There are basically two forms of sexual harassment: The first is quid pro quo sexual harassment, which “occurs when an employer attempts to make an employee’s submission of sexual demands a condition of his or her employment.” The second is hostile work environment sexual harassment, which occurs "when an employer or fellow employees harass an employee because of his or her sex to the point at which the working environment becomes hostile.”

Simply put, the latter form of harassment generally occurs when a woman works among Neanderthal men who have not learned that it is no longer acceptable in the work place to comment about anatomy, grab or grope said anatomical parts or generally act like we still live in the stone age. It’s akin to a mob mentality on a smaller scale and it brings out the worst in men. Just ask Isiah Thomas of the Knicks and Madison Square Garden Chairman James Dolan.

Quid pro quo sexual harassment is of a different nature. It requires no mob, no assists, just a willingness to abuse power or position for sex. It’s not just the lowest form of harassment, it’s the low-life form of harassment. But can it happen when it isn’t the boss hitting on an employee? What about in the market place, when the representative of one business demands sexual favors from the representative of another to close the deal or to maintain their commercial intercourse?

United is a national equipment rental company. Its Piscataway branch manager was Harold Hinkes. Eileen Totorello is the sole shareholder of J.T. Tire Service, a company that was selling tires to United since 1998. In 2005 Hinkes “began pressuring Totorello to have a sexual relationship with him.” She refused. United Piscataway then stopped buying her tires.

Totorello “managed to get the work back” (one wonders what was said), but Hinkes continued to make threats to withhold business if theirs remained a sex-free relationship. Apparently intent on winning, or at least commandeering sexual favors from Ms. Totorello, he used his tired old tire line to make his point, and added a little kissing and groping in case he had been too subtle. When she refused even these creative advances, Hinkes told her she made a “very poor business decision.” Tire purchases then went permanently flat when United stopped buying J.T.’s tires, which by then amounted to sales of $29,000 per month.

J.T. and Ms. Totorello sued. The lower court said there was no case (all’s fair in love and war, and apparently in business), and that this was not the type of harassment contemplated by the Jersey discrimination statute. The Appellate Division disagreed, finding that “The LAD prohibits discriminatory refusals to do business on the basis of sex, by making it unlawful: For any person to refuse to buy from…contract with…or otherwise do business with any other person on the bases of …sex.”

While defendant conceded that the statute prohibited sexual harassment, it argued that it did not prohibit sexual discrimination, and that the former was prohibited only in employment, and either way, this was not the kind of discrimination the LAD contemplated. While United get’s an “A” for chutzpah, it got nowhere with the court, which ruled:

Although the LAD does not specifically mention sexual harassment as a prohibited form of discrimination, it is well-established that ‘[s]exual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates both Title VII and the LAD.’

It went on to say the obvious, which unfortunately for alleged low-lifes and Neanderthals, often needs to be said, to wit, “Where, as here, the harassment consists of sexual overtures and unwelcome touching or groping, it is presumed that the conduct was committed because of the victim’s sex.” And since touching and groping made the question easier for the court to resolve, the refusal to buy tires under the above quoted LAD meant that United’s actions through Hinkes was also discriminatory due to her sex. To rule otherwise, to let such behavior continue unfettered, “would stand as a barrier to women’s ability to do business on an equal footing with men.”

It was Lord Acton who said “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But it’s all relative. Even a little power, like a little knowledge, is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands.

United ended up with a blow out in court for letting Hinkes drive a hard bargain. Maybe now it will remember one of the fundamental reasons to conduct business at arm’s length—it keeps negotiators out of groping and grabbing range.

Cell phones continue to make law. Last month we looked to Ohio where the court concluded it is a crime to destroy the cell phone of someone calling authorities for assistance in an emergency where life or property are at risk. So how does New York view cell phone records after there’s been property damage and injury as a result of an auto accident.

Robert Grant was driving a company car owned by Hawkeye, his employer. His vehicle collided with defendant Detraglia’s car. Stephanie Detraglia, an infant passenger, was injured and brought this action against both drivers. Demand was made that defendants Grant and Hawkeye “produce billing records for all three of Grant’s cellular telephones and the Verizon wireless air card for his company-issued laptop computer for the date of the accident between 12:00 PM and 4:00 PM” (the accident happened at 2:57 PM). Defendants refused to comply. A motion to compel discovery followed.

Although Grant testified at deposition that he wasn’t using his cell phone or lap top at the time of the accident and that the lap top was secure in a bag, the tow truck driver at the scene submitted an affidavit stating that “he saw the laptop on the vehicle’s computer desk, with the screen flipped up and turned on” indicating recent use. That raised enough of an issue for the lower court to order defendants to turn over the records. Grant and Hawkeye appealed.

The Appellate Division agreed with the lower court, finding that “conflicting evidence raised questions as to whether Grant used any technological devices while driving, rendering the records relevant to the question of his negligence.” The court narrowed the window of discovery of such records to 2:30 PM to 3:30 PM and directed that the court do an in camera review first to protect privacy interests. If it turns out Grant was on the phone or on the computer at the time of the accident, he might have to hang up his defense.

Given how easy it is while driving to use a cell phone to text, get or send emails, surf the web, watch videos, and even make phone calls, such technological distractions are as likely to cause an accident as glancing at a map on the passenger seat or speeding through an intersection. Obtaining the details of a driver’s phone use seems fair game when trying to figure out what caused an accident. In fact, given the ubiquitous use of cell phones and the tendency of people to leave out important facts while being questioned under oath, it would seem that discovery of such records should be a matter of routine, denials of use notwithstanding. One suspects phone record discovery in accidents is well on the way to becoming the law of the land.

The Appellate Division's use of in camera inspection to limit intrusion into the individual's phone or lap top stored data and contacts is entirely in keeping with the value we place on our right to privacy. In Ohio v. Smith, an unrelated case decided the same week, that state’s high court ruled that there is a “high expectation of privacy in a cell phone’s content” particularly because they are “capable of storing tremendous amounts of private data.” Under the circumstances, “an officer may not conduct a search of a cell phone’s contents incident to a lawful arrest without first obtaining a warrant.” In Smith’s case, looking at who he called (supposed drug dealers he was negotiating with) at the time of the crime without first obtaining a warrant, and introducing such evidence at the time of trial, violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful search and seizure. Absent exigent circumstances which require an immediate search of phone records for the safety of law-enforcement officers, a warrant is required.

Used to be you were entitled to one phone call when charged with a crime. Nowadays, a valid warrant to search your one cell phone could be your downfall.

And in a civil action, if the evidence of phone use at the time of the accident is in there, it could turn out to be the ultimate collect call, at least for the plaintiff seeking money damages.

The law is a slow moving behemoth. Technology changes at a meteoric pace. Watching the law trying to keep up can be amusing and depressing. It can also leave one wondering if the common law—judicial decisions applying general principals of law to given sets of facts—has yielded to the nano state (a derivative of the nanny state) where legislative micro management of rapidly-changing technology is the norm and an ever-increasing challenge for our courts. Ohio v. Robinson is a case in point.

Raynell Robinson was upset with his nephew Antonio. Antonio and his friend Heather Hoge had attended a party at Robinson’s apartment when Robinson was not at home. When he walked in on the affair, he ordered everyone to leave. As nephew Antonio and his friend Hoge began to leave, Robinson hit Antonio in the back of the head. He then proceeded to pummel him. At some point Antonio called 911 on his cell phone. Although he was able to tell the operator that he was at The Meadows apartment complex and that his face was split open, Robinson grabbed the cell phone and smashed it before he could tell them his exact location. Antonio’s friend Heather Hoge then dialed 911 on her cell, but Robinson “told her to show him her hand and that that she had better not be calling the police.” Fearing for her own safety, Hoge got off the phone before she could say where in the complex Antonio was being beaten.

The cops eventually found the right place, the battered Antonio, and cited Robinson for Disorderly Conduct. A grand jury indicted him for the felonious assault of Antonio and for disrupting public service in violation of R.C. 2909.04(A)(3) which makes it a crime to impair the ability of law-enforcement officers and others to respond to an emergency or to protect and preserve any person or property from serious physical harm.

The assault count was never heard at trial. Antonio was apparently not confident he could be protected by the system. Instead, he moved to Arizona and refused to return to Ohio to testify, and, one suspects, obtained an unlisted cell phone number. Hoge testified, however, about the threats to her safety when she tried to call 911. Robinson was convicted and got 2 years for intimidating a victim and 15 months for impairing the cops’ ability to respond to the 911 call by smashing Antonio’s phone.

Plainly put, the question on appeal was whether smashing the cell phone was a separate crime under R.C. 2909.04(A)(3) since Antonio was trying to call the police for help at the time of the assault? The high court said it was.

The Third District Court of Appeals had held that R.C. 2909.04(A)(3) “clearly and unambiguously prohibits substantial interference with public emergency systems and utilities, not the destruction of a single private telephone or cell phone.” The Appellate court also found that the state “failed to prove the element of substantial impairment because the officers arrived at the scene of the assault within a few minutes of being dispatched.”

It’s not clear that Antonio appreciated this nuance or the extra time it took the cops to locate him in the complex or the fear he felt when his lifeline ended with the destruction of his cell phone. In fact, he seemed not to have fully recovered from this trauma, as his switch to Arizona Bell suggests, and the high court was not without sympathy. Ironically, the Ohio Supremes found with equal clarity and unambiguousness “that the damaging of a single private telephone or cellular telephone constitutes a violation of R.C.2909.04 (A) (3)” if the conduct substantially impairs the ability of law enforcement officers and others to respond to an emergency “or to protect and preserve any person or property from serious physical harm.” It also noted that the statute in question never mentioned “public emergency systems” or “utilities,” language the appellate court read into the statute when it reversed Robinson’s conviction.

As for whether there was “substantial impairment” of law enforcement’s ability to respond in this case, that was a question of fact for the jury. According to the high court, the issue isn’t one of response time, as the appellate court thought (is a 1 minute delay ok? is 3 minutes too much?); “the inquiry is directed toward [law enforcement’s] ability to respond.” Here, while the police were attempting to respond to Antonio’s call for help and find him in the complex without an exact apartment number, Robinson continued to beat the hell out of him. That was substantial impairment enough and a direct result of smashing the phone.

Accordingly, Robinson’s conviction and 15 month imprisonment for disrupting public services were reinstated.

This is not an isolated case. It is a picture of the nano-state we live in. Technology keeps changing. Elected officials try to keep up. The legislation gets too technical. Then the courts, in this case, the Third Appellate Department of Ohio, get hyper technical and ethereal, only to be corrected by a high court that agrees with a jury of lay people who got it all right from the beginning.

The diminished role of common law (and the elevated role of legislative solutions to perceived technical loopholes in the law) brings with it a concomitant loss of common sense. It would seem plain to everyone but judges that smashing the cell phone of your assault victim as he calls for help would impair law enforcement’s ability to respond and was the sort of thing envisioned by Ohio’s duly elected representatives and their nano-legislation.

Nowadays, the only thing plain to most of us is that the law is never clear and unambiguous. It's voluminous, exhaustive and more like the tax code than the Ten Commandments.

Voltaire was right. Common sense is not so common. Maybe even less so the more technology becomes part of our daily lives and the more legislators try to regulate it.

We live in very contentious times. The red-state-blue-state divide is political, geographical and cultural. Debate about issues is frequently obscured by the politics of hate, by innuendo and by ad hominum attacks on those who speak out on the issues. Whether you support Rush Limbaugh or Al Gore, Sara Palin or Barack Obama, there seems to be way less common ground than in times past—and way less interest in even finding it.

Everything has become a crisis. Everything has become an issue that cannot be compromised. And everything is magnified and disseminated exponentially, courtesy of the worldwide web. Just a click away, a wonderful and dreadful thing the web: both a fountain of breaking news, information and learning and a cesspool of violence, pornography and hatred all at once.

Perhaps there’s no other tool with the power to destroy lives and reputations so easily. Bloggers can be indifferent to facts. Rumormongers can ruin lives with a well placed post. And anyone with a computer can upload their own demise on line or set in motion events that lead to the demise of others.

Somewhere between on-line beheadings and spam, we find US. v. Fullmer.

The case is about the activities of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) and six individual defendants (referred herein collectively as “SHAC”) who were either employees, principals or in some way associated with SHAC. SHAC was formed in 1999. It has been uncompromisingly opposed to Huntingdon’s research with animals and committed to closing its laboratories. According to SHAC, Huntingdon was a purveyor of animal cruelty in the interest of science and corporate profits. Its abuses of animals were depicted in a surveillance videotape (viewer discretion advised) obtained by someone posing as a Huntingdon lab technician. When aired on British TV, it led to a spate of protests and the birth of SHAC-UK and subsequently, its US counterpart after SHAC’s relentless campaign caused Huntingdon to relocate to the states.

SHAC’s opposition to Huntingdon was not based on the actions of Gandhi or Martin Luther King. It was something new. Something born out of the cyber age. It targeted Huntingdon and companies that dealt with it, from accounting firms, bankers and realtors, to Huntingdon board members, stockholders and employees, including their wives and children. SHAC used its website as a bludgeon. Its take-no-prisoners, scorched-earth approach to its mission was incredibly effective. And frightening. As defendant Gazzola put it, “this is the most successful campaign in the history of the animal rights movement and it’s precisely because we’re pushing the limits and we’re tired of standing around holding signs and yelling at buildings and writing letters and not getting anywhere. We’re gonna do what we have to do in order to be effective and in order to save lives.”

The court’s opinion chronicles a sampling of the SHAC defendants’ activities. Its web postings included the following:

-Coordinating protests;
-Encouraging direct action (both legal and illegal, the illegal kind being both lauded and disavowed simultaneously);
-Instructing economic sabotage (including step-by-step how-to instructions as well as posting times for coordinated electronic assaults on corporate servers and fax machines);
-Listing accomplishments (such as people and places that had been attacked or acquiesced to SHAC’s demands); and
-Promoting vandalism (or at least excusing and appreciating it as a natural overflow of anti-Huntingdon outrage).

In a message to all associated with or employed by Huntingdon, defendant Harper used the backdrop of successful personal and institutional attacks to put Huntingdon and its business partners on notice of SHAC’s reach: “animal abusers …may be safe from the cops, the army, and the FBI…they are not safe from us…If no one else will treat them like the criminal scum that they are, at least we will…It is time to go beyond our fear of reprisals.”

Given the contents of the surveillance video, some might find such hard-edged tactics acceptable. But there was more. There were physical attacks and protests at board members’ homes. There were personal threats to them. To their children. Home addresses were published on the web. Phone numbers were published. Houses were flooded, windows smashed and neighbors intimidated. There was the posting of the “Top 20 Terror Tactics.” There were death threats by email and phone. And there was a state of fear that was nurtured and encouraged by SHAC.

SHAC’s web page, while always disavowing illegal activity, sympathized with its supposed unknown, more violent compatriots, and published instructions about how to avoid detection or arrest for such activity (even a cursory reading of the court’s decision is like a manifesto on modern economic warfare by cyber means—in many ways, it’s as disturbing as the Huntingdon video). Those targeted lived in abject fear for their lives, some to the point of arming themselves, others to the point of surrender, acquiescing to SHAC’s demands rather than resisting them alone.

Defendants were eventually charged and convicted of a variety of offenses, including conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection ACT (AEPA protects those who use animals for testing from certain forms of animal-rights activity), conspiracy to commit interstate stalking as well as three substantive counts of stalking.

On appeal, defendants argued, among other things, that the convictions violated their First Amendment right to engage in civil disobedience and to voice their objections to Huntingdon’s activities. The court disagreed. While some postings on SHAC’s website were protected speech, notwithstanding it was “speech that many find offensive and uncomfortable,” other posts which “coordinate electronic civil disobedience and disseminate the personal information of individuals employed by Huntingdon and affiliated companies are more problematic.” Such communication was not protected speech and some “constituted ‘true threats.’”

As the court observed, “viewed in context, the speeches, protests, and web postings were all tools to further their effort” and were not speech protected by the First Amendment. They were crimes. Accordingly, the individual defendants received sentences ranging from one year to six years in prison.

We are left with a number of questions: Are these people heroes in the animal rights movement? Should they be applauded for putting their lives on the line for their beliefs (even belatedly, since on line, they denied personal involvement)? Are they simply zealots who did what was necessary to save animals?

Or are they thugs? Bullies? And political / business terrorists?

Those on the receiving end of their “protests” would vote for the latter category. Many who share SHAC’s views might see them as visionaries. But the question remains: What type of society are we evolving into?

Maybe the ends justify the means when it comes to animals. How about when it comes to global warming? To illegal immigration? To mandatory vaccines for H1N1? To gun control or legalizing marijuana?

Are we inexorably on a road that takes no prisoners in a winner-take-all battle over everything? Or have we already crossed the Rubicon when it comes to civil discussion and the common good?

Sometimes it looks and feels that way. Sometimes it looks and feels like we are willingly letting the common ground beneath our feet slip away, completely indifferent or oblivious to the fact that we are falling into something much more dangerous and intolerant and insidious—all in the interest of advancing THE cause.

Which, of course, says something either about our lack of powers of persuasion or our inability or unwillingness to listen to the other side. Or to lose gracefully. In the market place of ideas that is America, the wheat has always been separated from the chaff, which historically has brought out the best in America, and which hopefully, will continue to do so even as the internet has the potential to bring out the worst.

Still, we should be glad about this uniquely American problem because freedom of speech can only be abused where it exists in the first place.

In New York, unless you’re in a union, are a government worker or have a contract of employment, you are an at-will employee. You can be fired for any reason whatsoever, except, of course, for the wrong reasons (the discriminatory ones proscribed by state and federal legislation and constitutions). Those protections extend to the hiring process as well.

Michael Halpert applied for a position with Manhattan Apartments Inc. (MAI) showing rental apartments . He was interviewed by Robert Brooks. Halpert claims Brooks told him he was “too old” for the job and sent him on his way. Brooks was not an employee of MAI. He was an independent contractor (a cost saving measure used by many employers to avoid giving benefits, and sometimes, to avoid coming under the mandates of federal or state laws by keeping the number of “employees” under the amount that triggers the laws applicability). Halpert didn’t care what Brooks was. He knew his rights so he sued MAI for age discrimination.

The lower court ruled in MAI’s favor, finding that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) “does not apply to independent contractors.” As a result, it dismissed Halpert’s case finding that MAI was not an employer under the definition of the ADEA.

Not so fast.

Employers may be able to reduce taxes, keep costs down and avoid providing health coverage by requiring workers to be independent contractors, but they don’t get a free pass for discrimination when that independent contractor is acting on the employer’s behalf. As the court concluded, if Halpert was interviewed by Brooks for a position with MAI, or MAI let Halpert believe he was being interviewed for a position with them (and not with Brooks) “an employer (MAI) can potentially be held liable for discrimination by an independent contractor (Brooks) who acts for the employer.”

Since the ADEA provides that “an employer may not ‘fail or refuse to hire...any individual...because of such individual’s age,’” MAI could be found liable if Brooks did in fact tell Halpert he was too old for the job. The court put it this way: That prohibition applies regardless of whether an employer uses its employees to interview applicants for open positions, or whether it uses intermediaries, such as independent contractors, to fill that role.” If Brooks had authority to hire, MAI couldn’t hide behind his independent contractor status to avoid liability for discriminating against Halpert. And that question can only be resolved when the nature of Brooks’ authority and relationship with MAI is fully explored.

Accordingly, questions of fact exist which could not be resolved by summary judgment and the dismissal by the District Court was vacated.

It’s good to know that a mere declaration of independence doesn’t insulate an employer from the actions of those it hires as independent contractors. If that were the case, everyone would be required to be an independent contractor, leaving employers free to act with impunity while letting their non-employees do whatever dirty work was needed. That is one giant loophole the court was not prepared to create and one most of us would consider sound public policy. In employment as in life, you don’t necessarily dodge the bullet by claiming “it wasn’t me!” Sometimes you’re responsible, even if you don't personally pull the trigger. That’s the way it’s always been, legal constructs like "independent contractor" notwithstanding.

As a footnote, it’s worth noting that Mr. Halpert prevailed in this matter pro se—without the assistance of counsel—or put another way, as an independent contractor. There’s a certain irony in that. One hopes it’s not lost on MAI or Mr. Brooks.

Rita Cosby is a well-known TV reporter. After the death of Anna Nicole Smith, Ms. Cosby decided to write a book about her. That book, Blonde Ambition, the Untold Story Behind Anna Nichol Smith’s Death, was published on September 4, 2007, just seven months after Ms. Smith died from a prescription drug overdose.

Cosby rushed to do her book while Anna Nichol Smith was still hot news. Smith had grabbed headlines for years because of The Anna Nicole Show, because of her marriage at age 26, to 89-year-old- billionaire J. Howard Marshall III and because of the death of her son Daniel just days after Smith gave birth of her daughter Dannielynn in 2006.

While publishers were eager to run with any news about Anna Nicole, co-defendant Hatchette Book Group was not interested in Cosby’s idea for a book “unless it contained previously unreported information.” Cosby promised the book would have “a number of previously unreported explosive news items.” As part of the sales pitch, Cosby’s agent told Amy Einhorn, an editor at Hatchette, two “facts” that would seal the deal. Einhron listened, then told her colleagues she had just heard two "holy shit" items. The next day, Hatchette offered Cosby a $405,000 advance plus royalties for the book.

After the book was published, Howard Stern, former Nicole Smith lawyer, boyfriend, alleged father of her daughter for a time and confident of Ms. Smith, sued Cosby and Hatchette for libel. Hatchette and Cosby moved for summary judgment. Hatchette prevailed. Cosby, not so much.

There were 19 Statements in the book that Howard Stern claimed were libelous (they’re described at pages 10 -13 of the decision). Cosby’s motion for summary judgment was granted as to 8 of those statements. It was denied as to 11 others (see page 48 of the decision). So part of the case will go forward. For our purposes, however, we will deal with statements 1 and 2, the two "holy shit" items that closed the deal for Cosby and Hatchette.

Statement 1: “Stern and Birkhead [Nicole Smith’s boyfriend] had oral sex at a party at a private home in Los Angeles. Smith discovered them, laughed, and later remarked that Stern was gay.”

Statement 2: “Smith, in front of her nannies in the Bahamas, used to regularly watch a video of Stern and Birkhead having sex.”

Limiting our focus to Statements “1” and “2”, Cosby’s defense was that Howard Stern’s reputation through all the Anna Nicole Smith years was so bad prior to publication of her book, that he could not have been further damaged by the statements, and that he was therefore “libel proof.” The court did not agree.

Cosby also argued that Statements “1” and “2” which “impute homosexuality to Stern, are not defamatory...and are therefore not actionable.” Stern claimed they are defamatory per se (i.e.,the allegation alone is presumed to cause damages).

Here’s where the blue state - urban - northeast view of the world is contained in the fine print, a view that is either a great progressive step forward, an inconsequential footnote on the law of New York State, or a confirmation that the homosexual agenda has quietly vanquished one of the Judeo-Christian foundations upon which much of our culture stands.

Writing for the Court, Justice Chin concluded that “Statements 1 and 2 are defamatory, but not defamatory per se” even though the 1st and 2nd Departments of New York’s Appellate Division have held that the “false imputation of homosexuality is reasonably susceptible of a defamatory connotation.” Noting that the New York’s Court of Appeals had never ruled on the subject, Justice Chin took it upon himself to “predict what New York’s highest court would do were the issue before it.”

According to Justice Chin,

The New York Court of Appeals has held that the following four categories of statements are defamatory per se: (1) those that accuse the plaintiff of a serious crime; (2) those that ‘tend to injure another in his or her trade, business or profession’; (3) those that accuse the plaintiff of having a ‘loathsome disease’; or (4) and those that impute ‘unchastity to a woman”

The Court went on to find that whether a statement is defamatory per se depends on “the temper of the times, the current contemporary public opinion, with the result that words, harmless in one age, in one community, may be highly damaging to reputation at another time or in a different place.”

Based on this analysis, Justice Chin framed the issue thusly:

“The question, then, is whether the New York Court of Appeals, in 2009, would hold that a statement imputing homosexuality connotes the same degree of ‘shame, obloquy, contumely, odium, contempt, ridicule, aversion ostracism, degradation of disgrace”... as statements accusing someone of serious criminal conduct, impugning a person in his or her trade or profession, implying that a person has a ‘loathsome disease’ or imputing unchastity to a woman. I conclude that it would not.” [Some Bible-toting alleged homophobes, or "breeders" as they are non-defamatorily referred to, may not agree.]

To further support his view, the Judge looked to what he sees as the “veritable sea change in social attitudes about homosexuality” including laws decriminalizing homosexual conduct, the movement to legalize gay marriage, that a Quinnipiac poll found that New York State resident support gay marriage 51 to 41 percent with 8 percent undecided and finally, that New York’s Court of Appeals “has not, in its most recent opinion touching on social attitudes toward homosexuality, given any indication that it perceives widespread disapproval of homosexuality in New York."

Justice Chin then relied on his brethren in Massachusetts for this (questionable) conclusion: “If this Court were to agree that calling someone a homosexual is defamatory per se—it would , in effect, validate that sentiment and legitimize relegating homosexuals to second class status.”

OK. Statements 1 and 2 are therefore not defamatory per se. “They are, however, susceptible to a defamatory meaning. Therefore a jury will decide whether they are defamatory.

Here’s the fine line the learned judge has drawn: It’s not defamatory to be called a homosexual. But it might be defamatory to say someone's a homosexual who also engaged in oral sex at a party in the home of another. That, apparently, is conduct that “ a reasonable jury could find...is shameful or contemptible...” (it is not clear whether the accusation of boorish party behavior offended the judge's sensibilities, or the assertiion that the sex occurred at someone else's house). Moreover, since the statement suggests that Howard Stern was having sex with a man while he was intimately involved with Anna Nicole, it implies unfaithfulness to her, and this would be “further reason for a jury to find that the Statement is defamatory.”

Accordingly, the court found that homosexuality no longer holds any opprobrium, at least in the abstract, but reckless homosexuality (with respect to time and place) that is compounded by unfaithfulness can be defamatory because faithfulness is still considered a virtue, as is not coveting your neighbor's bedroom to engage in homosexual acts.

I reserve opinion on this matter—not that there’s anything wrong with that—and leave it to other legal and culture pundits to figure out if this is good for the body politic or not.

As a footnote, it might not be defamatory to call someone a homosexual, but according to today's New York Post, you better think twice before you say someone looks like a "skank." It's not clear how this ruling would affect Judge Chin's decision, but clearly, any name callers out there should think twice before saying a homosexual looks like a skank.

To be on the safe side and pending further clarification by the courts, it's probably best to restrict all potential defamatory remarks toward commonly accepted libel-proof targets, such as Christians, far-right conservatives, global-warming deniers, "birthers" and trial lawyers.

Like they say on TV, don’t try this at home if you’re not a professional.

Claimant is an attorney. He was a little late for Civil Court in Queens, having missed the first call of the calendar. Like many of us, he had a few cases on in court that morning. While sitting in the back of the crowded courtroom as the judge conferenced cases at the bench, his cell phone rang. Unfortunately, it was not set on vibrate. After less than a half minute of talk, he was approached by a court officer.

Rather than admonish Mr. DePaula, the officer confiscated his phone. As irritating as that may have been, he also advised the busy barrister that he could “get the phone back at about 1:00 PM” when court was in recess. Apparently, they really take the turn-off-your-cell-phone rules seriously in Civil Queens.

There is some discrepancy about what happened next: Attorney DePaula says that while he waited for his case to be called, the officer walked toward him. The officer claims that after he took the phone and was attending to his courtroom duties, DePaula was “staring at him” before he walked over. Both sides agree that when the officer approached, he told DePaula “you should know better.” In response, the attorney admits saying, “You’re just being a prick ” (by which he meant to convey that the officer was a “contemptible, disagreeable, obnoxious person”), while the officer claimed Depaula said, “in a loud nasty tone: ‘You know something, you’re a prick’” (which he treated as a “disruption” of the court proceedings taking place), whereupon DePaula was asked, but refused, to leave the courtroom. Both do agree, however, that DePaula was immediately arrested, handcuffed, removed from the courtroom and confined in a security office in the courthouse, giving new meaning to the term call waiting.

After fifteen or twenty minutes handcuffed incommunicado in the cooler, the officer returned. The cuffs were removed, the cell phone returned and a summons for disorderly conduct was issued. DePaula pleaded not guilty, went to trial on the discon charge, and was acquitted. He then sued in the Court of Claims for False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution.

According to the Court of Claims, “the elements of a false arrest cause of action are: (1) the defendant intended to confine claimant; (2) claimant was conscious of the confinement; (3) claimant did not consent to the confinement; and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged.” When there’s an arrest without warrant, the burden shifts to the defendant to “establish that the arrest was privileged,” thus validating a charge of disorderly conduct under Penal Law §240.20 (3). As it turns out, the court officer had a wrong number, and the arrest was held not to be privileged.

As the court politely put it, “however reprehensible the utterance Mr. DePaula chose to make, in a courtroom and addressed to a Court Officer, the statement alone did not, as a matter of law, amount to disorderly conduct. The law is well settled that the mere use of 'abusive or obscene language' in a public place does not constitute a violation of Penal law §240.20 (3),” as the Court of Appeals has already held. As for the claim of malicious prosecution, the court did not find the requisite “actual malice” and so dismissed that count. A hearing on damages was scheduled to follow.

It’s reassuring to know that the breakdown of civility in our society has transcended the streets, giving us all the right to speak our mind to whomever we want wherever we are, even within the hallowed halls of justice. That’s probably a good thing legally (and maybe it’s an inroad of sorts into the constraints of political correctness), but culturally it may leave something to be desired.

Still, if you’re going to speak your mind, be prepared to put in the time. Your rights often come at a cost. And sometimes, especially when it involves going to court, the cost is billed by the hour. Which is why such bold speech is probably best left to the professionals.

Just ask Mr. DePaula. But ask him nicely.

It was Mr. Bumble in Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist who first said “the law is an ass” after he was told “the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.” His point was plain: reality and the law frequently don’t see eye to eye.

There are times when courts make rulings based on constitutional law, state law or even some ethereal philosophy that causes us to raise an eyebrow rather than see the point. Perhaps this is such a case.

As the dissent describes him, defendant Ingvue Buchanan was “a man in his thirties who apparently stands more than 6 feet tall and weighs over 300 pounds.” Defendant was accused of murdering a 14-year-old girl by strangling her. He was tried before a jury and convicted of second degree murder (the highest count chargeable in New York State).

Buchanan appealed and the case made its way to New York’s highest court. The basis for the appeal: the trial judge made Mr. Buchanan wear a stun belt during trial. It is a form of electrical restraint that “can deliver a shock should there be a problem.” The stun belt was worn beneath defendant’s clothes, and unlike shackles, could not be seen by the jury.

At trial, the judge told defendant Buchanan he was requiring him to wear the device as a matter of policy because of the seriousness of the charges against him. Defendant personally objected, telling the court “I have done nothing to warrant this." While the trial judge did not disagree with defendant, he still required him to wear the belt “in the interest of being overly cautious for security.” Seemingly not unreasonable given defendant’s size and the charges against him.

After a day of trial, Buchanan complained that the device was “uncomfortable.” So the court had it examined. Then the next day, out of an abundance of caution and judicial sensitivity, the judge obtained a report confirming that there was no medical reason that would prevent Buchanan from wearing the belt. And so he wore it through the duration of the trial and the guilty verdict rendered, with no shock ever having been administered, except, perhaps, to the parents of the murdered 14 year old.

Anyway, defendant argued that the stun belt “deprived him of due process of law” under both the US Constitution and state law because the US Supreme Court has held that “the Due Process Clause prohibits a state from confining a defendant in ‘visible shackles’ during a criminal trial, unless a ‘special need,’ based on facts specific to the case is shown.” The prosecutors argued that unlike shackles which can be seen, no one saw the stun belt and no jurors knew about it, so there could be no violation of defendant’s rights.

In its infinite wisdom, New York’s highest court concluded that it need not reach the constitutional issue since “as a matter of New York law...it is unacceptable to make a stun belt a routine adjunct of every murder trial, without a specifically identified security reason.” Since the stun belt was a matter of the trial judge’s “policy,” and not a stated finding with respect to this defendant’s need for potential restraints, a new trial was ordered.

Simply put, a 6 foot 300 pound man accused of strangling a 14-year-old girl had his conviction overturned because he had to wear a hidden restraining device that was never activated and never administered a shock.

It’s hard to know how to process this decision, but some perspective is warranted: Is wearing the device so offensive—like making a man wear women’s underwear—that it’s even more offensive than a 300 pound man strangling a 14-year-old child, as the jury concluded? Does such an insult to Mr. Buchanan’s sensitivities warrant having his conviction reversed? Does due process under state law guarantee a defendant the right to be free from any inconvenience or precaution beyond confinement? Or are our sensibilities so exaggerated in these politically correct times that defendant’s offendedness from being made to wear the device actually outweighs the offense of murder?

As the lone dissent put it: “Defendant failed to show that the stun belt was visible to the jury or otherwise compromised the fundamental fairness of the trial; he never objected that the stun belt impaired his ability to communicate with his attorney or meaningfully participate in his defense. Since I therefore do not believe that defendant has shown any actual prejudice, I would affirm his conviction.”

So would most people. But the law is what the law is.

Tasers electrified the nation last year with the famous, “Don’t tase me, bro” incident out of the University of Florida. The device is back in another story that is electrifying court watchers.

Defendant Ryan Smith was a suspect in a kidnapping and an armed robbery. DNA evidence had been obtained from a can of soda the kidnapper had helped himself to during the course of the crime. Through good detective work and a series of procedural moves, the DA’s office had a court order to take a buccal swab for DNA from the defendant’s mouth, obtained and lost the sample, then applied for and received a second order to do it again.

Defendant declined to submit to the swab when cops approached him on the street, so they took him to police headquarters. Detectives tried to convince defendant to cooperate but Smith “firmly and obstinately objected to submitting to the authority of the Order. He said he had already given a sample and that they would have to ‘tase’ him to get another swab.”

Wrong thing to say.

The detective on the case called and conferred with the ADA in charge, who approved the use of necessary “minimum force” to obtain the sample. Considering their options, the cops ruled out holding the defendant down and forcing his mouth open, believing it potentially injurious to defendant and risky for them. So they set their taser on stun (“drive stun,” the least powerful setting) and asked Smith to reconsider. They told him it would be unpleasant, but he refused to allow them to take a swab. They told him they didn’t want to hurt him. He still refused. And after a final warning and refusal, they tasered as needed (four seconds), recorded the proceeding and got their swab. They then arrested Smith for Obstructing Governmental Administration (as if he didn’t have enough problems).

Citing cases which authorize the use of reasonable force in other circumstances, the court ruled that no Constitutional prohibitions were violated by use of the taser to obtain the swab. This was reasonable force (even if during their pre-taser conference with the DA’s office detectives neglected to mention that they were considering using the device). Now had the taser been used to cause pain to obtain the desired result, this would have drifted into unlawful use of torture. But as the court stated, “The defendant was forewarned, steps were taken to limit his risk of injury, and the device was used one time for a brief burst. There was no lasting damage or injury.”

For the court, defendant amped up the problem and was shocked by the solution.

As the court noted,

This case is perhaps best described as the “perfect storm” where the crimes being investigated were egregious, the evidence sought highly probative, the intrusion required was minimal, and with a subject who steadfastly refused to comply with a lawful court Order. Further, the officers, armed with the Order issued, repeatedly sought the subject’s compliance, explored alternative methods of obtaining the sample, repeatedly warned the defendant of the consequences of his refusal and took steps to minimize the pain inflicted and the potential for injury. There was not malice or desire to injure the defendant.

Accordingly, defendant’s motion to suppress was denied and the People could use the evidence obtained from the swab.

A stunning decision which will no doubt cause sparks to fly all over the political spectrum.

Can the police secretly attach a GPS tracking device to a suspect's car in his own driveway without violating his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? The Court concludes the cops can and that no Fourth Amendment search or seizure even occurs.

Sveum was a repeat stalker. He did time for stalking Jamie Johnson in 1996 and began stalking her anew (with his sister’s help) even before his release from prison in 2002 (this guy may need a body cavity GPS installed). Police sought and received a warrant to covertly attach a GPS tracker to defendant’s car. Based on data collected, a warrant was obtained to search his home, and Sveum was charged and convicted of aggravated (second offense) stalking. He was sentenced to 7 and a half years. He appealed and challenged the use of the GPS tracking device to gather any evidence against him.

The GPS device in question is battery powered and was affixed to defendant’s car with a magnet and tape while it sat in his driveway. Defendant challenged the cops’ entry onto his driveway to install the device. The vehicle was then tracked for about five weeks. Sometimes the car was garaged at home, sometimes at work. The GPS unit was then physically retrieved to obtain a detailed satellite tracking history of its and its host vehicle’s whereabouts. The result was a complete itinerary of the defendant’s travels when he used his car and even where he parked it. He challenged the state's right to know where he parked in private.

What irony: The stalker stalked by satellite.

According to the court, “no Fourth Amendment violation occurred here simply because the police used a GPS device to obtain information about Sveum’s car that was visible to the general public.” Similarly, that the device was attached to the vehicle while in defendant’s driveway was not enough to render its use illegal; the driveway was not “protected ‘curtilage’” [enclosed land on the property]. And that garage locations were electronically noted hardly amounted to an improper search or violated any real expectation of privacy since old fashioned police observation could have netted the same results

The information gathered by the device gave probable cause for a search warrant of the home, and in the end, a jury found defendant guilty. So too did the Court of Appeals.

The Court did sound the warning about advances in technology, however, and acknowledge that it was

troubled the conclusion that no Fourth Amendment search or seizure occurs when police use a GPS or similar device as they have here. So far as we can tell, existing law does not limit the government’s use of tracking devices to investigations of legitimate criminal suspects. If there is no Fourth Amendment search or seizure, police are seemingly free to secretly track anyone’s public movements with a GPS device.

Good for the court. It ruled based on existing law but recommended that the legislature tackle the issue before technology runs amok by well-intentioned but overzealous law enforcement and other inquiring minds.

The rest of the details of this case are like the instructions to your VCR. Important but not relevant.

The bottom line is that there might be something on the bottom of your car and authorities may know exactly where you are at this very moment. So too may your wife or husband, your boss or your mother.

If you're worried, you would be well advised to look both under the hood and under the chassis the next time you pull out of your driveway or you could find your itinerary on YouTube, Google Earth or on a monitor at police headquarters or the Internal Revenue Service.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

The Philly PD said “no” based on Department Directive 78 which severely restricts permissible police attire. For the police brass, a hijaab would be an unacceptable official wardrobe malfunction.

Undaunted, Webb filed a Civil Rights complaint with the EEOC and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. Six months later, while that matter was still pending, she made a fashion protest and wore her hijaab to work. She was ordered to remove it, refused, and was sent home. The same thing happened the next day, and the day after. Disciplinary charges were brought against her and she was suspended for 13 days.

She then sued the City, the cops and the Police Commissioner for religious discrimination, retaliation and sex discrimination.

The District Court dismissed all of Officer Webb’s claims, finding that the standards set out in Directive 78 “promote the need for uniformity, but also enhance cohesiveness, cooperation, and the esprit de corps of the police force.”

The Circuit Court of Appeals explained the law on religious discrimination thusly: the employee must show: “(1) she holds a sincere belief that conflicts with a job requirement; (2) she informed her employer of the conflict; and (3) she was disciplined for failing to comply with a the conflicting requirement.” Both the District Court and the Circuit Court held that Officer Webb satisfied these requirements. But the inquiry doesn’t end there. Once satisfied, the burden shifts to the employer to show “either it made a good-faith effort to reasonably accommodate the religious belief, or such an accommodation would work an undue hardship upon the employer and its business.”

As the Philly Police Commissioner put it, enforcement of Directive 78 “is critically important to promote the image of a disciplined, identifiable and impartial police force by maintaining the Philadelphia Police Department uniform as a symbol of neutral government authority, free from expressions of personal religion, bent or bias.” Accordingly, cops cannot wear any religious garments with no exception for hijaabs. As the Court noted, the Commissioner’s reason for refusing wardrobe accommodations were “sufficient to meet the “undue hardship upon the employer” threshold that the Philadelphia Police Department was required to show.

Webb’s appeal to the Circuit Court was also dismissed.

As Jack Webb (no relation), Sergeant Joe Friday of Dragnet fame used to say, “Nothing but the facts, ma'am.”

To paraphrase, "Nothing but the hats, ma'am."

What do Kill Your Idols, Sub Zero and the Crumb Suckers have in common? They were all heavy metal bands (no offense to the bands if they take issue with the court’s characterization) playing B.B. King’s on August 3, 2006. Mr. Schoneboom was a big-bad-band fan. For him, you’re never too old for a little “slam dancing,” the more “aggressive” form of the ever-popular and intimate “moshing.” 36-year-old Schoneboom was a veteran of the slam-dance two step, having attended more than a hundred concerts where he frolicked in the mosh pits at least thirty to forty times.

The events in question took place during the Crumb Suckers set (in case you were wondering).

The night had begun pleasant enough. While Kill Your Idols was performing, plaintiff went to the lower level to get a better view of the slam dancing going on. A “good time” was being had by all as the fans bounced around off each other in a kinetic frenzy of fun and fisticuffs. After the set, plaintiff returned to his seat in the upper level, away from mosh central. Then Sub Zero came on. As Schoneboom describes it, the slam dancing now seemed “quite a bit more malicious.” Dancers were throwing themselves into non-participants, elbows were being thrown and celebrants were "taking potshots at perimeter people.” For this set, plaintiff remained in the demilitarized zone of the upper level.

But when the Crumb Suckers were about to come on, Schoneboom threw caution to the wind. He found his way to a spot 10 -12 feet from stage, directly in front of the moshkateers. At seven minutes into the performance, plaintiff “felt a shove from behind into the side of his knee which felt like a kick,” but didn’t see which mosher had mashed him. Plaintiff ended up with a knee injury and surgery. He then sued B.B. King’s.

Much to his dismay, the court slam-danced Schoneboom right out of court.

“If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed his duty” to exercise reasonable care. This is a longstanding rule of law that applies to all sorts of activities, including ball games, horseback riding and even samba dancing.

Schoneboom staked out his turf near the stage and the mosh pit only moments after having observed the more “malicious” slam-dancing that occurred when Sub Zero was performing. “Here, plaintiff not only elected to assume the risk of concert-going in a mosh dancing venue but was in the position, given his experience, to fully appreciate the risk.”

As for the injury, that he did not appreciate.

For Schoneboom court was a bust and there would be no dancing for dollars.

Case dismissed.

Hard to evaluate this decision. For now, score one for the like-minded. Five or ten years from now, the score could change dramatically, and so too could the way we look at this decision.

Pioneer Park is in Pleasant Grove City Utah. There are a variety of permanent monuments and displays in the park, just as there are in Central Park, the Boston Commons and Grant Park in Chicago. Cities everywhere put up monuments, either with their money or with privately donated funds. So here’s the question: Once a city puts a monument in its park, must it put up other monuments if they are donated, paid for and inoffensive? And where exactly on the free speech scale do monuments fall?

The short answers are that cities do not have to put up other monuments, and there are no free speech issues involved. Because monuments are a form of “government speech” and therefore, “not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause” of the Constitution.

Pioneer Park already had 15 permanent displays, 11 of which were donated at no cost to the City. Included among its stone and granite collection was a Ten Commandments monument given to it by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1971.

Along comes Summum, a religious organization based in Salt Lake City that dates back to ancient 1975. Its president twice asked Pleasant Grove City permission to erect a stone monument which would contain “the seven Aphorisms of SUMMUM.” According to Summum theology,

the Seven Aphorisms were inscribed on the original tablets handed down by God to Moses on Mount Sinai...Because Moses believed that the Israelites were not ready to receive the Aphorisms, he shared them only with a select group of people [apparently the early progenitors of the Summumites]. In the Summum Exodus account, Moses then destroyed the original tablets, traveled back to Mount Sinai, and returned with a second set of tablets containing the Ten Commandments.

So the Ten Commandments were the next best thing. This isn’t exactly the Biblical account, but then the Summumites have an absolute right to believe whatever they want. They just don’t have an absolute right to say it in stone. And now, for the Summumites, history repeats itself as Pleasant Grove City, like Moses before it, also rejected the Seven Aphorisms. In response, the Summumites sued (which may be an eighth aphorism—someone should look into this) insisting the City must accept and place their monument in the park, particularly since it was going to be Summum simoleons that were footing the bill.

The lower court sided with Pleasant Grove City and affirmed its right to reject the Summum offer. The Court of Appeals reversed and held that if you take one view set in stone, you must take the other. Pleasant Grove appealed and the nation’s high court took a look at the statues.

According to the court, “if petitioners were engaging in their own expressive conduct” when they choose or don’t choose a particular statue, “then the Free Speech Clause has no application. The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech; it does not regulate government speech.” And, the court said, “Permanent monuments displayed on public property typically represent government speech.” The high court went on to describe how governments have “long used monuments to speak to the public.” Whether the statue is of George Washington, Robert E. Lee or Pancho Villa, these monuments communicate government messages. They are a “means of expression” and the local or national government has a right to pick and choose which monuments say best what they want to say most.

Maybe it’s time to take a hard look at the monuments that surround us and to listen close to what governments are saying now and what they were saying in the past. It may be a clue to the times we live in and what sort of statues we can expect to see in the future. While we might agree with Pleasant Grove’s decision to forgo the Seven Aphorisms for the Ten Commandments, who knows what our governments will be saying in stone ten years from now under their nearly absolute right to free government speech.

And finally, given the nature of monumental government speech, what exactly are the pigeons trying to tell us?

Just how burdensome is it to individuals living in the 21st Century to produce a photo before they can vote? According to the plaintiffs who challenged Georgia law requiring such onerous measures as proving you are who you say you are with an ID (even a free one paid for by the State if you somehow managed to live your life in America without possessing some sort of photo ID), it is the equivalent of a poll tax and worse, and therefore in violation of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, of the Equal Protection Clause, of the Fourteenth Amendment, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and of the Georgia Constitution.

A photo ID?

Have we become so sensitive (senseless?) that merely requiring voters to show a confirming photo to vote could be thought so burdensome and discriminatory as to invoke monumental claims of constitutional and legislative infringements? Or are we not prepared to deal with the fact that voter fraud might be occurring right here in the good ole U.S. of A.

Well, there is still some common sense afoot in the common law and the Court of Appeals ruled that the minimal burden imposed by the voter-photo law was far outweighed by the state’s interest in “protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.’”

Here’s the bottom line: “The ordinary burdens of producing a photo identification to vote, which the Supreme Court described as ‘arising from life’s vagaries,’ do not ‘raise any question about the constitutionality of’ the Georgia statute.” Accordingly, voters in Georgia, as in Indiana (and 5 other states), will have to reach into their wallet for their picture before they cast their ballots. Hopefully, they will survive the trauma.

But will the nation survive this negative assault on our electoral process? Is this a portrait of an empire in decline entering the darkroom of disenfranchisment? Or merely a snapshot that has exposed the voter to the brutal truth that the camera doesn’t lie, even if some voters do.

Show ‘em a picture already!

With so many hotly contested elections and legal challenges ending in photo finishes, maybe we should all just smile and say “cheese” before we poke a few chads or pull the lever.

That’s how I vote on this one.

For all the Gym-rats out there who prefer the health club to the basement or your building's own work-out room, rider beware.

Plaintiff Stuart Sugarman is a Spin Class enthusiast. His indoor cycling regimen brought him regularly to the Equinox Gym in the Wall Street area downtown. For the uninitiated, and if we take Mr. Sugarman at his word, spinners customarily like to cheer and shout during the class to pump up their psyche along with their sprocket. It was during one of these classes that Sugarman’s cheering got under the skin of fellow spinner Christopher Carter. Apparently, Mr. Carter was either having a bad day or he thought it bad form by the whooping Mr. Sugarman to disturb his peddling peace.

Carter first took it directly to Sugarman by yelling and cursing at him. When that diplomatic approach failed to dampen Sugarman’s enthusiasm, Carter dismounted and complained to the instructor about the boisterous biker. The instructor declined to intervene. This was followed by more yelling and cursing by Carter (who must have thought the first round of peace talks was too insubstantial to be effective), which was followed by even more enthusiastic cheering and shouting by Sugarman. Having apparently concluded that their conflict was at a stalemate, Carter “got off his bike again and ‘picked up the front of plaintiff’s cycle with plaintiff upon the unit and pushed him into the wall of the classroom leaving a hole in the sheetrock,’” injuring Sugarman’s back and neck and leaving him prone in the no-spin zone.

Sugarman sued and filed criminal charges against Carter. In the criminal case, Carter coasted and beat the rap. His civil case for damages is still pending. The same can no longer be said about the case of negligence against the Equinox Health Club.

Equinox moved for summary judgment to dismiss Sugarman’s case, claiming, among other things, that Equinox could not be held responsible for Carter’s violent outburst. Sugarman opposed. According to Sugarman the club failed to intercede at the argument stage and failed to remove Carter when he showed aggressive tendencies just before his “spin rage” occurred. It also failed to call the cops or EMS and was otherwise negligent in the way it ran the club, as demonstrated by Carter’s cycle sneak attack. But there in lies the rub.

In an unusually lengthy and involved decision, the court dismissed the case against Equinox. In order to hold the club responsible for Carter’s assault, it had to have notice that he had criminal tendencies, a pattern of criminal behavior or what the court considered a clue that an attack was imminent. The problem with making such a finding, however, was that plaintiff himself never feared for his safety or was ever intimidated by Carter, as demonstrated by Sugarman’s remonstrative good cheer in response to Carter’s vituperations. As the court observed, “Plaintiff’s own testimony fails to establish that even plaintiff foresaw the alleged assault by Mr. Carter.” So how could the club be responsible?

The court went on to find that “verbal tirades” don’t put the club on notice of a potential physical assault, that “heated words” without more don’t put the club on notice and that the exchange of jeers for cheers never rose to the level of dispute or argument, which might have created liability for the gym. According to the court, nothing that happened between Sugarman and Carter gave warning of the impending attack (which is a stretch in New York, since merely looking at someone the wrong way can get you killed). Under the circumstances, Equinox was not liable.

As for not calling the police or EMS at Sugarman’s request, the court observed the general rule that, “from time immemorial our courts have held that there is no legal responsibility to do so.” Well that’s a relief.

And as for the claim that Equinox negligently hired an instructor who failed to intervene before words turned to action, the same lack of notice that these exchanges were about to erupt into violence applies to the instructor, which means Equinox is off the hook on this theory as well.

No matter how you spin this case, Sugarman is not left with much to shout about. We’ll see if Carter steers clear of liability when he rides into court, or whether the ebullient Mr. Surgarman will finally get to salute Carter with a Bronx Cheer of victory.