mjpospis, Author at Pospis Law, PLLC

January 8, 2013 by mjpospis

First Department Reinstates Plaintiff’s Sexual Harassment/Hostile Work Environment Claims Under the NYC Human Rights Law

In Hernandez v. Kaisman, 2012 NY Slip Op 09191 [103 AD3d 106], the Appellate Division, First Department recently clarified that hostile work environment claims brought under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) must be analyzed separately from, and more broadly than, similar claims brought under state and federal law. In this case the motion court…

Share This:

January 4, 2013 by mjpospis

Middle Finger Plaintiff Can Continue Suit Against Arresting Officers

The Second Circuit yesterday, in Swartz v. Insogna, vacated a summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claims allegedly arising from giving police the middle finger. (This is not the first time we have chronicled middle finger-inspired litigation.) In its first footnote, the court briefly summarized the history of “giving the finger”, citing a case and a law review article discussing…

Share This:

December 14, 2012 by mjpospis

Condominium & Related Entities Were Not Labor Law § 241(6) “Owners”

Condominium or co-op? This distinction, familiar to purchasers of New York City real estate, was recently the basis for a notable decision in New York Labor Law jurisprudence. This week the New York Court of Appeals clarified the meaning of the term “owner” in Labor Law § 241(6). In Guryev v. Tomchinsky, it held that…

Share This:

December 12, 2012 by mjpospis

Who Is A “Supervisor”?

Seems like a straightforward question, right? It’s the boss, the head honcho, the big cheese, the person who tells you what to do and (in some cases) is the subject of social media ranting. However, the question is not so clear under federal anti-discrimination law, as illustrated by a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.…

Share This:

November 5, 2012 by mjpospis

Second Circuit: Injunctive Relief Should Have Been Granted In Harassment Case

In E.E.O.C. v. KarenKim, Inc., 116 Fair Empl Prac Cas (BNA) 385 (2d Cir. Oct. 19, 2012), No. 11-3309, the Second Circuit addressed when injunctive relief is proper to prevent further harassment. Title VII itself provides for injunctive relief where a “court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in…

Share This:

October 27, 2012 by mjpospis

Court: Ghosts Are Real! (Sort Of)

In honor of Halloween, I present to you Stambovsky v. Ackley, 169 A.D.2d 254 (App. Div. 1st Dept. 1991), the so-called “haunted house case”. There, the court – “moved by the spirit of equity” (that’s a quote) – allowed the buyer of an allegedly haunted house to seek rescission of the contract and recover his down payment.…

Share This:

October 9, 2012 by mjpospis

A $200,000 Kick To The Groin

Last week the Second Circuit, in Payne v. Jones, held that a jury’s $300,000 punitive damages award to a police beating victim was excessive. It thus remanded for a new trial on punitive damages, unless plaintiff agreed to remit $200,000 and accept a punitive damages award totaling $100,000. After plaintiff was brought to the hospital,…

Share This:

October 3, 2012 by mjpospis

Court Issues Major Victory to Protesters in RNC Litigation

On September 30, 2012, in Dinler v. City of New York, the Southern District of New York issued an opinion that largely favors the protesters who filed suit for alleged police abuses during the 2004 Republican National Convention. Significantly, the Court rejected the Defendants’ theory of “group probable cause”, and affirmed the requirement of individualized…

Share This:

September 28, 2012 by mjpospis

Sarcastic Judge Lets Lawyers Have It

Ok, this is old – but it’s amusing nevertheless, even if you aren’t a lawyer. This decision by a Texas federal judge is fairly short, and will make your day. It’s a reminder that judges are people too who (gasp) may even have a sense of humor. For you lawyers out there, it contains a…

Share This:

September 24, 2012 by mjpospis

“No Gay Weddings” Restaurant Gets Sued

Below is the complaint – captioned Greene et al v. Amber Asian Cuisine Inc., NY Sup. Ct. Index 156387/2012 (filed 9/14/12) – in which plaintiffs allege that Amber Asian Cuisine refused to allow Plaintiffs, a gay couple, to hold their rehearsal dinner at, and have their wedding catered by, the restaurant.

Share This: