2013 \u2013 present<\/p>\n
Federal Judicial Service:<\/strong><\/p>\n Education:<\/strong><\/p>\n Professional Career:<\/strong><\/p>\n Noteworthy Cases:<\/strong><\/p>\n Kearns v. Cuomo<\/em>, No. 1:19-CV-00902:<\/p>\n In 2019, the State of New York enacted the New York State Driver\u2019s License and Privacy Act, commonly known as the \u201cGreen Light Law,\u201d which amended the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law to expressly state that proof of lawful presence in the United States is not required to obtain a standard New York State driver\u2019s license and to prohibit the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles from inquiring about an applicant\u2019s citizenship or immigration status in connection with the issuance of such a license.\u00a0 The elected County Clerk of Erie County sued several state officials, contending that the Green Light Law was preempted by federal immigration law.\u00a0 Judge Wolford dismissed the case for lack of standing, concluding that the plaintiff failed to allege a legally cognizable injury, as opposed to mere disagreement with the policies underlying the Green Light Law.\u00a0 The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal on appeal.<\/p>\n Kearns v. Cuomo<\/em>, 415 F.\u00a0Supp.\u00a03d 319 (W.D.N.Y. 2019), aff\u2019d<\/em>, 981 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 2020). <\/p>\n United States v. Morgan, et al.<\/em>, No. 1:18-CR-00108:<\/p>\n Several prominent figures in the local real estate industry were charged with a scheme spanning over a decade to defraud financial institutions and government-sponsored enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in connection with the financing of multi-family residential apartment properties, as well as a related insurance fraud scheme spanning a more limited time period.\u00a0 The related discovery was voluminous and caused significant case management issues for the government from the outset.\u00a0 Eventually, four defendants moved to dismiss the 114\u2011count superseding indictment on speedy trial grounds, due to the government\u2019s failure to timely comply with its discovery obligations.\u00a0 After a multi\u2011day evidentiary hearing, Judge Wolford concluded that while the defendants\u2019 constitutional rights to a speedy trial had not been violated, the government\u2019s failure to meet court\u2011imposed deadlines had caused the statutory speedy trial clock to expire, requiring dismissal of the superseding indictment, albeit without prejudice. \u00a0The government filed a new indictment and while motions to dismiss with prejudice were pending and with an evidentiary hearing scheduled to evaluate the defendants\u2019 claims that the government had acted in bad faith, the case was resolved.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\nhttps:\/\/casetext.com\/case\/kearns-v-cuomo-1<\/a><\/p>\n
\n