New York Paralegal Blog

Ever heard of "checks and balances" in our government? It's the idea that no single part of our government – the President, Congress, or the Courts – gets too powerful. Each one has ways to "check" the others. Recently, the Supreme Court made a big decision about something called "universal injunctions." This might sound like a super technical legal term, but it really affects how our country runs and how much power the President has. So, What's a Universal Injunction? Think of it this way: Imagine the President issues a new rule (called an executive order) that affects people all over the country. Before this Supreme Court decision, if just one federal judge decided that rule was illegal or unconstitutional, they could issue a "universal injunction." This meant that President's rule would be stopped nationwide, for everyone, even if the case only involved a few specific people. It was like a single referee blowing the whi...

Ever watch a legal drama and wonder how a case makes it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court? It's a long and winding road, and very few cases complete the journey. For those that do, it's a process that can take years, involving multiple courts and intense legal strategy. Let's break down the typical path a legal matter takes from a local courthouse to the nation's highest court, using a real-life example to light the way. Step 1: The Lawsuit Begins in a Trial Court Every legal dispute starts in a trial court. This is the court you're probably most familiar with—the one with the judge, jury, witnesses, and evidence. In the federal system, this is called a U.S. District Court. For matters concerning state law, it begins in a state trial court. Here, both sides present their arguments, and the court makes a decision. A judge or jury determines the facts of the case and applies the relevant law to reach a verdict. Step 2: The Appeal to an Intermediate Court What hap...

Former New York State Supreme Court Justice Thomas J. Spargo was convicted today by a federal jury in Albany, N.Y., of attempted extortion and soliciting a bribe. Spargo, 66, was convicted following a three-day jury trial. Evidenced introduced at trial showed that on Nov. 13, 2003, Spargo solicited a $10,000 payment from an attorney with cases pending before him in Ulster County, while Spargo was serving as a state supreme court justice. The trial evidence showed that when the attorney declined to pay the money, Spargo increased the pressure by a second solicitation communicated through an associate. According to evidence presented at trial, on Dec. 19, 2003, Spargo directly told the attorney in a telephone conversation that he and another judge close to him had been assigned to handle cases in Ulster County, including the attorney’s personal divorce case. According to the evidence at trial, the attorney felt that if he did not pay the money, both the cases handled by his law firm an...

A federal district court has ordered the marketers of two dietary supplements – "Supreme Greens" and "Coral Calcium" – who claimed the products would cure ailments ranging from cancer and Parkinson’s disease to heart disease and autoimmune diseases to pay nearly $70 million for deceiving consumers about the products’ effectiveness and safety. The court also froze the assets of some of the defendants. In July 2008, the court found that infomercial pitchman Donald W. Barrett and his affiliates deceptively touted the supplement Supreme Greens to treat, cure, or prevent cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and arthritis. Barrett also deceptively claimed that the product could cause dramatic weight loss and could safely be taken by children, pregnant women, and people on medication. In addition, Barrett marketed a second dietary supplement, Coral Calcium, which the court found he and the other defendants deceptively claimed could treat cancer, Parkinson’s disease, heart di...

Decided on July 7, 2009 Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Buckley, Acosta, JJ. 460N 102740/99 [*1]Moussa Diane, Plaintiff-Respondent, v Ricale Taxi, Inc., et al., Defendants, Thomas Joseph, Defendant-Appellant. George Bassias, Astoria, for appellant. Manuel A. Romero, P.C., Brooklyn (Jonathan M. Rivera of counsel), for respondent. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered June 6, 2008, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when a taxi rear-ended plaintiff's vehicle and left the scene, denied defendant-appellant's motion to vacate a default judgment and dismiss the action as against him, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to grant the motion to the extent of vacating appellant's default in appearing, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff fails to show that a judgment was ever issued, much less served on appellant. The only exhibits attached to plaintiff's opposition are an order granting a default judgment an...

(CAAG) Sacramento – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today called upon the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because it deprives people of the right to marry—an aspect of liberty that the Supreme Court has concluded is guaranteed by the California Constitution. “Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification,” Attorney General Brown said. More...

(USDOJ) WASHINGTON – A former Supreme Court Justice of the Third Judicial Circuit of the State of New York was charged today with attempted extortion and federal program bribery, Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew Friedrich of the Criminal Division announced. Thomas J. Spargo, 65 was charged in an indictment returned today by a federal grand jury in the Northern District of New York. According to the indictment, while Spargo was a state Supreme Court Justice in 2003, he allegedly solicited $10,000 from an Ulster County, N.Y., attorney who had cases pending before the judge. The indictment further charges that Spargo solicited the money by causing the attorney to fear that Spargo would use his official acts and influence to harm the attorney if he was not paid and, conversely, to help the attorney if he was paid. More...

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that the Supreme Court has denied a petition for review by Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) of a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upholding a $100,000 punitive damages award in an EEOC lawsuit under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) on behalf of a deaf package handler. On March 2, 2006, a federal jury in Baltimore found in favor of the EEOC in its lawsuit against FedEx for violating the ADA. The EEOC had charged the Memphis, Tenn.-based global shipping giant with failing to provide reasonable accommodations to Ronald Lockhart, a profoundly deaf employee who worked as a package handler at the company's Baltimore Ramp, which is located at the Baltimore-Washington International Airport. The EEOC’s suit charged FedEx with violating the ADA by failing to provide Lockhart with American Sign Language interpreters and notes for mandatory employee meetings and trainings,...