People v. Zimmerman, No. 131In a matter arising out an antitrust investigation as to whether Federated and May Department Stores conspired with Waterford Wedgwood USA and Lenox, Inc. to restrain the sale of products by competitor Bed, Bath and Beyond, dismissal of perjury indictment against former Chairman and C.E.O. of Federated Department Stores is affirmed as defendant is not subject to “particular effect” jurisdiction, or venue, as set forth in CPL art 20, in New York County.
ANTITRUST & TRADE REGULATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, TRADEMARK
ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc.,, No. 165Addressing questions certified by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding common law claims for unfair competition, the Court of Appeals holds that New York recognizes common law unfair competition claims, but not the “famous” or “well-known” marks doctrine. .
CONTRACTS, INJURY AND TORT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
Fung v. Japan Airlines Co., Ltd., No. 172In consolidated negligence action brought by employee of defendant Port Authority for injuries suffered in slip on fall on a patch of ice in parking lot subleased to Port Authority by other defendant, Workers’ Compensation Law sections 11 and 29 do not bar plaintiffs’ action against other defendant that claimed to be putative managing agent for the Port Authority, and this entitled defendant to the exclusive remedy defense. Plaintiffs’ claim against defendant snow removal company fails as it owed no duty of care to the injured plaintiff.
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
People v. Danielson, No. 170, 171In two separate cases where defendants were convicted of depraved indifference murder, appellate division’s affirmance of conviction in first case is affirmed where the majority conducted a weight of the evidence review that included considering the credible evidence, conflicting testimony and inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. Appellate division’s affirmance of conviction in second case is reversed where the court limited its weight of the evidence review to credibility issues and failed to weigh the conflicting testimony and conflicting inferences in light of the elements as= charged at trial.