Judge Vyskocil

Subscribe to Judge Vyskocil via RSS

On Wednesday, Judge Vyskocil denied a request by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for a TRO enjoining the enforcement of the subpoena issued to Mark F. Pomerantz by Congressman Jim Jordan in his role as Chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary. We previously covered DA Bragg’s TRO and Complaint here.

Before addressing the merits of the TRO request, Judge Vyskocil faulted DA Bragg for filing the order to show cause for the TRO without notice to Defendants and before serving them with the Complaint. She characterized the first 35 pages of the Complaint as “nothing short of a public relations tirade against former President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump,” before concluding “that this action is merely a motion to quash a subpoena dressed up as a lawsuit.” Continue Reading Judge Vyskocil Denies DA Bragg’s Request to Enjoin Pomerantz’s Testimony, but Second Circuit Grants Stay Pending Appeal

Today, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg filed a complaint and motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction seeking to quash a subpoena that was served by a Congressional committee on former Special ADA Mark Pomerantz. The subpoena seeks testimony about the New York State criminal prosecution and investigation of former President Trump. Judge Vyskocil declined to issue a TRO, but ordered expedited briefing and set a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion for next week.

The subpoena target, Mr. Pomerantz, participated in the Manhattan DA’s investigation of former President Donald Trump and his businesses. Congressman Jim Jordan served the subpoena in his capacity as Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and the subpoena seeks a deposition of Mr. Pomerantz on April 20.

DA Bragg’s Complaint argues that Mr. Jordan is seeking “highly sensitive and confidential local prosecutorial information that belongs to the Office of the District Attorney and the People of New York” and that “[b]asic principles of federalism and common sense, as well as binding Supreme Court precedent” forbid such a request from Congress, which has no authority to supervise state criminal prosecutions: Continue Reading Judge Vyskocil Schedules Hearing Next Week in Challenge to Congressional Subpoena for Testimony About Manhattan DA’s Trump Investigation

In an opinion Wednesday, Judge Vyskocil dismissed, on personal jurisdiction grounds, a trademark case against various websites selling counterfeit American Girl products from China. Judge Vyskocil found that American Girl could not meet its burden to show conduct directed at New York. The court was “unconvinced that a Defendant simply owning a website that is ‘accessible’ from New York is enough to find that it transacts business here,” where it appeared that the websites deliberately avoided doing business in the state:
Continue Reading Judge Vyskocil: Online Seller of Knock-Off American Girl Products Cannot Be Sued in New York Because Of Apparent Policy Against U.S. Sales

In an opinion today, Judge Vyskocil granted Fox News’s motion to dismiss a defamation claim centered on an episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight. In the episode, Carlson was responding to President Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen having pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations for arranging to pay settlements to two women alleged to have had affairs with Trump. Carlson was critical of media suggestions that Trump should be impeached or held criminally responsible for the payments:

Two women approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn’t give them money. Now, that sounds like a classic case of extortion. Yet, for whatever reason, Trump caves to it, and he directs Michael Cohen to pay the ransom. Now, more than two years later, Trump is a felon for doing this. It doesn’t seem to make any sense.

Judge Vyskocil ruled that, in context, this was not a literal accusation of extortion, but intended to frame the debate in the guest commentary segment that followed:
Continue Reading Judge Vyskocil: Tucker Carlson’s “Extortion” Jab Was Hyperbole, Not Defamation

In an opinion Monday, Judge Vyskocil denied a motion to force a partnership dispute over a medical practice to be arbitrated in a Jewish court (referred to in the opinion as either a “beis din” or “beth din”).  The plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were “religiously bound to bring their dispute in the first instance to a Beis Din” but were only pursing their claims in the district court “until such time as Defendants comply with the hazmanah,” the equivalent of a summons.

The defendants agreed that the parties were bound to bring their case before a Jewish court, but what has kept the case in the Southern District was the parties’ inability to agree as to which Jewish court should hear the case.  Absent consensus on that point, Judge Vyskocil ruled, there was no binding arbitration agreement under New York law:
Continue Reading Judge Vyskocil: New York Law, Not Jewish Law, Governs Whether Parties Agreed to Resolve Their Dispute Before Jewish Court

In an opinion this morning, Judge Vyskocil denied an application for a TRO by a Queens Republican who sought to have her name on the ballot for the June 23 primary.  The plaintiff’s complaint was focused on the fact that, due to the spread of COVID-19, New York had reduced the number of days available to gather enough signatures to appear on the ballot.

Judge Vyskocil denied the application because (among other reasons) she found that the State’s interest in controlling COVID-19 met the standard of “reasonable and nondiscriminatory” necessary to justify the shorter time period, particularly given that the State also correspondingly reduced the number of signatures required:
Continue Reading Judge Vyskocil Denies Congressional Candidate TRO Arising from Reduction in Number of Days to Gather Signatures to Appear on Ballot