly all of whom are disabled survivors of Nazi persecution), found that DRA lacked standing to object, had withdrawn its earlier notice objections, and that its filings reflected improper motives rather than valid due process concerns.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves the allocation of excess and residual funds from a class action settlement compensating Holocaust victims for assets looted during the Nazi era. The court considered objections and proposals from the Pink Triangle Coalition and Disability Rights Advocates seeking cy pres distributions of 1-3% of funds to research, education, and advocacy programs for homosexual and disabled victims, arguing that these groups had not adequately benefited from direct distributions. The court rejected these proposals, deciding instead to allocate the funds to programs supporting the neediest survivors. The reasoning centered on the urgent, life-threatening needs of survivors across all groups, particularly in the Former Soviet Union, and the determination that remembrance and education goals, while important, must follow after addressing immediate survival needs, as the lawsuit's primary focus was compensation rather than advocacy.

civil rightsprocedure

This case concerns an attorney's fee application by Samuel J. Dubbin in the Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation, a class action settlement with Swiss banks totaling $1.25 billion for claims by Holocaust survivors and heirs regarding deposited assets, looted property, and related issues. Dubbin sought fees for work on objections to insurance company releases under the settlement and to the allocation of funds among survivor groups. The court denied the fee request in full, concluding that Dubbin's efforts—including a late objection and limited testimony—were redundant, did not involve original research or provide any benefit to the class, and largely relied on work by his client that added no value to the resolution of the case.

civil rightsprocedure

The case concerns the allocation of proceeds from a $1.25 billion class-action settlement against Swiss banks for Holocaust-era claims, specifically addressing excess and residual funds for the Looted Assets Class, which covers victims of Nazi persecution whose assets were looted with Swiss bank assistance. The court adopted the Special Master's recommendations to distribute an additional $60 million in excess funds, and any unclaimed residual funds from the Deposited Assets Class, to needy survivors under cy pres principles that had governed prior allocations. It denied objections and motions for reconsideration and fees filed by Samuel Dubbin on behalf of the Holocaust Survivors Foundation-USA, finding the objections rested on flawed reasoning, that a 2001 letter from class counsel did not create compensable benefits, and that no viable alternative plans had been presented to justify reallocating funds primarily to U.S. survivors.

civil rightsprocedure