DOCSLIB.ORG

In Re 650 Fifth Avenue & Related Properties

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In Re 650 Fifth Avenue & Related Properties Case 17-3278, Document 171, 04/20/2018, 2285063, Page1 of 117 17-3278(L) 17-3243, 17-3251, 17-3254, 17-3255, 17-3260, 17-3261, 17-3262, 17-3264, 17-3265, 17-3267, 17-3268, 17-3269, 17-3271, 17-3272, 17-3276 IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT dKIRSCHENBAUM, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, —against— 650 FIFTH AVENUE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellants. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BRIEF FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS ALAVI FOUNDATION AND 650 FIFTH AVENUE COMPANY DANIEL S. RUZUMNA JOHN GLEESON DIANA M. CONNER MATTHEW E. FISHBEIN LEIGH E. BARNWELL DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB 919 Third Avenue & TYLER LLP New York, New York 10022 1133 Avenue of the Americas (212) 909-6000 New York, New York 10036 (212) 336-2000 Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants Alavi Foundation and 650 Fifth Avenue Company Case 17-3278, Document 171, 04/20/2018, 2285063, Page2 of 117 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The Alavi Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of New York. The Alavi Foundation has no parent corporation, and no publicly-held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. The 650 Fifth Avenue Company is a partnership organized under the laws of New York. The 650 Fifth Avenue Company has no parent corporation, and no publicly-held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. i Case 17-3278, Document 171, 04/20/2018, 2285063, Page3 of 117 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................vi PRELIMINARY STATEMENT............................................1 STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION .............................................6 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED...................6 STATEMENT OF THE CASE..............................................7 A. The Parties..................................................................7 1. The Alavi Foundation ....................................7 2. The Fifth Avenue Company...........................9 3. The Iran Creditors ........................................11 B. The Initial Litigation and the Prior Appeal..............12 1. The Government’s Forfeiture Action...........12 2. The Iran Creditors’ Actions .........................13 3. The 2013 Summary Judgment Motions and the Prior Appeal ...........................................15 C. The Proceedings on Remand....................................17 1. The Proceedings in Advance of Trial...........17 2. The Consolidated Trial.................................18 a. The Iran Creditors’ Case ..............................18 b. The Defendants’ Case ..................................26 3. The District Court’s Decision ......................30 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...........................................31 ii Case 17-3278, Document 171, 04/20/2018, 2285063, Page4 of 117 ARGUMENT .......................................................................36 I. The District Court Erred by Ordering Execution against the Fifth Avenue Company’s Properties Pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in Disregard of This Court’s Mandate...............................................36 A. The Mandate Rule Prohibited the District Court from Reopening the FSIA § 1610(b)(3) Claims on Remand ..................................................................................36 B. FSIA § 1610(b)(3) Does Not Permit Execution on the Property of an Agency or Instrumentality in Satisfaction of a Judgment against a Foreign State..41 C. The Fifth Avenue Company Does Not Constitute an Agency or Instrumentality of Iran under the FSIA ..45 1. The District Court Disregarded This Court’s Binding Determination That the Partnership Does Not Qualify as an Agency or Instrumentality of Iran under the FSIA........46 2. The District Court Erred in Determining That the Partnership Is an Agency or Instrumentality of Iran under the FSIA........47 a. The Partnership Is a Citizen of New York...48 b. The Partnership Is Neither Majority-Owned by Iran Nor an Organ of Iran........................52 II. The District Court Erred by Ordering Execution against Defendants’ Properties Pursuant to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act .........57 A. The District Court Improperly Denied Defendants’ Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury Trial on the TRIA Claims ............................................................57 iii Case 17-3278, Document 171, 04/20/2018, 2285063, Page5 of 117 1. Defendants Are Constitutionally Entitled to a Jury Trial on the TRIA Claims ....................58 2. Defendants Did Not Waive Their Right to a Jury Trial ......................................................63 a. Defendants Did Not Knowingly Waive Their Right to a Jury Trial in 2013 ........................63 b. The Iran Creditors’ Material Change in Their TRIA Theory on Remand Revived Defendants’ Right to a Jury Trial.................67 B. The District Court Incorrectly Determined That Defendants Constitute Agencies or Instrumentalities of Iran under the TRIA.............................................69 1. The District Court’s Overbroad TRIA Standard Is Not Supported by Precedent or Legislative Intent..........................................70 2. The District Court’s TRIA Standard Violated the Due Process Clause’s Prohibition on Disproportionate Civil Liability...................79 3. The District Court Failed to Analyze Defendants’ Status as of the Time of Filing of the Complaints .............................................82 4. Defendants Do Not Qualify as Agencies or Instrumentalities of Iran under a Proper TRIA Analysis........................................................84 C. The District Court Erred by Ordering Execution against Property That Does Not Constitute “Blocked Assets” under the TRIA ...........................................90 III. The District Court’s Judgments Should Be Vacated Because Its Erroneous Evidentiary Rulings Substantially Prejudiced Defendants’ Case..........................................................................92 iv Case 17-3278, Document 171, 04/20/2018, 2285063, Page6 of 117 IV. The Case Should Be Assigned to a Different District Judge on Remand to Ensure Impartiality...............................................................95 CONCLUSION....................................................................99 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .................................100 v Case 17-3278, Document 171, 04/20/2018, 2285063, Page7 of 117 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Aetna Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 301 U.S. 389 (1937).......................................................63 Armstrong v. Guccione, 470 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2006).............................................98 Bailey v. Grand Trunk Lines New England, 805 F.2d 1097 (2d Cir. 1986).........................................66 Beacon Theatres v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959).................................................58, 59 BMW of N. Am. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996).......................................................80 Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257 (1989).......................................................79 Calderon-Cardona v. Bank of New York Mellon, 770 F.3d 993 (2d Cir. 2014)...........................................71 Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers, Local No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558 (1990).......................................................60 City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 U.S. 687 (1999).......................................................59 vi Case 17-3278, Document 171, 04/20/2018, 2285063, Page8 of 117 ConnTech Dev. Co. v. Univ. of Conn. Educ. Props., 102 F.3d 677 (2d Cir. 1996)...........................................51 Cooper Indus. v. Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001)...........................................80, 81, 82 Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (1974)...........................................58, 59, 61 Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469 (1962).......................................................60 Dimick v. Scheidt, 293 U.S. 474 (1935).......................................................63 Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (2003)................................................passim Eberhard v. Marcu, 530 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008).....................................58, 59 Edison v. Douberly, 604 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2010)................................76, 77 Edlow International Co. v. Nuklearna Elektrarna Krsko, 441 F. Supp. 827 (D.D.C. 1977) ....................................50 European Cmty. v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 764 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2014).....................................54, 55 F5 Capital v. Pappas, 856 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2017).............................................46 FDIC v. Providence College, 115 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 1997)...........................................90 vii Case 17-3278, Document 171, 04/20/2018, 2285063, Page9 of 117 Filler v. Hanvit Bank, 378 F.3d 213 (2d Cir. 2004)....................................passim Fischer Diamonds, Inc. v. Andrew Meyer Designs, L.L.C., No. 06 Civ. 2737, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41362 (E.D.N.Y. June 21, 2006)....................................61 Garcia v. State Univ. of New York Health Scis. Ctr., 280 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2001)......................................passim Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, No. 11 Civ. 8715, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45327 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2013) .....................................70 Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989).........................................................59 Great-West Life & Annuity Ins.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assessment Actions
    Assessment Actions Borough Code Block Number Lot Number Tax Year Remission Code 1 1883 57 2018 1 385 56 2018 2 2690 1001 2017 3 1156 62 2018 4 72614 11 2018 2 5560 1 2018 4 1342 9 2017 1 1390 56 2018 2 5643 188 2018 1 386 36 2018 1 787 65 2018 4 9578 3 2018 4 3829 44 2018 3 3495 40 2018 1 2122 100 2018 3 1383 64 2017 2 2938 14 2018 Page 1 of 604 09/27/2021 Assessment Actions Owner Name Property Address Granted Reduction Amount Tax Class Code THE TRUSTEES OF 540 WEST 112 STREET 105850 2 COLUM 226-8 EAST 2ND STREET 228 EAST 2 STREET 240500 2 PROSPECT TRIANGLE 890 PROSPECT AVENUE 76750 4 COM CRESPA, LLC 597 PROSPECT PLACE 23500 2 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP 6935500 4 d/ CIMINELLO PROPERTY 775 BRUSH AVENUE 329300 4 AS 4305 65 REALTY LLC 43-05 65 STREET 118900 2 PHOENIX MADISON 962 MADISON AVENUE 584850 4 AVENU CELILY C. SWETT 277 FORDHAM PLACE 3132 1 300 EAST 4TH STREET H 300 EAST 4 STREET 316200 2 242 WEST 38TH STREET 242 WEST 38 STREET 483950 4 124-469 LIBERTY LLC 124-04 LIBERTY AVENUE 70850 4 JOHN GAUDINO 79-27 MYRTLE AVENUE 35100 4 PITKIN BLUE LLC 1575 PITKIN AVENUE 49200 4 GVS PROPERTIES LLC 559 WEST 164 STREET 233748 2 EP78 LLC 1231 LINCOLN PLACE 24500 2 CROTONA PARK 1432 CROTONA PARK EAS 68500 2 Page 2 of 604 09/27/2021 Assessment Actions 1 1231 59 2018 3 7435 38 2018 3 1034 39 2018 3 7947 17 2018 4 370 1 2018 4 397 7 2017 1 389 22 2018 4 3239 1001 2018 3 140 1103 2018 3 1412 50 2017 1 1543 1001 2018 4 659 79 2018 1 822 1301 2018 1 2091 22 2018 3 7949 223 2018 1 471 25 2018 3 1429 17 2018 Page 3 of 604 09/27/2021 Assessment Actions DEVELOPM 268 WEST 84TH STREET 268 WEST 84 STREET 85350 2 BANK OF AMERICA 1415 AVENUE Z 291950 4 4710 REALTY CORP.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report for the As a Result of the National Financial Environment, Throughout 2009, US Congress Calendar Year 2009, Pursuant to Section 43 of the Banking Law
    O R K Y S T W A E T E N 2009 B T A ANNUAL N N E K M REPORT I N T G R D E P A WWW.BANKING.STATE.NY.US 1-877-BANK NYS One State Street Plaza New York, NY 10004 (212) 709-3500 80 South Swan Street Albany, NY 12210 (518) 473-6160 333 East Washington Street Syracuse, NY 13202 (315) 428-4049 September 15, 2010 To the Honorable David A. Paterson and Members of the Legislature: I hereby submit the New York State Banking Department Annual Report for the As a result of the national financial environment, throughout 2009, US Congress calendar year 2009, pursuant to Section 43 of the Banking Law. debated financial regulatory reform legislation. While the regulatory debate developed on the national stage, the Banking Department forged ahead with In 2009, the New York State Banking Department regulated more than 2,700 developing and implementing new state legislation and regulations to address financial entities providing services in New York State, including both depository the immediate crisis and avoid a similar crisis in the future. and non-depository institutions. The total assets of the depository institutions supervised exceeded $2.2 trillion. State Regulation: During 2009, what began as a subprime mortgage crisis led to a global downturn As one of the first states to identify the mortgage crisis, New York was fast in economic activity, leading to decreased employment, decreased borrowing to act on developing solutions. Building on efforts from 2008, in December and spending, and a general contraction in the financial industry as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2015
    Case 14-1978, Document 193-1, 07/20/2016, 1820060, Page1 of 76 14‐1963(L) Kirschenbaum, et al. v. 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ______________ August Term 2015 (Argued: November 18, 2015 Decided: July 20, 2016) Docket Nos. 14‐1963(L), 14‐1967, 14‐1971, 14‐1974, 14‐1978, 14‐1982, 14‐1986, 14‐1988, 14‐1996, 14‐2098 ____________ KIRSCHENBAUM, ET AL. V. 650 FIFTH AVENUE AND RELATED PROPERTIES JASON KIRSCHENBAUM, ISABELLE KIRSCHENBAUM, on her own behalf and as Executrix of the Estate of Martin Kirschenbaum, JOSHUA KIRSCHENBAUM, DAVID KIRSCHENBAUM, DANIELLE TEITLEBAUM, Plaintiffs‐Appellees, ANNA BEER, HARRY BEER, on his own behalf and as Administrator of the Estate of Alan Beer, ESTELLE CARROLL, PHYLLIS MAISEL, Plaintiffs‐Appellees, STEVEN M. GREENBAUM, in his personal capacity and as administrator of the Estate of Judith (Shoshana) Lillian Greenbaum, ALAN HAYMAN, SHIRLEE HAYMAN, Plaintiffs‐Appellees, CARLOS ACOSTA, MARIA ACOSTA, TOVA ETTINGER, IRVING FRANKLIN, in his personal capacity and as personal representative of the estate of Irma Franklin, BARUCH KAHANE, LIBBY KAHANE, in her personal capacity and as Administratrix Case 14-1978, Document 193-1, 07/20/2016, 1820060, Page2 of 76 of the Estate of Meir Kahane, ETHEL J. GRIFFIN, as Public Administrator of the County of New York and Administratrix of the Estate of Binyamin Kahane, NORMAN KAHANE, in his personal capacity and as Executor of the Estate of Sonia Kahane, CIPORAH KAPLAN, Plaintiffs‐Appellees, EDWENA R. HEGNA, Executrix of the Estate of Charles Hegna, STEVEN A. HEGNA, LYNN MARIE HEGNA MOORE, CRAIG M.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran and the Gulf Military Balance - I
    IRAN AND THE GULF MILITARY BALANCE - I The Conventional and Asymmetric Dimensions FIFTH WORKING DRAFT By Anthony H. Cordesman and Alexander Wilner Revised July 11, 2012 Anthony H. Cordesman Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy [email protected] Cordesman/Wilner: Iran & The Gulf Military Balance, Rev 5 7/11/12 2 Acknowledgements This analysis was made possible by a grant from the Smith Richardson Foundation. It draws on the work of Dr. Abdullah Toukan and a series of reports on Iran by Adam Seitz, a Senior Research Associate and Instructor, Middle East Studies, Marine Corps University. 2 Cordesman/Wilner: Iran & The Gulf Military Balance, Rev 5 7/11/12 3 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 5 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 6 Figure III.1: Summary Chronology of US-Iranian Military Competition: 2000-2011 ............................... 8 CURRENT PATTERNS IN THE STRUCTURE OF US AND IRANIAN MILITARY COMPETITION ........................................... 13 DIFFERING NATIONAL PERSPECTIVES .............................................................................................................. 17 US Perceptions .................................................................................................................................... 17 Iranian Perceptions............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • TM 3.1 Inventory of Affected Businesses
    N E W Y O R K M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O U N C I L D E M O G R A P H I C A N D S O C I O E C O N O M I C F O R E C A S T I N G POST SEPTEMBER 11TH IMPACTS T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M NO. 3.1 INVENTORY OF AFFECTED BUSINESSES: THEIR CHARACTERISTICS AND AFTERMATH This study is funded by a matching grant from the Federal Highway Administration, under NYSDOT PIN PT 1949911. PRIME CONSULTANT: URBANOMICS 115 5TH AVENUE 3RD FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10003 The preparation of this report was financed in part through funds from the Federal Highway Administration and FTA. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do no necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration, FTA, nor of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M NO.
    [Show full text]
  • G.4.5 Changes in Status of Banks and Branches
    RELEASED SEPTEM'sER 30, 1985 BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM G.4.5 REPORT CHANGES IN STATUS OF BANKS AND BRANCHES DURING AUGUST 1985 NAME AND LOCATION OF BANKS AND BRANCHES THIS COMPILATION IS DERIVED LARGELY FROM SECONDARY SOURCES. IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL REPORT OF CHANGES IN THE BANKING STRUCTURE. UNDERLINED INFORMATION ARF CORRECTIONS TC; PREVIOUS G.4.5 RELEASES, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 1/ THE BRANCHES LISTED WERE PREVIOUSLY BRANCHES OF THE SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION PRIOR TO ITS CONVERSION TO A BANK Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis TABLE OF CONTENTS NEH BANKS EXCEPT SUCCESSIONS AND CONVERSIONS ......................................... 1 SUCCESSIONS AND CONVERSIONS .......................................................... 4 CONSOLIDATIONS AND ABSORPTIONS, ETC...................................................... 5 CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS ............................................................ 9 ADMISSION OF NON-MEM BANK TO F.R. MEMBERSHIP........................................... 12 VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION ................................................................ 13 NON-INSURED BANK ADMITTED TO INSURANCE ................................................ 13 NON-INSURED INDUSTRIAL BANK ADMITTED TO INSURANCE .................................... 13 CHANGE IN TITLE AND/OR LOCATION OF BANKS ............................................. 14 BRANCHES ESTABLISHED DE N O V O ........................................................... 16 BRANCHES ACQUIRED BY CONSOL.,
    [Show full text]
  • RADICALIZATION DURING the ROUHANI YEARS Iran’S Political Shifts and Their Implications Contents
    ANALYSIS Political momentum in Iran now lies with the radicals. In the wake of U.S. sanctions, PEACE AND SECURITY President Hassan Rouhani’s policy of moderation has failed to produce promised RADICALIZATION economic growth. DURING THE Political shifts in Iran have up- ended the usual dynamics of inter-factional competition to not only affirm the radicals’ ROUHANI YEARS positions, but to also radical- ize the more moderate forces themselves. The hard-liners Iran’s Political Shifts and Their Implications remain a heterogenous group, with intense disputes over ideology and power. David Jalilvand and Achim Vogt (eds.) March 2021 Tehran’s nuclear and regional policies look set to become even more assertive while Iran’s progress in economic diversification renders con- cessions on its part less attractive. PEACE AND SECURITY RADICALIZATION DURING THE ROUHANI YEARS Iran’s Political Shifts and their Implications Contents Introduction 2 1 THE END OF MODERATION? SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RADICALISM UNDER HASSAN ROUHANI 4 Azadeh Zamirirad 2 RADICAL IRAN: GENERATIONAL CHANGES AND OUTLOOKS 9 Narges Bajoghli 3 IRAN’S HEZBOLLAH: A RADICAL AND DECISIVE POLITICAL CURRENT 15 Walter Posch 4 THE FUTURE OF IRAN’S NUCLEAR POLICY AND APPROACH TO THE JCPOA 23 Dina Esfandiary 5 A RADICAL IRAN: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PERSIAN GULF AND THE LEVANT 29 Hamidreza Azizi 6 IRAN’S RESISTANCE ECONOMY: AMBITIONS AND REALITY 36 David Jalilvand About the Authors 48 1 FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – RADICALIZATION DURING THE ROUHANI YEARS Introduction At the start of 2021, the political momentum in Iranian stitutions.1 In February 2020, hard-liners constituted the domestic and foreign affairs lies squarely with the radicals.
    [Show full text]
  • Manhattan Office Market
    Manhattan Offi ce Market 1 ST QUARTER 2016 REPORT A NEWS RECAP AND MARKET SNAPSHOT Pictured: 915 Broadway Looking Ahead Finance Department’s Tentative Assessment Roll Takes High Retail Rents into Account Consumers are not the only ones attracted by the luxury offerings along the city’s prime 5th Avenue retail corridor between 48th and 59th Streets where activity has raised retail rents. The city’s Department of Finance is getting in on the action, prompting the agency to increase tax assessments on some of the high-profi le properties. A tentative tax roll released last month for the 2016-2017 tax year brings the total market value of New York City’s real estate to over $1 trillion — reportedly for the fi rst time. The overall taxable assessed values for the city would increase 8.10%. Brooklyn’s assessed values accounted for the sharpest rise of 9.83% from FY 2015/2016, followed by Manhattan’s 8.47% increase. Although some properties along the 5th Avenue corridor had a reduction in valuations the properties were primarily offi ce, not retail according to a reported analysis of the tentative tax roll details. Building owners have the opportunity to appeal the increase; but an unexpected rise in market value — and hence real estate taxes, will negatively impact the building’s bottom line and value. Typically tenants incur the burden of most of the tax increases from the time the lease is signed, and the landlord pays the taxes that existed before the signing; but in some cases the tenant increase in capped, leaving the burden of the additional expense on the landlord.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolving Outstanding Judgments Under the Terrorism Exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
    NO TES RESOLVING OUTSTANDING JUDGMENTS UNDER THE TERRORISM EXCEPTION TO THE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT DAVEED GARTENSTEIN-ROSS* While the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act generally preventsforeign states from being the subject of lawsuits in U.S. courts, countries that have been designated as state sponsors of terrorism by the Secretary of State are exempted from this protec- tion. Judgments entered under this "terrorism exception" already total more than three billion dollars, with a number of suits still pending. These judgments may pose difficulties for future attempts to normalize relationswith the defendant coun- tries. In this Note, Daveed Gartenstein-Rossargues that the best method for resolv- ing these outstandingjudgments is to terminate them and resubmit the claims to ad hoc internationaltribunals. Although successful plaintiffs whose judgments are ab- rogated can bring takings claims against the government, he argues that those claims should be surmountable through a sensible application of takings jurisprudence. INTRODUCTION The world watched in shock on September 11, 2001, as two hi- jacked airplanes toppled the World Trade Center in New York City, and another demolished a large section of the Pentagon in Washing- ton, D.C.' In the wake of these attacks, President Bush dedicated his * I would like to thank Professor David Golove for assistance in shaping this Note and formulating my arguments and Professors Vicki Been and Howard Venable for providing advice and feedback on the Takings Clause section. I would also like to thank the New York University Law Review's excellent editorial staff, especially David Alonzo-Maizlish, Howard Anglin, David Carpenter, David Karp, Shawn Larsen-Bright, and Gabe Ross for their insightful comments and hard work.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:21-Cv-03503 Document 1 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 183 Pageid #: 1
    Case 1:21-cv-03503 Document 1 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 183 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK STEPHANIE ZOBAY, individually, and for the estate of STEPHEN S. EVERHART, LINDSAY M. EVERHART, ABDUL GHAFFAR MUGHAL, SITORAI KHASANZOD, KHALID MUGHAL, HAMID MUGHAL, ANGELA MUGHAL, N.M., by and through her next friend Abdul Ghaffar Mughal, M.M., by and through his next friend Abdul Ghaffar Mughal, WAYNE NEWBY, THERESA HART, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NATHAN NEWBY, JASON RZEPA, CASSANDRA RZEPA, C.R., by and through his next friend Cassandra Rzepa, K.R., by and through his next friend Adrian Davis, TYLER N. OGDEN, WILLIAM M. CHINN, Case No.: 21-cv-3503 SEAN M. NIQUETTE, LAUREN NIQUETTE, THOMAS NIQUETTE, MARY NIQUETTE, ED ELLIOTT, BRIAN C. ALLDRIDGE, JOANN ALLDRIDGE, RONALD ALLDRIDGE, DIANNA ALLDRIDGE, TODD JEFFREY ALLDRIDGE, ANDREW MAJOR, ASHLEY MAJOR, ALYSSA MAJOR, MARCUS JAMIL SULLEN, DAVID EUGENE HICKMAN, VERONICA HICKMAN, DEVON F. HICKMAN, TAMMIE FROST, individually, and for the estate of RUSSELL FROST, MADISON FROST, CRYSTAL FROST, AMANDA FROST, WAIEL EL-MAADAWY, BILQIS AIDARA ADJEI, ALEXIS GRANT, MALIK ELMAADAWY, G.E., by and through his next friend Latasha Elmaadawy, ZEINAB EL-MAADAWY, IHAB EL- MAADAWY, TAMER EL-MAADAWY, MOHAMMED EL-MAADAWY, MUSTAFA EL- MAADAWY, AMR MOHAMED, BRENDA MOHAMED, Plaintiffs, v. MTN GROUP LIMITED, MTN IRANCELL, MTN DUBAI LIMITED, ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) INC., and ZTE (TX) INC., Defendants. Case 1:21-cv-03503 Document 1 Filed 06/22/21 Page 2 of 183 PageID #: 2 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TERRORISM ACT Ryan R.
    [Show full text]
  • Seele Project Map New York
    projects in new york Current and completed seele-projects, you may visit in and around New York. 01 Trinity Church (sacral building) 08 Nike High Profile Store (retail) 15 Burberry Flagship Store (retail) steel-glass-canopy for the approx. 1,000 sqm steel-and-glass 400 sqm post-and-beam entrance are of the church façade, approx. 117 sqm all-glass construction and 20 sqm https://www.trinitywallstreet.org/ structure for entrance façade storefront glazing Wall Street Station https://www.nike.com/us/en_us/retail/en/nike-nyc https://us.burberry.com/store-locator/united-states 75 Broadway open to the public 57 St, line F seele, Inc. / 2019 seele, Inc. / 2018 5 Av / 53 St, lines E, M seele, Inc. / 2002 9 E 57th Street 650 Fifth Avenue 02 Apple Retail Store SoHo (retail) 09 Valentino Flagship Store (retail) 16 432 Park Avenue (residential building) all-glass bridge, balustrades post-and-beam construction, lobby glazing, sliding doors, and staircase 36 m tall, steel-and-glass 14 vesitbule, entrance glass canopy https://www.apple.com/retail/soho/ façade extending 8 levels (panes measuring 6.2 × 3.2 m) Prince St, lines Q, R www.valentino.com 13 https://www.432parkavenue.com/ 103 Prince St open to the public (only canopy outside) seele, Inc. / 2012 seele, Inc. / 2014 5 Av / 53 St, lines E, M 12 seele, Inc. / 2016 Lexington Av / 59 St 693 Fifth Avenue lines N, R, W 11 432 Park Avenue 03 Apple Retail Store 14th Street (retail) 10 Apple Cube (retail) 17 277 Park Avenue (office building) glass doors and windows, All-glass cube, sprial 10 - under construction - all-glass spiral staircase staircase, elevator 15 steel-and-glass structure for extending two levels www.apple.com/retail/fifthavenue/ 09 16 canopies, glass façade for www.apple.com/retail/west14thstreet/ 5 Avenue, lines N, R, W 08 entrances including doors 14 St / 8 Av, lines A, C, E 767 Fifth Avenue 17 reception open to the public seele, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 16-827 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ALAVI FOUNDATION and 650 FIFTH AVENUE COMPANY, Petitioners, v. JASON KIRSCHENBAUM, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF IN OPPOSITION --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JAMES L. BERNARD Counsel of Record CURTIS C. MECHLING PATRICK N. PETROCELLI PAMELA S. TAKEFMAN STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 (212) 806-5400 [email protected] Counsel for Respondents Jason Kirschenbaum, et al.; Anna Beer, et al.; Steven M. Greenbaum, et al.; and Carlos Acosta, et al. [Additional Counsel Listed On Inside Cover] ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM LIVIU VOGEL SALON MARROW DYCKMAN NEWMAN & BROUDY LLP 292 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 (212) 661-7100 Counsel for Respondents Terry Abbott, et al. RICHARD M. KREMEN DALE K. CATHELL DLA PIPER LLP (US) 6225 Smith Avenue Baltimore, MD 21209 (410) 580-3000 Counsel for Respondents The Estate of Michael Heiser, et al. TIMOTHY B. FLEMING WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB PLLC 1850 M Street, NW, Suite 720 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 467-4489 Counsel for Respondents Fiona Havlish, et al. PETER R. KOLKER ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 1800 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 778-1800 Counsel for Respondents Jenny Rubin, et al. i QUESTION PRESENTED Section 1603(b) of the Foreign Sovereign Immuni- ties Act of 1976 (“FSIA”), Pub. L. No. 94-583, 90 Stat. 2891 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 et seq.), 28 U.S.C. § 1603(b), defines the term “agency or instru- mentality of a foreign state.” Section 201 of the Terror- ism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (“TRIA”), Pub.
    [Show full text]