Malice.  The Second Circuit has certified a question to the New York State Court of Appeals.  In Georgitsi Realty, LLC v. Penn-Star Insurance Co., the Court had to address the question of whether an act performed on adjacent property that caused damage to the plaintiff's property can constitute "vandalism" under the plaintiff's property insurance company.  A subsidiary question of whether "malicious damage" may be found to result from an act not directed specifically at the insured property is critical to the resolution of the issue.  Because that question had not been decided by the New York State Court of Appeals and because the Second Circuit believed that that Court should have the opportunity to address taht issue, the Second Circuit has certified that question for decision to the New York State Court of Appeals.

The decision in the case can be found here.

Bad Mistake.  In Gusler v. City of Long Beach, the plaintiff brought an action, claiming retaliation for making statements about his employer, the Long Beach Fire Department. The action was brought against the City of Long Beach, the police department, the volunteer fire department and eleven individuals. The individuals moved to dismiss, in part, on the ground of qualified immunity. The Court denied the motion on that ground, but dismissed as to certain of the individuals on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to state a valid cause of action against them. After the motion (and the death of one of the defendants), only three of the individuals remained in the action. The remaining individuals filed a notice of appeal within the 30-day period, however, the notice of appeal stated that it was Nassau County, which was not a party to the action, that was appealing. After the 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal had passed, an amended notice of appeal, properly naming all of the individuals – both those who had been dismissed and those who had not -- as the appealing parties was filed. The Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The notice of appeal did not meet the requirements of Rule 3(c)(1)(A), which requires a notice of appeal to specify who is taking the appeal. The Court found that the notice of appeal did not meet the requirement of the rule.

Interestingly, the Court's opinion does not list the name of the attorneys involved.

The decision in this case can be found here.








It is interesting that the opinion, unlike most Second Circuit opi

Volley and Cheering.  The Second Circuit upheld a District Court's issuance of a permanent injuntion, preventing Quinnipiac University from eliminating its women's volley ball program.  The District Court had held that Quinnipiac's proposed elimination of the program would violate Title IX.  The Circuit Court agreed and held that competitive cheer leading is not a sport and, accordingly, the existence of Quinnipiac's varsity competitive cheer leading squad should not be considered in determining whether Quinnipiac had been discriminating against women in providing athletice opportunities.

The decision in Biediger v. Quinnipiac University can be found here.

Investor Claims.  The Second Circuit has held that an investor may assert a claim against a portfolio manager even though the investor was not a party to the contract spelling out the manager's duties.  The Court held that the relationship between the investor and the manager was sufficiently close to impose a duty on the manager, allowing the investor to sue for gross negligence.

The decision in Bayereische Landesban v. Aladin Capital Mangement can be found here.

Picketing the RNC.  It's sort of counterintuitive, but anti-abortion protesters cannot picket the Republican National Convention.  Two such protesters who picketed at  the 2004 Republican National Convention were arrested for not moving themselves to an area reserved for picketing when instructed to do so by the police.  The protesters brought an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that the police had violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights.  The District Court granted summary judgment to the Police, and the Second Circuit affirmed, claiming that what was involved was a valid time, place and manner restriction.

The decision in Marcavage v. City of New York can be found here.

New York Times.  Well, it's not technically about the Second Circuit, but it was published by the New York Times, which is in the Second Circuit, and it's about federal appellate judges, which include the judges of the Second Circuit, so close enough.  I'm not sure I totally agree with it, but this op-ed piece, which rails against judicial opinions being written by law clerks should be of interest to those interest in the appellate procedure.

Standard of Review. The Second Circuit rejected the Board of Immigration Appeals' ruling that an Immigration Judge's finding concerning a future event is not fact-finding subject to clear error review. The Court noted that "[a] determination of what will occur in the futre and the degree of likelihood of the occurrence has been regularly regarded as fact-finding subject to only clear error review." The Second Circuit, however, agreed with the Board of Immigrations Appeals on its holding that de novo review applies to the ultimate question of whether the applicant for asylum has sustained her burden to establish that her subjective fear of persecution is objectively reasonable. The Court stated: "What the law's legal construct of a reasonable person would believe or do under the particular circumstances of a case is normally a question of law, the decision of which is reviewed de novo.

The decision in Huang v. Holder can be found here.

On February 17, 2012, Judge Roger J. Miner of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit died.