Opinion Summaries: Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals September 5, 2008

From: Findlaw Case Summaries September 5, 2008.

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE, TAX LAW

"In cases alleging violations of due process and equal protection stemming from defendant county's foreclosure of plaintiffs' properties as a result of unpaid property taxes, grant of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) due process does not require actual notice of foreclosure; 2) defendants' actions were reasonably calculated under the circumstances to provide notice of foreclosure; 3) plaintiffs were not entitled to additional notice of default judgment where the previous notice of foreclosure met the requirements of due process; 4) defendants did not violate plaintiffs' rights to due process and equal protection of the laws by refusing to accept redemption after default judgment was entered or refusing to grant plaintiffs a share in the surplus from a tax sale; and 5) there is no merit in plaintiffs' claim that reasonable restrictions on the method of payment of long overdue taxes, such as requiring payment by cash, money order, or certified check, violate due process."

CONTRACTS, CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW, GOVERNMENT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW

Pachter v. Bernard Hodes Group, No. 063344

"In a claim brought by former employee-plaintiff challenging legality of deductions under Article 6 section 193 of the New York Labor law taken by employer-defendant, decision in favor of plaintiff is reversed and remanded after answers by New York Court of Appeals to certified questions resolved the case, where: 1) because New York Labor Law Article 6, section 193 includes executives unless otherwise excluded, plaintiff is covered; however, 2) plaintiff's cause of action fails because it is undisputed that plaintiff knowingly acquiesced over a period of years to the approach used by defendant when calculating her commissions, conduct that constituted an implied agreement between parties; and 3) as an implied agreement does not violate "section 193 nor any other provision of article 6 of the Labor Law," the deductions in question did not violate that provision."