A judge in New York has ruled that state Attorney General Barbara Underwood's case against the Trump Foundation can go forward. The case alleges that the charitable foundation engaged in a consistent pattern of illegal acts for over a decade, being used to settle business disputes and support the 2016 Trump presidential campaign. The judge ruled that U.S. Supreme Court precedent in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against then-President Clinton clearly states that the president is not immune from civil liability while in office.
The US Supreme Court last week agreed to hear a case in which two individuals sued a New York cable-TV public access channel for violating their First Amendment rights by banning them from the channel's services and facilities.In Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, the two petitioners, Halleck and Melendez, argue that the Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN) unconstitutionally banned them from the public access channel, which they argue is a public forum subject to the First Amendment.
On Thursday, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood filed a civil lawsuit against Donald Trump and his three eldest children for allegedly misusing funds associated with his personal foundation. The complaint, filed in New York state court, asks the judge to dissolve the Donald J. Trump Foundation and distribute its remaining $1 million in assets to other charities. Moreover, the lawsuit asks that Trump be forced to pay at least $2.8 million in restitution and penalties and takes the unusual step of requesting that Trump be banned from leading any other New York nonprofit organization for 10 years and that each of his three children be banned from serving as a director of a New York nonprofit organization for one year.
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting en banc, held that a provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits discrimination "because of ... sex" includes protection against sexual orientation discrimination. Read the whole opinion on Justia Law.
In a somewhat surprising holding, a US district court judge in New York recently held that a news organization's embedding of someone else's tweet with copyrighted material violates the tweeter's right to exclusive display of the tweet.
The New York Court of Appeals—that state's highest court—recently held that the threshold inquiry for whether the materials on a personal injury plaintiff's Facebook account are discoverable is whether they are "reasonably calculated to yield information that is 'material and necessary.'" The full text of the court's opinion is available on Justia Law.
On Monday, February 12, US District Judge Frederic Block ruled in Castillo v. G&M Realty LP that 45 works of graffiti art on the 5Pointz warehouses in Queens were protected under the federal Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), and that the building owner violated the law by painting over the graffiti. The judge's decision is available on Justia Dockets.
The now-notorious Harvey Weinstein faces yet another challenge as New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has filed a lawsuit against him and his company alleging violations of New York civil rights, human rights, and business laws.