New York Law School’s Digital Commons@NYLS

https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/community_news/1093/thumbnail.jp

Association, Student Bar

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
NYLS Community News History & Archives 
Spring 2024 
Humans of NYLS: Spring 2024 Collection 
Student Bar Association 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/community_news 
Since 1891
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
Humans of NYLS
Meet a few of the students who make up  
NYLS’s vibrant community.
Throughout the year, the NYLS Student Bar Association highlights the achievements 
and contributions of members of the student body, who are nominated by their 
peers, with the “Humans of NYLS” series. Interested in meeting more Humans of 
NYLS? Visit news.nyls.edu to read highlights of more of our students.
NYLS Student Bar Association  •  Published Spring 2024
Find more  
NYLS stories at  
news.nyls.edu.
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
DARRYL BOBB ’24 EVENING
Darryl Bobb ’24 Evening is a 4L evening 
student with a wide range of interests. 
He’s not just passionate about law but 
also plays basketball, is a fashion design 
enthusiast, a film buff, a concert lover, an 
avid reader, and a restaurant and museum 
explorer. Beyond his hobbies, Bobb’s 
deeply involved in the NYLS community. 
He’s the Black Law Students Association 
(BLSA) Evening Vice President, a student 
intern in the PTO Trademark Clinic, a 
teaching assistant for Professor Anthony 
Iliakostas’s Entertainment Law class, the 
Development and Communications Editor 
for the ABA Family Law Quarterly Journal, 
and an affiliate with both the Tricarico 
Institute for the Business of Law and In-
House Counsel and the Innovation Center 
for Law and Technology.
With his diverse interests and dedication, 
he is shaping a promising future in the 
legal field while bringing his vibrant 
personality to every endeavor.
JON FINKEL ’25 EVENING
Jon Finkel ’25 Evening is a 3L evening 
student. He loves to travel and has traveled 
to 45 states and 41 countries. As an 
undergraduate in college, he founded a 
student-led film society and led weekly 
trivia nights at a student union. In fact, 
Finkel still loves watching movies and 
going to trivia nights in NYC!
After law school, Finkel wants to apply 
his business immigration law experience 
from his time as a paralegal in adjacent 
pathways and contexts, including human 
resources (HR) operations, employment 
law, and I-9 compliance. He really enjoyed 
providing onsite immigration support to a 
large multinational corporation because he 
was exposed to a diverse array of company 
stakeholders. In fact, he will soon begin a 
new HR operations role with a specific focus 
on immigration law, where he hopes to 
apply the legal skills he’s developed at NYLS.
JAKE FINKELSTEIN ’25
Jake Finkelstein ’25 is a 2L day student. 
He grew up in Port Washington, New 
York, and graduated from the University of 
Delaware with a double major in marketing 
and management. Prior to attending 
NYLS, Finkelstein worked as a marketing 
associate at KISS Products. In the summer 
of 2023, Finkelstein interned for Hon. 
Joel H. Slomsky in the U.S. District Court 
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 
where he had the opportunity to draft legal 
opinions and observe court proceedings. 
Finkelstein is currently the Junior Staff Editor 
for the New York Law School Law Review, 
a student intern in the Nonprofit and Small 
Business Clinic, a teaching assistant for 
Property and Contracts, and a member of 
the Jewish Law Student Association. This 
summer, he will be joining Proskauer Rose 
LLP as a summer associate.
Outside of law school, Jake enjoys trying 
new restaurants, listening to music, and 
watching the Mets, Knicks, and Giants. 
CONOR GALLAGHER ’27 
EVENING
Conor Gallagher ’27 Evening is a 1L 
evening student at NYLS. He grew up in 
Beaufort, South Carolina, before moving to 
Columbia to attend the University of South 
Carolina as a theater major. Gallagher 
appeared in many shows while in college 
and, in his senior year, he directed By 
the Bog of Cats, written by Marina Carr. 
During college, he also spent a semester 
living abroad in Dublin, Ireland, where 
he attended the Gaiety School of Acting. 
After graduating, Gallagher moved to New 
York with hopes of becoming an actor. 
Since moving, he has worked in an escape 
room, the food and beverage industry, 
the education field, aviation staffing and 
recruiting, and most extensively, in office 
staff roles for a few different law firms. 
Gallagher has always been interested in 
the law and had lots of exposure to the 
field, coming from a family of attorneys.
As someone who has always been 
invested in the arts and storytelling, 
Gallagher aims to work in entertainment or 
intellectual property law after law school, in 
a field that helps facilitate creativity.
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
KRISTEN GRENNAN ’26 
EVENING
Kristen Grennan ’26 Evening is a 
2L evening student who works full 
time at the New York City Mayor’s 
Public Engagement Unit as Director of 
Strategic Communications. In this role, 
she translates government policies into 
digestible language for the public so that 
all New Yorkers can fully realize their rights 
and the benefits they deserve. Grennan 
hopes to use her law degree to further 
advocate for systemic change across 
multiple levels of government.
After law school, she plans to spend a few 
years clerking for a judge and working in 
the private sector before pivoting back to 
public service. There, she hopes to work 
within the intersection of law, advocacy, 
and communications.
MICHELLE GUERRERO ’25 
EVENING
Michelle Guerrero ’25 Evening is a 3L 
evening student who is passionate about 
the intersection of law and entertainment. 
She grew up in the vibrant landscapes of 
Ecuador before moving to the United States 
at the age of 17. She received her bachelor’s 
degree from Central Connecticut State 
University, where she pursued a major in 
video production and public relations.
After college, Guerrero worked as a 
business immigration paralegal at Fragomen 
in New York City and Mayer Brown in 
Washington, D.C. After a rewarding, seven-
year career in immigration, Guerrero is now 
gearing up for a new chapter in the realm of 
intellectual property.
An avid lover of the arts, Guerrero considers 
herself a creative spirit. In her free time, she 
loves exploring, capturing the perfect image, 
going to museums, and spending quality 
time with friends and family.
NICOLE HELLER ’24
Nicole Heller ’24 is a 3L day student who 
was born and raised in Quito, Ecuador. 
At the age of 18, she had no choice 
but to leave her country behind as it 
became unsafe for her. She moved to 
the United Kingdom, where she pursued 
her undergraduate degree. Ecuador’s 
escalating crime rates made it unsafe for 
her to return home, so, five years ago, 
she relocated to the United States as an 
international student to pursue a master’s 
degree and later, a law degree.
Before law school, Heller joined the 
nonprofit Safe Passage Project to help 
immigrants stay in the United States. 
Throughout her time at NYLS, she 
continued to support Safe Passage Project, 
and she remains committed to advocating 
for immigrants’ rights in the United States.
ALEXANDRA HOUGH ’24 
EVENING
Alexandra Hough ’24 Evening is a 4L 
evening student. She currently works as 
a legal coordinator at the leading private 
lender in the northeast for providing 
working capital to staffing companies. 
Previously, she worked in the commercial 
lending division of a mid-size real 
estate law firm. As an undergraduate 
at the University of Delaware, Hough 
concentrated her studies in media 
communications and journalism and began 
her career doing editorial work in celebrity 
and entertainment news.
After law school, Hough plans to continue 
working in-house as a transactional 
attorney and ultimately aspires to be barred 
and practice law in both New Jersey and 
New York.
JENNIFER HUTZ ’26 
EVENING
Jennifer Hutz ’26 Evening is a 2L 
evening student. She is originally from 
North Carolina, but has lived in Brooklyn 
for over 20 years. She graduated from 
the University of North Carolina at Chapel 
Hill with a major in studio art. Hutz started 
her career in New York as a production 
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
assistant and then producer for top celebrity 
photographers, producing photo shoots for 
magazines including Vanity Fair, GQ, and 
Rolling Stone. After working as the publicist 
liaison for Exclusive by Getty Images, she 
opened her own commercial photographer 
repping agency, Jennifer Hutz Inc., in 2010. 
When she is not working with her artists 
or studying, she is a grassroots organizer 
with Swing Left, where she trains electoral 
volunteers on the most effective ways to 
get people to vote. She also co-leads a 
weekly food pantry out of her neighborhood 
bar, Union Pool.
After law school, Hutz wants to help 
people, either by protecting artists in 
business and copyright issues or working 
to expand voting rights to protect 
democracy or — as she does now — both.
MEREDITH INNOCENT ’25
Meredith Innocent ’25 is a 2L day 
student. She was born and partly raised 
in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Innocent speaks 
Haitian Creole fluently and understands 
French. Her favorite part of being Haitian 
is that Haitian people are resilient. She 
attended CUNY York College, where she 
studied political science with a minor in 
international relations. Innocent graduated 
in the fall of 2020 ahead of her class and 
used the extra time before law school 
to take a gap year where she worked at 
Fragomen, a business immigration firm.
After law school, her goal is to work for 
a medium-sized immigration firm doing 
business immigration and humanitarian 
immigration pro bono.
RACE JOHNSON ’26
Race Johnson ’26 is a 1L in the Day 
Division at New York Law School. He 
graduated from Purdue University in West 
Lafayette, Indiana in 2017 with a degree in 
economics. During college, he also played 
football. Johnson has worked as a real 
estate agent, a consultant in the Alliance 
of American Football (AAF) for the Atlanta 
Legends, in operations in college athletic 
fundraising for the John Purdue Club, and as 
a fitness coach for a tech start-up, Future.
Following law school, Johnson plans to 
pursue a career in international business.
CHLOE LEVINE ’26
Chloe Levine ’26 is a 1L day student. She 
grew up in Long Island, New York, and 
graduated from Penn State in May 2022 
where she majored in marketing. Prior to 
starting at the Law School, Levine took a 
gap year to work as a paralegal at Slater 
Slater Schulman, LLP, a full-service law firm 
that represents survivors of catastrophic 
and traumatic events. She is interested in 
practicing financial law and, after law school, 
she aspires to become a partner in a law 
firm that specializes in the practice area.
KIKI LIN ’24
Kiki Lin ’24 is a 3L day student, interested 
in practicing immigration and humanitarian 
law. She was born and raised in Indiana 
and graduated from Indiana University in 
2020 with a B.A. in political science.
After college, Lin went into the immigration 
and refugee advocacy field and started 
working at organizations that help migrants 
return to their employment fields in the 
United States. During the day, she is a law 
clerk at a local immigration law firm, and 
she continues her immigration advocacy 
work at Upwardly Global. She is currently 
enrolled in the NYLS Nonprofit and Small 
Business Clinic. 
In her spare time, she enjoys painting, 
taking care of plants, writing poetry, and 
photography. After law school, Lin plans to 
practice immigration and humanitarian law, 
and eventually open her own coffee shop.
BENJAMIN NEWMAN ’24 
EVENING
Benjamin Newman ’24 Evening is a 4L 
evening student. As an undergraduate 
at Colgate University, Newman majored 
in English with an emphasis in creative 
writing and minored in economics. He 
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
started his post-college career in Los 
Angeles as a production assistant for the 
show Divorce Court, then moved to a 
talent agency, assisting talent agents in 
representing actors and writers.
While completing his legal education at 
NYLS, Newman worked as a paralegal in 
residential real estate. After graduating this 
May, his goal is to continue learning as he 
begins his legal career.
ELISABETH PEARSON ’24
Elisabeth Pearson ’24 is a 3L day student. 
She is from New York City and attended 
George Washington University, where 
she graduated magna cum laude. At New 
York Law School, she is affiliated with the 
Tricarico Institute for the Business of Law 
and In-House Counsel and is also a member 
of the Legal Association for Women. Last 
summer, she interned for the general 
counsel at Union Square Hospitality Group, 
where she handled matters regarding 
commercial leases, vendor agreements, 
and employment law. She is currently a 
student intern with the Nonprofit and Small 
Business Clinic. Outside of her legal career, 
Pearson loves to cook, try new restaurants, 
and the outdoors.
After law school, Pearson wants to pursue 
a legal career in commercial real estate in 
New York City.
SARA PONCE ’26 EVENING
Sara Ponce ’26 Evening is a 2L evening 
student. She was born in Mexico City 
and raised in Oxford, Connecticut, after 
moving to the United States in 2001. She 
earned a bachelor’s degree in finance 
from the University of Connecticut, where 
she graduated with honors in 2018. After 
graduation, Ponce began her career at 
Moody’s Investors Service where she 
is currently a lead ratings associate on 
the Project Finance and Infrastructure 
team. At Moody’s, she is involved in the 
Moody’s Cyber Working Group, Moody’s 
Recruitment and Retention Council, 
Latinx Business Resource Group, and Big 
Brothers Big Sisters.
Ponce is passionate about prison reform 
and is a volunteer for the Petey Greene 
Program. Before needing to switch to 
virtual tutoring during COVID, she tutored 
individuals in person at Rikers Island.
In 2018, Ponce founded Pretty & Petite, a 
petite clothing brand focused on providing 
a convenient, empowering shopping 
experience and community for petite 
women like herself.
KENNY SANTOS ’27 
EVENING
Kenny Santos ’27 Evening is a 1L evening 
student. He is a native New Yorker with 
proud Latin and Caribbean roots. Outside 
of law school, he is a senior paralegal at 
a personal injury and litigation firm and 
a part-time private investigator. Prior to 
NYLS, Santos was a business student at 
Pace University and a psychology student 
at NYU, where he had life-changing 
experiences while studying abroad and 
volunteering in Shanghai, China.
Santos spends his free time as an amateur 
anthropologist, learning from and about 
the many cultures and subcultures of the 
city. His time amongst fellow investigators, 
hackers, techies, and philosophers has led 
him to pursue the niche and emerging field 
of cybersecurity law.


English

Humans of NYLS: Spring 2024 Collection

Andrews, Penelope

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Other Publications Faculty Scholarship 
7-15-2024 
Gender Apartheid: Oppression of Women Should Be Made a 
Crime Against Humanity – Feminist Academic Explains Why 
Penelope Andrews 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_other_pubs 
 	
			  !"# $%&#'#( $#)*!# '#'+% "),-./0123454678429:;<=%>" ,		?@A@B	C?@;.
DEFGHIJKJFLIMNOGJLFMPJEHQRROEEFLKSFMNFGTOLFMPJEQOLUMNHKVQWHXYEQGZPJLGJEMQ[OUJL\]̂ EJFLHJLUHVIHSNHEH_̀LUPHM\OLVF̂HFLMHELJMFQLJVMEHJMFHIYQEMNHREFGHIQYKHLQRFUH\MQEMOEH\JTJEMNHFUJLUYQERHUUFIJTTHJEJLRHI\MNHEHFILaMJMEHJMPITHRFYFRMQREFGHIJKJFLIMNOGJLFMP_bNJMVJR̂FILQSWHFLKEHGHUFHU_bNHcLMHELJMFQLJVdJSDQGGFIIFQL\J]eHfTHEMWQUP\NJIIOWGFMMHUUEJYMJEMFRVHIYQEJMEHJMPMQMNH]eaI[FfMNDQGGFMMHH_bNFIFIMNHGJFLYQEOGYQERQLIFUHEFLKVHKJVgOHIMFQLIFLMNH]ehHLHEJVÌIHGWVP_bNHFLMHLMFQLFIMQKFiHRQOLMEFHIGQEHVHKJVMQQVIMQNQVUJRRQOLMJWVHMNQIHSNQRQGGFMREFGHIJKJFLIMNOGJLFMP_cMFIHfTHRMHUMNJMMNHMEHJMPTEQRHIISFVRQLRVOUHFLjRMQWHEklkm_bNHLHSMEHJMPGJPFLRVOUHITHRFJVTEQMHRMFQLYQESQGHL_
 
.@.	
.	
9	no	pp;.	45478  	1q r,st1u
8
 	


	
	


			  	 	 !"# !$" 


 %

 !&' 
(
)*



 +,-./01,231.45-167849,:0;98<=14>-5?-5.-@-198,4.AB0;5.90-1->4?9?6?9,/98,68,C@,.@10@;@ 
		DEF(
(E
	
	(

GH GI
%	JKLMN
OP
L(	 %FF 	
FF (	
O 		

 (	

	
FQRST(U

%
 	
R
E

V(	
(

			E



(
V
 	

	 !"""#$"%&'((()*+,-./*0123,*425.426*7/.42894*01.326:7/9;++4,26*<156+/*+6952./=.7>/.2*52+?+9452@692*53>/*-+;="ABC"D!"CC"E""FGH(AD!BC!!"DAFGI'J'KL"DMENOM'OPOQ!"'D(RSTUVWVXVSYVXZ[\[YV]Ŵ_YY_Ẁ[aSba]VSc[_SXd̂Ue[cÛdfY[_SXYfVgeaRŶSdagŜYVUS_ŶaS_eahêd_ŶaS[_UVWUV_ŶSddVSXVUih_[VX_T_UYfV̂Xj
 JAOPOQ(FG$HCJk"AC"'""!JYfVYaae[YfV̂SYVUS_ŶaS_eWa]]RŜY\f_[_Y̂Y[X̂[Ta[_ebVUVSaYWUV_YVXYaUV[TaSXYa]_[[Z[Y_YVi[TaS[aUVXdVSXVUaTTUV[[̂aSjlf̂[[\[YV]_ŶW_SXTe_SSVX_[[_ReYaSba]VSc[ÛdfY[̂[gaRSX_ŶaS_eYaYfVl_êh_Sc[m̂[̂aSag[Y_YV_SX[aŴVY\_SX̂Y]R[YhVS_]VXZXVĝSVXZ_SXTUa[WÛhVX̂SaRUdeah_eSaU][Z[aYf_YbVW_SUV[TaSX_TTUaTÛ_YVe\jno
pqrs	tu
v!!A!JDw!x'AC"Hy
z{|}~||}|}z|~|
 	


 	
 	
			 		!	"			#$%&"	
	'()*+,-(./,01234-56)789(:,65*(6)8()9)5:81;8-)(<5812(6,0:1-=>8?-,0*(814,-(59:?,<56=+,+(:15:12-((*(6)*(8"
	
	&
	 	"	#
				@	A"		


A	#
BCDCE	F
%G%HIJKLMNOPQRQNSJQOTORJLMNUQVMORWMTPMUSXSUJLMQPYQZMTS[ZM\QNJQV]STP]̂U\Q\OU]_XUM]MTJSTPR̂ĴUM_JOLOZPXMUXMJUSJOU]JOSNNÔTJROUJLMJOJSZQJ̀ORNUQVM]NOVVQJJMP[̀]̀]JMVSJQaMPOXXUM]]QOTYLQNLJLMNUQVMORWMTPMUXMU]MN̂JQOTSZOTMNSTTOJSTPPOM]TOJNSXĴUMb 	


Gender Apartheid: Oppression of Women Should Be Made a Crime Against Humanity – Feminist Academic Explains Why

https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/community_news/1103/thumbnail.jp

Law School, New York

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
NYLS Community News History & Archives 
8-26-2024 
Professor Ross Sandler Appointed as Inaugural Samuel Seabury 
Professor of Law 
New York Law School 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/community_news 
Since 1891
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
New York Law School Dean and President 
Anthony Crowell is proud to announce that 
Professor Ross Sandler, has been appointed as 
the inaugural Samuel Seabury Professor of Law. 
Professor Sandler has been an indispensable 
part of the New York Law School faculty and 
academic community for three decades. He has 
made New York Law School and the Center for 
New York City Law a high-profile and influential 
voice in New York’s civic, legal, political, and 
public integrity communities.
Recruiting Professor Sandler in 1993 from Jones Day where he 
was a partner, was for New York Law School, a coup that has 
benefited the school in countless ways. Professor Sandler’s 
establishment of the Center for New York City Law in 1994 
was a consequential moment in our school’s history. The 
Center’s publications, CityLaw and CityLand, have become 
must reads for lawyers and professionals who work within and 
with city government. The Center has provided unmatched 
in-depth analysis of legal and policy activity that is vital to the 
development and functioning of the city, and which would 
otherwise have been largely out-of-view for the public The 
publications have also been essential learning opportunities for 
New York Law School students, many of whom have used the 
Center as a launching pad for successful careers in government 
at the local, state, and federal levels. 
The Center for New York City Law’s signature CityLaw Breakfasts 
have been a powerful civic forum and meeting place and have 
drawn the most important, high-level, and influential leaders to 
serve as keynote speakers. Speakers have included mayors, city 
commissioners from a wide selection of agencies, federal law 
enforcement leaders, citywide elected officials, state elected 
officials, and leaders from sectors that directly influence city 
government and its ability to serve New Yorkers.
Professor Sandler had an extraordinary career in government 
and legal practice. He served as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. 
Attorney’s Office in Manhattan. As an Assistant U.S. Attorney, he 
was chief of the Environmental Enforcement Unit and worked on 
the cutting edge of newly emerging environmental law. Later, in 
the mid-1970s, as senior staff attorney at the Natural Resources 
Defense Council, he and NYLS Trustee Professor of Law Emeritus 
David Schoenbrod headed the Urban Environmental Unit, winning 
a pivotal Clean Air Act case. Professor Sandler joined New York 
City’s government in 1981 when Mayor Edward I. Koch appointed 
him to the newly created position of Special Advisor to the Mayor 
for Public Transportation. In that position Professor Sandler’s 
environmental law experience helped revitalize the city’s mass 
transit system.
In 1986, at the height of the Parking Violations Bureau scandals, 
Mayor Edward I. Koch appointed Professor Sandler Commissioner 
of the Department of Transportation. As commissioner, Professor 
Sandler reorganized and restored integrity to the department, 
and established a program of maintenance and repair of the city’s 
bridges that is still in place today. 
Professor Sandler is the author of numerous publications on 
environmental law, transportation, and government issues. In 
2003, Yale University Press released his book, Democracy by 
Decree: What Happens When Courts Run Government, written 
with Professor Schoenbrod. His book, Jumpstart: Torts: Reading 
and Understanding Tort Cases, was published by Wolters Kluwer 
in 2012. Most importantly, Professor Sandler’s leadership of the 
Center for New York City Law reinforced New York Law School’s 
own legacy of alumni and faculty shaping the city and state, from 
alumni like Samuel Seabury and the three mayors who were in 
its first classes, to the one third of the Class of 2023 who have 
entered government and public interest careers. Our reputation 
with government agencies as a pipeline into public service has 
been cemented thanks in large part to Professor Sandler’s work.
Professor Sandler has also been a civic leader outside of NYLS, 
including serving as President of the City Club of New York. The 
City Club, one of the oldest civic organizations in New York, had 
Professor Ross Sandler  
Appointed as Inaugural Samuel 
Seabury Professor of Law 
New York Law School  •  Published  August 26, 2024
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
acted as a critical partner to Samuel Seabury’s efforts to reform 
New York City government. This history adds another connection 
between Samuel Seabury’s life and Professor Sandler’s work.
New York Law School is proud to establish this new 
Professorship in honor of Samuel Seabury, an 1893 graduate. 
Samuel Seabury is one of our earliest and most historically 
influential graduates known for his relentless fight in the first half 
of the 20th Century against deep-rooted corruption in New York 
City and State government and the judiciary. Among Seabury’s 
many distinguished and high-level roles, he served as President 
of the New York State Bar Association, judge on the New York 
State Court of Appeals, and Democratic Nominee for Governor in 
1916. He was known as a progressive reformer in New York City, 
fighting against the corruption of Tammany Hall. In 1932 Seabury 
served as the legal counsel for the Hofstadter Committee, a joint 
state legislative initiative charged with investigating corruption 
in New York City. The committee exposed mass corruption 
throughout the city’s judicial and law enforcement systems, 
eventually leading to the resignation of Mayor Jimmy Walker in 
1932 (himself a member of the NYLS Class of 1904). Seabury 
has rightfully been held up as one of the earliest and most 
successful reformers who had a transforming effect on local 
government integrity.
Professor Sandler, as the Samuel Seabury Professor of Law, 
will continue to teach, serve as the Founding Director of the 
Center for New York City Law, continue to shape strategy for the 
Center, host the CityLaw Breakfasts, and write scholarship and 
commentaries in the Center’s publications. In honor of Professor 
Sandler and his wife Alice M. Sandler, the Center for New 
York City Law will establish an annual Samuel Seabury Lecture 
focused on public integrity. In May of 2024 Paul and Chandler 
Tagliabue and Arthur and Diane Abbey established the Ross 
Sandler and Alice M. Sandler Fellowship Fund to support current 
New York Law School students working for government. We are 
grateful for Professor Sandler’s leadership and congratulate him 
on this well-deserved appointment.
Find more NYLS stories at news.nyls.edu.


Professor Ross Sandler Appointed as Inaugural Samuel Seabury Professor of Law

Wice, Jeffrey M.

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Redistricting Roundtable Updates NY Elections, Census, and Redistricting Institute 
10-21-2024 
October 21 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update 
Jeffrey M. Wice 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates 
 
 
 
 
 
N.Y. ELECTIONS, CENSUS & REDISTRICTING UPDATE 
 
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT LITIGATION 
 
Erie County: Young v. Town of Cheektowaga 
 
In March, one-time Town Board candidate Kenneth Young filed a lawsuit against the 
Town of Cheektowaga, alleging racially polarized voting and violations of the New 
York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) in the Cheektowaga Town Board elections. Young 
claims that minorities cannot elect candidates of their choice under the town’s current 
at-large voting method and should adopt a ward voting system. 
 
On October 18th, the Town of Cheektowaga filed a motion to strike and a 
memorandum (“memo”) in support of this motion. The memo argues that the court 
should strike Young’s new evidence and arguments that were offered for the first 
time on reply. The memo also states that Young’s evidence and arguments 
regarding the Town’s 1952 ward efforts improperly supplement his initial moving 
papers. Lastly, that none of the exhibits and evidence regarding the Town’s August 
2024 ward efforts respond to any arguments made by the Town (which the reply was 
meant to do). The town’s counsel, Daniel Spitzer also submitted an affirmation in 
support of the motion to strike. 
 
Also on October 18th, Gary Borek (counsel for Young) submitted an affirmation in 
opposition to the application of amici. This application related to the New York 
Attorney General’s memo from September 27th. This memo was filed in opposition 
to the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. Nassau County and the 
towns of Newburgh and Mount Pleasant are all defendants in separate actions under 
the NYVRA and now seek to respond to the memo together, as the Attorney 
General’s position affects all three cases. 
 
In this affirmation, Borek argues that the request by Nassau County and the Towns 
of Newburgh and Mount Pleasant should be denied for three reasons. First, these 
parties (the “purported amici”) are not “friends of the court,” but rather are litigants in 
other NYVRA cases “advancing a private interest rather than public interest” in this 
proffered amicus brief. Second, Borek argues that these parties have not shown that 
the Town of Cheektowaga and the Town Board are “incapable” of raising the same 
issues as those raised in the brief. Lastly, Borek states that these parties do not have 
the capacity to challenge the constitutionality of a New York State statute and should 
not be allowed to do so via this brief. 
 
Nassau County Legislature: Coads et al. v. Nassau County & 
NY Communities for Change v. Nassau County 
 
Coads et al. v. Nassau County and NY Communities for Change v. Nassau County, 
arose from challenges to the 2023 redistricting map for the Nassau County 
 
 
Legislature, which went into effect on February 28. These actions were joined for 
discovery. 
 
On October 15th, the New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation submitted three 
notices of entry for orders made by the Appellate Division of the New York State 
Supreme Court, Second Judicial Department on October 11th. 
 
The first notice of entry is for an order which stems from Nassau County’s objections 
to the plaintiffs’ demands for certain documents and communications. In an order 
entered on August 7th, the Supreme Court directed the defendants to disclose those 
documents and communications to the plaintiffs after an in-camera review. The 
defendants appealed this order. The Appellate Division affirmed, stating that the 
Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion to direct the defendants to do so.  
 
The second notice of entry is the Appellate Division’s order regarding appeals to an 
August 13th Supreme Court order. In this order, the court denied motions to quash a 
subpoena served upon two non-parties for a protective order, as well as granted the 
application of the plaintiffs to compel these non-parties to appear for depositions. 
The non-parties included Dr. Sean Trende, a redistricting expert and litigation 
consultant who informed the firm’s legal advice in Coads et al., and non-party Misha 
Tseytlin, the county defense attorney. The Appellate Division affirmed.  
 
The third notice of entry stems from a Supreme Court order on August 15th. Here, 
the court granted the plaintiffs’ application to compel non-parties Trende and Tseytlin 
to produce certain documents responsive to a subpoena served upon each of them. 
The Appellate Division affirmed.  
 
Orange County: Clarke et al. v. Town of Newburgh 
 
In January, three Black and three Hispanic residents of Newburgh filed this lawsuit, 
claiming the town’s at-large election system for Town Board elections has prevented 
Black and Hispanic residents from electing candidates of their choice, thus violating 
the N.Y. Voting Rights Act.  
 
On October 16th, the Town of Newburgh and Newburgh Town Board filed a motion 
in limine (pre-trial) to exclude the “addendum” of Dr. Matt Barreto and any testimony 
and/or opinions regarding such. The defendants filed a memorandum of law 
(“memo”) in support of this motion, arguing that the court has broad discretion to 
exclude the Dr. Barreto’s “untimely” expert report. They further argue that this 
addendum occurred approximately 68 days after the expert report deadline, and that 
no explanation or justification has been provided for this delay. An affirmation in 
support of this motion was also filed by Bennet Moskowitz, counsel for the 
defendants, which includes twelve exhibits. 
 
On October 17th, the court issued an order “in the best interest of the parties and the 
resolution of the claims and defenses in this special proceeding” that the amici be 
allowed to file a brief. Last week, attorneys for the ACLU of Southern California, 
ACLU of Northern California, and Campaign Legal Center submitted a memorandum 
for leave to participate as amici curiae in opposition to the defendants’ motion for 
summary judgment. Amici curiae are individuals or organizations that are not parties 
 
 
to a legal action, but are permitted by the court to offer information, expertise, or 
insight that has bearing on the issues within the case. A brief will now be filed. 
 
On October 17th, the Town of Newburgh and Newburgh Town Board filed responses 
to the plaintiffs’ statement of material facts as to which there are no genuine issues 
to be tried, disputing much of the information provided by the plaintiffs in support of 
their case. 
 
On October 17th, the defendants also filed a reply in support of their motion for 
summary judgment. Their argument centered on three main points. First, they argue 
that the plaintiffs failed to provide any admissible evidence of an alternative election 
system that would provide minority voters with a greater chance to elect their 
preferred candidates of choice. Second, the defendants state that the plaintiffs 
cannot “successfully defend” the constitutionality of the NYVRA’s at-large provisions. 
Lastly, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs do not point to any evidence that 
minority-favored candidates do not have a “reasonable opportunity to elect preferred 
candidates in even-number years.” Moskowitz, counsel for the plaintiffs, submitted 
an affirmation in support of this motion, including two exhibits. 
 
Westchester County: Serratto et al. v. Town of Mount Pleasant 
 
This lawsuit was filed in January by voters in the Mount Pleasant Hispanic 
community alleging that the town’s use of an at-large method of election, where all 
voters elect the Town Supervisor and all four Town Board members, led to racially 
polarized voting and prevented Hispanic voters from electing the candidate of their 
choice.  
 
On October 15th, counsel for the plaintiffs filed a letter with the judge concerning the 
town’s motion for summary judgment in August. One of the town’s arguments in this 
motion was that the plaintiffs’ challenge was moot because of the New York State 
Legislature’s decision to move town elections to even years. Counsel wrote to inform 
the court that last week a judge issued an order in County of Onondaga et al. v. New 
York et al. enjoining the state “from enforcing and/or implementing the Even Year 
Election Law.”  
 
ELECTION LAW 
 
Absentee Ballot Challenge Before Court of Appeals 
 
The N.Y. State Court of Appeals heard arguments from attorneys representing the 
New York State Republican Party (plaintiffs) and the New York State Attorney 
General’s office (defendants) regarding a recently approved voting law. The case 
focuses on a three-year old law that changed how to challenge disputed absentee 
ballots, including mail-in ballots cast during the early voting period. 
 
As explained by the Albany Times Union, “Before an absentee ballot is received by a 
local board of elections, at least two people are designated as the ‘central board of 
canvassers.’ The board has to be equally divided between Democrats and 
Republicans. When an absentee ballot is ready to be counted, the board checks to 
 
 
see if the person who sent it is registered to vote in that election. If they’re not, the 
ballot is set aside and not counted. If their registration is found, the board then 
compares the signature on the envelope with that of the voter. If the board agrees 
they match and there are no other defects, that vote is set aside to be counted.” 
 
This case will answer what should happen in the event that the central board of 
canvassers disagree on the signature or the validity of the ballot. According to the 
previous law, the ballot would not be counted if board members disagreed on a 
ballot’s validity. The new law now requires the board to count the ballot even when 
there is a split on its validity. If one member believes it is valid while others do not, 
the new law requires the ballot to be counted. Many argue that this presumption of 
validity is the same presumption that applies to in-person voting.  
 
This change in the law was meant to prevent election results from not being finalized 
for days or weeks due to disagreements over signatures. However, the State 
Republican Party filed a lawsuit last year, arguing the law violates the  State 
Constitution because it requires bipartisan involvement in election oversight.  
 
Additionally, this lawsuit must consider what role the courts should play in election 
oversight. Under the new law, there is no way for someone on the central board of 
canvassers to ask a judge to intervene if they strongly disagree with a signature. The 
ballot is counted and then entered into a pile of anonymized ballots, which means the 
ballot in question cannot be distinguished from the others. 
 
New York’s Republican Party won their case in trial court, but an appellate court in 
Albany reversed the decision and reinstated the law in August. The Court of Appeals 
will now decide in the next few weeks.  
 
CENSUS DATA 
 
Fewer New Yorkers Moved Away in 2023 
 
The U.S. Census Bureau has released its 2023 State-to-State Migration Flows 
Statistics, which provides estimates of the number of people moving between the 
states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, as well as to the United States from 
abroad. These statistics are obtained each year through the American Community 
Survey (ACS).  
 
Based on this new data, fewer people moved out of New York in 2023 than the year 
before. Some analysts have suggested that this data may indicate a “modest 
recovery” after many New Yorkers left the state during the COVID-19 pandemic. An 
estimated 481,544 New Yorkers moved away in 2023, while approximately 302,835 
people moved to New York. These estimates amount to a net population loss of 
178,709 residents. In 2022, New York’s net population loss was 244,137 residents, 
revealing a “statistically significant change” between 2022 and 2023. 
 
The six states that received the highest numbers of New Yorkers in 2023 include (1) 
Florida at 71,138 (which has lowered from 91,201 residents in 2022); (2) New Jersey 
at 55,926 residents; (3) Pennsylvania at 42,637 residents; (4) California at 35,062 
residents; (5) Texas at 29,610 residents; and (6) North Carolina at 29,175 residents. 
 
 
 
For individuals moving into New York, the five most common states to move from 
were: (1) New Jersey at 40,474 residents; (2) California at 31,097 residents; (3) 
Pennsylvania at 27,603 residents; (4) Florida at 24,749 residents; and (5) 
Massachusetts at 21,001 residents. Four of these five states are also where New 
Yorkers are most commonly moving to. Some analysts suggest that New Yorkers are 
now moving back from these states after the pandemic.  
 
Leslie Reynolds, a research analyst with Cornell University's Program on Applied 
Demographics, stated that the 2023 estimates were “not a reversal [of population 
losses] but a slight recovery from the COVID time that hit New York especially hard.” 
Reynolds also said that in the post-COVID years, New York experienced 
unprecedented losses compared to the previous decade. 
 
AROUND THE NATION 
 
GEORGIA (Certifying Election Results): Last Monday, a Georgia court ruled that 
certifying election results is a mandatory duty for county election officials and may 
not “refuse to certify or abstain from certifying election results under any 
circumstance.” This lawsuit was filed in September. The plaintiff asked the court to 
declare that certifying election results is not a mandatory duty and to allow board 
members full access to election materials.  
 
The court further ruled that while election officials may seek “certain, non-confidential 
election-related information, “any delay in receiving such information is not a basis 
for refusing to certify the election results or abstaining from doing so.”  
 
The deadline for county election officials to certify is November 12th, after which the 
Georgia Secretary of State will audit and certify statewide results by November 
22nd.  
 
GEORGIA (Hand Counting Ballots): A Georgia judge has temporarily blocked a 
last-minute Georgia State Election Board (SEB) rule, which required election officials 
to verify the total vote by hand counting ballots after the polls close on November 
5th. The rule will thus not be used in the upcoming general election.  
 
The judge stated that the rule “introduced a new and substantive role on the eve of 
election for more than 7,500 poll workers who will not have received any formal, 
cohesive, or consistent training and that allows for our paper ballots—the only 
tangible proof of who voted for whom—to be handled multiple times by multiple 
people following an exhausting Election Day.”  
 
Six other lawsuits challenging SEB rules, including the Hand Count Rule, are 
currently pending in courts across Georgia. 
 
 
The N.Y. Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute is supported by grants 
from the New York Community Trust, New York Census Equity Fund, the 
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the New York City Council. This report was 
prepared by Jeff Wice & Alexis Marking. 


October 21 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update

September 18, 2024https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/adr_events/1052/thumbnail.jp

Singh, Monu

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Alternative Dispute Resolution - Past Events Alternative Dispute Resolution Skills Program 
9-18-2024 
The Edelman - Townley Lecture | Collective Bargaining and New 
York City 
Monu Singh 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/adr_events 
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
Since 1891
THE EDELMAN – TOWNLEY LECTURE
DATE: Wednesday September 18, 2024
TIME: 5:30 p.m.–6:45 p.m. ET
PLACE: Virtual (via Zoom)
COST: Free of charge
RSVP: www.nyls.edu/CLErsvp
CLE: 1.5 credits in Professional Practice  
(NY transitional and nontransitional)
Monu Singh, Deputy Chair of Dispute 
Resolution at the New York City Office of 
Collective Bargaining, will share her experience 
and insight into dispute resolution procedures 
relating to grievance arbitration and contract 
negotiations between New York City and its 
municipal unions.  
Collective Bargaining  
and New York City
This event is co-sponsored by New York Law School ADR Skills 
Program, the Center for New York City Law, and the Labor and 
Employment Law Project.


The Edelman - Townley Lecture | Collective Bargaining and New York City

September 17, 2024https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/real_estate_events_flyers/1000/thumbnail.jp

Radow ’81, Norman

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Center for Real Estate Studies Event Posters 
9-17-2024 
Masterclass | Lessons from a Real Estate Leader 
Norman Radow ’81 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/real_estate_events_flyers 
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
Since 1891
MASTER CLASS
Tuesday, September 17, 2024
12:50 p.m.–1:50 p.m.
W420
RSVP: www.nyls.edu/rsvpCRES
Norman Radow ’81 is CEO of The 
Radco Companies, a real estate 
investment company specializing in 
the acquisition and optimization of 
commercial properties, including multi-
family residential, hospitality, and new 
development. Previously, he was a 
highly respected real estate lawyer. He 
is also a member of the NYLS Board 
of Trustees. Mr. Radow will share his 
experiences in law and business.
Lessons from a Real Estate Leader
Pizza will be served.


Masterclass | Lessons from a Real Estate Leader

Filler, Ronald

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Articles & Chapters Faculty Scholarship 
7-2024 
ASK THE PROFESSOR How Will the Recent U.S. Supreme Court 
Decision in Jarkesy Impact Past, Current and Future SEC, CFTC 
and SRO Enforcement Actions? 
Ronald Filler 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_articles_chapters 
 Part of the Securities Law Commons 
ASK THE PROFESSOR
How Will the Recent U.S.
Supreme Court Decision in
Jarkesy Impact Past, Current
and Future SEC, CFTC and
SRO Enforcement Actions?
By Professor Emeritus Ronald Filler
Ronald Filler is a Professor Emeritus
and the Chair of the Ronald H. Filler
Institute on Financial Services Law at
New York Law School (“NYLS”). He has
taught courses on Derivatives Law, Se-
curities Regulation, the Regulation of
Broker-Dealers and Futures Commission
Merchants and other financial law issues
since 1977 at four different U.S. law
schools. Prof. Filler was inducted into
the FIA Hall of Fame in 2022, is a Pub-
lic Director of the National Futures As-
sociation, a Public Director of ABAXX
Clearing which is based in Singapore,
and a former Public Director and
Member and Chair of the Regulatory
Oversight Committee (“ROC”) of Swap-
Ex, a swap execution facility owned by
the State Street Corporation and has
served on a number of boards of various
exchanges, clearinghouses and industry
trade associations. Before joining the
NYLS faculty in 2008, he was a Manag-
ing Director in the Capital Markets
Prime Services Division at Lehman
Brothers Inc. in its New York
headquarters. Prof. Filler has co-
authored, with Prof. Jerry Markham,
“Regulation of Derivative Financial
Instruments (Swaps, Options and
Futures)” and has authored over 30 law
review and other articles. Prof. Filler
provides expert witness testimony and
consulting services relating to a variety
of issues involving the financial services
industry. You can reach Prof. Filler via
email at: ronald.filler@nyls.edu or by
phone at (973) 495-8609.
INTRODUCTION AND
BACKGROUND
On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme
Court held in Securities and Exchange
Commission v. George R. Jarkesy et al.
that, since securities fraud claims which
seek civil penalties brought by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission
(“SEC”) in an enforcement action are sim-
ilar to common law fraud, the defendant
is entitled to a trial by jury and that hear-
ings before a SEC administrative law
judge (“ALJ”) are illegal.1
The SEC had initiated an enforcement
action against George Jarkesy and Pa-
triot28, LLC, a hedge fund mananged by
Mr. Jarkesy, in 2013, in which the SEC
sought civil penalties for alleged securi-
ties fraud claims.2 The SEC had chosen to
adjudicate this matter before one of its
own ALJs.3 The issue before the Supreme
Court was whether the Seventh Amend-
ment permitted the SEC to compel the
respondents to defend themselves before
the agency tribunal rather than before a
jury in federal court. 4
In 2014, the ALJ issued his initial deci-
sion, the SEC reviewed the decision in
2020, and the Fifth Circuit vacated the
SEC’s Order in 2022.5 This case was be-
fore the Supreme Court on appeal from
the Fifth Circuit.
Reprinted with permission from Futures and Derivatives Law Report, Vol-
ume 44, Issue 7, K2024 Thomson Reuters. Further reproduction without
permission of the publisher is prohibited. For additional information about
this publication, please visit https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/.
R
E
P
O
R
T
T
h
e
Jo
u
rn
al
o
n
th
e
L
aw
o
f
In
ve
st
m
en
t
&
R
is
k
M
an
ag
em
en
t
P
ro
d
u
ct
s
F
u
tu
re
s
&
D
e
ri
va
tiv
e
s
L
a
w
July/August 2024 ▪ Volume 44 ▪ Issue 7
43132200
ANALYSIS OF THE JARKESY CASE
The Supreme Court analyzed the basic anti-
fraud provisions in the federal securitites laws,
namely, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933 (“1933 Act”), Section 10(b) of the Securi-
ties Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”) and Sec-
tion 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
(“IAAct”) and SEC Rule 10b-5.6 It then analyzed
the differeces between an enforcement action
brought by the SEC before one of its ALJs versus
going to federal court.7 It noted that there were
significant procedural differences between these
two types of forums, in particular, what eviden-
tiary and discovery rules apply and who finds the
facts.8 In particular, it noted that, in federal court,
a jury finds the facts, a life-tenured, salary pro-
tected Article III judge presides and the Federal
Rules of Evidence apply whereas, when the
enforcement action is brought before an in-house
ALJ, the SEC itself adjudicates the matter as the
ALJ is employed by the SEC, the SEC’s Division
of Enforcement prosecutes the case, the SEC
resolves all discovery disputes and the SEC’s
Rules of Practice apply which are significantly
different than the Federal Rules of Evidence.9 It
also noted that the full Comission itself will
review any appeal and then, and only then, may
the case be appealed to a federal court of
appeals.10 On appeal, the reviewing court “must”
treat the agency’s factual findings as “conclusive”
even if such evidence could not have been admit-
ted in federal court.11
The Supreme Court then noted the significant
changes made by the Dodd-Frank Act, in particu-
lar, which gave the SEC the right to seek civil
penalties now in hearings both before an SEC
ALJ as well as in federal court whereas, prior to
the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC could only seek
civil penalties in federal court.12
In particular, the Supreme Court analyzed a
fundamental question, that is, whether the Sev-
enth Amendment entitles a defendant in an SEC
enforcement action in which the SEC sought civil
penalties to a jury trial.13 The Supreme Court
clearly held: “it does.”14 It then analyzed whether
the “public rights exception” set forth in Article
III jurisdiction applies to an SEC enforcement
actions; “it does not.”15 The Supreme Court
concluded that the exception does not apply here
because the fraud claims brought by the SEC
against the respondents in this case “does not fall
within any of the distinctive areas involving
governmental prerogatives” as noted in Article
III.16
The Supreme Court then devoted significant
pages to the purpose of the right to a jury trial
under the Seventh Amendment and why the
“public rights” exception does not apply to secu-
rities fraud cases.17
The majority opinion written by Chief Justice
Roberts focused primarily on the Seventh
Amendment’s right to a jury trial. In a concur-
ring opinion written by Justice Gorsuch and
joined by Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch noted
that other constitutional provisions applied as
well. Namely, Justice Gorsuch noted that the Due
Process clause of the Fifth Amendment and
Article III of the Constitution, entitling individu-
als to an independent judge, should also be ap-
plied to limit how the government may go about
depriving an individual of “life, liberty or
property.”18 Justice Gorsuch noted regarding the
changes made by the Dodd-Frank Act:
“To be sure, the Commissioners opted, as they
often do, to send Mr. Jarkesy’s case in the first
instance to an ‘administrative law judge,’ (citing
17 CFR § 201.110(2023), but the title ‘judge’ in
Futures and Derivatives Law ReportJuly/August 2024 | Volume 44 | Issue 7
2 K 2024 Thomson Reuters
this context is not quite what it might seem. Yes,
ALJs enjoy some measure of independence as a
matter of regulation and statute from the lawyers
who pursue charges on behalf of the agency. Yet,
they remain servants of the same master - the
very agency tasked with prosecuting individuals
like Mr. Jarkesy.”19
Justice Gorsuch then noted:
“Going in, then, the odds were stacked against
Mr. Jarkesy. The numbers confirm as much: Ac-
cording to one report, during the period under
study, the SEC won aout 90% of its contested in-
house proceedings compared to 69% of its cases
in court.”20
“How did all this play out in Mr. Jarkesy’s case?
Accompanying its charges, the SEC disclosed
700 gigabytes of data—equivalent to between 15
and 25 million pages of information it had
collected. . .. .over Mr. Jarkesy’s protests that it
would take ‘two lawyers or paralegals working
twelve-hour days over four decades to review.”21
In a dissenting opinion written by Justice
Sotomayor that was joined by Justices Kagan and
Jackson, Justice Sotomayor noted that Congress
had intended for agencies, like the SEC, to be
permitted to use their own ALJs.22 In supporting
the “public rights exception” in Article III, Justice
Sotomayor then noted:
“It (Congress) has enacted more than 200 statutes
authorizing dozens of agencies to impose civil
penalties for violations of statutory obligations.
Congress had no reason to anticipate the chaos
today’s majority would unleash after all these
years.”23
Justice Sotomayor then listed more than two
dozen agencies that can impose civil penalties in
administrative proceeings, all of which were
enacted by Congress.24
IMPACT OF THE JARKESY CASE ON
PAST, CURRENT AND FUTURE SEC,
CFTC AND SRO ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS
There is no doubt that agencies, like the SEC,
must now bring any civil enforcement proceed-
ing in which it is seeking civil penalties in federal
court, eliminating its use of in-house ALJs. I am
not sure that this adversely impacts current and
future SEC enforcement actions as the SEC has
recently been filing most of its enforcement ac-
tions in federal court. Similarly, the CFTC has
not used ALJs for many years, so this case will
have little to no impact on current and future
CFTC enforcement actions. Query, it will be
interesting to see if any past SEC enforcement
actions that were adjudicated by an SEC ALJ will
file a motion to dismiss any such cases.
The Jarkesy decision will also impact the time
to resolve contested SEC enforcement actions as
federal courts often take much more time to final-
ize any actions brought by the SEC than those
adjudicated by an ALJ.
Query, it will be interesting to see if SEC and
CFTC disgorgement cases will be impacted and,
if so, how, by the Jarkesy case. These do not
directly involve civil penalties but seek instead
restitution of any profits made by the respective
respondent.25 Similarly, as noted below by the
recent Loper Bright decision, will enforcement
actions brought by the SEC and the CFTC involv-
ing crypto/digital assets and their trading plat-
forms be challenged by the absence of the Chev-
ron deference until any new federal legislation
granting them jurisdiction over crypto/digital as-
sets?
It will also be interested to see if any enforce-
Futures and Derivatives Law Report July/August 2024 | Volume 44 | Issue 7
3K 2024 Thomson Reuters
ment actions brought by a self-regulatory organi-
zation (“SRO”), such as FINRA, NFA or any se-
curities or derivatives exchange, will be impacted
by the Jarkesy case. There is a pending action
before the D.C. Court of Appeals in which a
broker-dealer, Alpine Securities, has challenged
FINRA’s right to bring an enforcement action
before one of its hearing officers.26
‘The questions before the D.C. Court of Ap-
peals are:
1. If FINRA is deemed to be a private entity,
can it also be deemed to be “part of the
government” for constitutional purposes?
2. Is FINRA a state actor subject to constitu-
tional constraints, or not?
3. Are FINRA’s actions in an enforcement
case “attributable to” the government?
4. How would arbitrations brought, pursuant
to the FINRA Code of Arbitration, be im-
pacted if Alpine Securities is successful in
its claims?
5. How will the D.C. Court of Appeals view
the role of self-regulation?
6. Should SRO enforcement/business conduct
hearings, which utilize a combination of
industry members and public representa-
tives for the respective panel, rather than
hearing officers, be treated differently than
a SEC enforcement action adjudicated by
an ALJ?27
7. All SROs are mandatory membership orga-
nizations whereby the member agrees in
advance to the SRO’s grievance
proceeding. Does this mandatory member-
ship requirement create a difference from
the principles set forth in the Jarkesy deci-
sion?28
IMPACT OF LOPER BRIGHT ON
FUTURE AGENCY ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS
One day after the Jarkesy decision,, on June
28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision
in the Loper Bright case which effectively un-
wound the Chevron deference that has been
granted to agencies’ interpretations of its rule-
makings for over 40 years.29 While the courts will
no longer be allowed to defer to the expertise of
the respective agency, it will be interesting to see
how the Loper Bright case might impact future
SEC and CFTC enforcement actions that do not
involve basic anti-fraud claims as SEC Rule
10b-5 is generic in nature just like the CFTC’s
anti-fraud regualtions.
CONCLUSION
As noted above, administrative proceedings
which seek civil penalties are now DOA. Respon-
dents, that do not seek settlements, are clearly
now entitled to a jury trial.
ENDNOTES:
1Securities and Exchange Commission v.
Jarkesy et al., No. 22-859 (SC - June 27, 2024).
Cite as Securities and Exchange Commission v.
Jarkesy, 144 S. Ct. 2117 (2024). See also Lucia
v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 585
U.S. 237, 138 S. Ct. 2044, 201 L. Ed. 2d 464,
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P 100205 (2018)
wherein the Supreme Court held that the SEC’s
ALJs were inferior federal officers that needed to
be appointed by the President,.. or Heads of
Departments. Following Lucia, the SEC empow-
ered all of its ALJs. See SEC Press Release 2017-
215, SEC Ratifies Appointment of Adminsitarive
Futures and Derivatives Law ReportJuly/August 2024 | Volume 44 | Issue 7
4 K 2024 Thomson Reuters
Law Judges (Nov. 30, 2017).
2Slip Opinion of Jarkesy at p.1.
3Ibid.
4Ibid.
5Slip Opinion at p.5. See also Jarkesy v. Se-
curities and Exchange Commission, 34 F.4th 446,
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P 101401 (5th Cir.
2022), cert. granted, 143 S. Ct. 2688, 216 L. Ed.
2d 1255 (2023) and cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2690,
216 L. Ed. 2d 1256 (2023).
6Slip Opinion at p.2. See also 15 U.S.C.A.
§ 77q(a), 15 U.S.C.A. § 78(j)(b), 15 U.S.C.A.
§ 80b-6(4) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
7Slip Opinion at p.3.,
8Ibid.
9Ibid.
10Ibid.
11Ibid. (emphasis added).
12Slip Opinion at p.4. See also Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act, 124 Stat. 1376 and 1862-1864, and H.R.
Rep. No. 111-687, p.78n (2010)
13Slip Opinion at p. 6.
14Ibid.
15Ibid.
16Slip Opinion at p.7.
17Slip Opinion at pp. 7-27.
18See Concurring Opinion of Justice Gorsuch
at p.1.
19Gorsuch Concurring Opinion at p.2.
20Gorsuch Concurring Opinion at p.3.
21Ibid.
22See Dissenting Opinion of Justice Soto-
mayor at p.1.
23Ibid.
24Dissenting Opinion of Sotomayor at pp. 34-
35.
25See “Ask the Professor: Will the Recent
Second Circuit Decision in SEC v. Govil Ad-
versely Impact Future SEC Disgorgement
Cases—or Not?,” 44 Fut. Deriv. L. Rep. (June
2024) and “Ask the Professor—How Did the
Fifth Circuit Interpret the “Investor Benefit’
Requirement Governing Disgorgements in Black-
burn?,’ 41 Fut. Deriv. L. Rep. (December 2021).
26See Alpine Securities Corporation et al. v.
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. No.
23-5129 (DC Cir.).
27The panels that hear most Business Conduct
Committees are comprised of both industry
members of the respective SRO and public repre-
sentatives, with the public representative typi-
cally being the chair of the respective panel.
28See Brief of Amici Curiae National Futures
Association, CME Group Inc. and CBOE Global
Markets Inc. filed with the DC Court of Appeals
in the Alpine Securities case (November 3, 2023).
29See Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,
144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024) which overruled Chevron,
U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Coun-
cil, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L. Ed.
2d 694, 21 Env’t. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1049, 14
Envtl. L. Rep. 20507 (1984).
Futures and Derivatives Law Report July/August 2024 | Volume 44 | Issue 7
5K 2024 Thomson Reuters



ASK THE PROFESSOR How Will the Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Jarkesy Impact Past, Current and Future SEC, CFTC and SRO Enforcement Actions?

April 19, 2024https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/student_organizations/1004/thumbnail.jp

New York Law School

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Student Organizations Event Posters 
4-19-2024 
Trial Competition Team | Closing Argument Competition 
New York Law School 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/student_organizations 
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
Since 1891
TRIAL COMPETITION TEAM  
CLOSING  
ARGUMENT  
COMPETITION
Friday, April 19, 2024 
9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. 
W420 
The Trial Competition Team will hold our annual Closing Argument 
Competition on April 19, 2024. The fact pattern will be released on 
the week of April 8. The final date to register for the competition is 
Wednesday, April 17, 2024.
This competition is open to 1Ls, 1LEs, 2Ls, 2LEs, and 3LEs, 
who are interesting in joining the Trial Competition Team. 
Register at www.nyls.edu/competitionRSVP
Fact pattern will be sent by email to registrants.  


Trial Competition Team | Closing Argument Competition

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Redistricting Roundtable Updates NY Elections, Census, and Redistricting Institute 
10-7-2024 
October 7 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update 
Jeffrey M. Wice 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates 
 
 
 
 
 
N.Y. ELECTIONS, CENSUS & REDISTRICTING UPDATE 
 
REDISTRICTING 
 
NYC Council Map Challenge Goes to State Court of Appeals  
 
This lawsuit was filed against the New York City Districting Commission, the New 
York City Board of Elections, and the New York State Board of Elections challenging 
the New York City Council district map based on an alleged violation of the New York 
City Charter.  
 
Plaintiffs include Desis Rising Up and Moving (DRUM) and 18 Indo-Caribbean and 
South Asian residents of Richmond Hill/South Ozone Park (RHSOP), Queens. The 
plaintiffs allege their voting power was diluted because their community was 
unlawfully split into three separate city council districts during the post-2020 
redistricting cycle. They argue that this map violates explicit protections within the 
New York City Charter, which requires districting commissions to draw maps that, “to 
the maximum extent practicable,” ensure “fair and effective representation of racial 
and language minorities.”  
 
On July 11, the petitioners filed a motion for leave to appeal to the State Court of 
Appeals, as well as a memorandum in support of this motion. The memorandum 
focuses on two main arguments: (1) that the questions presented in this case are 
“exceptionally important,” and (2) that the appellative division was wrong to reject 
their first appeal.  
 
For the first argument, the petitioners argue that the First Department “essentially 
nullified” § 52(1) of the Charter and that the court will not have another opportunity to 
fix this error until the next redistricting cycle in 2032. For the second argument, the 
petitioners argue that § 52(1) of the Charter is mandatory and requires the 
commission to prioritize “effective representation” over other factors. Furthermore, 
the commission’s refusal to consider “more minority-protective alternatives” was 
“arbitrary and capricious.”  
 
On August 2, NYC’s corporation counsel filed a memorandum in opposition to the 
petitioners’ motion for leave to appeal. The memorandum provided an overview of 
the case and reasons to deny leave. Two main arguments were included: (1) given 
the commission’s “careful consideration” of the broad districting criteria, as well as for 
this Asian community in particular, no leave-worthy issue exists; and (2) leave to 
review the commission’s interpretation of the Charter is not warranted for “multiple, 
independent” reasons.  
 
 A hearing date for this motion has not been scheduled yet.  
 
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT LIGITATION 
 
 
 
Orange County: Clarke et al. v. Town of Newburgh 
 
In January, three Black and three Hispanic residents of Newburgh filed this lawsuit 
claiming the town’s at-large election system for Town Board elections prevented 
Black and Hispanic residents from electing candidates of their choice, violating the 
N.Y. Voting Rights Act. 
  
On October 3rd, the counsel for the plaintiffs advised the court that the parties are 
available to continue the trial to November 20th -21st , which the court had previously 
identified as potential trial dates. The letter also requested that the court calendar 
those dates for trial in this matter. 
 
Westchester County: Serratto et al. v. Town of Mount Pleasant 
 
This lawsuit was filed in January by the local Hispanic community voters who alleged 
that the town’s use of an at-large method of election, where all voters elect the Town 
Supervisor and all four Town Board members, resulted in racially polarized voting 
and prevented Hispanic voters from electing the candidate of their choice.  
 
On September 30th, the plaintiffs’ attorneys requested that the court refer this case to 
the trial assignment part as soon as possible due to the case’s urgency and because 
Election Law § 17-21 requires this case to be expedited and given automatic 
calendar preference.  
 
This action concerns potential changes to the 2025 Town of Mount Pleasant 
elections. Petitioning starts in February 2025 and candidate recruitment will begin in 
January 2025. It’s argued that the court needs to hold a trial and decide prior to 
February 2025 if the election structure were to be modified “without the necessity to 
stay either petition collection or the election.”  
 
Erie County: Young v. Town of Cheektowaga 
 
In March, one-time Town Board candidate Kenneth Young filed a lawsuit against the 
Town of Cheektowaga alleging racially polarized voting and violations of the New 
York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) in the Cheektowaga Town Board elections. Young 
claims that minorities cannot elect candidates of their choice under the town’s current 
at-large voting method and should adopt a ward voting system. 
 
On October 2, numerous documents were filed with this court regarding the 
application for a proposed amici brief of the Town of Newburgh, the Town of Mount 
Pleasant, and Nassau County in response to the Attorney General’s memorandum 
from September 27. This memorandum was filed in opposition to the defendants’ 
(the Town of Cheektowaga and the Cheektowaga Town Board) cross-motion for 
summary judgment. Nassau County and the towns of Newburgh and Mount Pleasant 
are all defendants in separate actions under the New York Voting Rights Act 
(NYVRA) and now seek to respond to the memorandum together, as the Attorney 
General’s position affects all three cases. 
 
 
 
The proposed amici brief includes three main arguments. First, the brief argues that 
a locality cannot abandon or alter a “race-neutral election system” based upon racial 
classifications unless the locality can satisfy strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny under the 
Equal Protection Clause applies any time “the government distributes burdens or 
benefits on the basis of individual racial classifications.”  
 
Second, the brief argues that the NYVRA is unconstitutional because it forces 
localities to change “race-neutral election systems” based upon racial classifications 
without satisfying strict scrutiny. Third, the brief argues how the Attorney General’s 
argument (which states the NYVRA is constitutional because it is not sufficiently 
race-based to “trigger” strict scrutiny) is wrong. 
 
On October 3, plaintiff Young’s counsel asked to submit a response and “be heard in 
respect to the application” before the court decides whether to permit Nassau County 
and the towns of Mount Pleasant and Newburgh to be recognized as “amici” in this 
case. 
 
On October 4, the state Assistant Solicitor General filed a letter to the judge, which 
stated that the Office of the Attorney General does not object to the filing of the 
amicus brief “provided we have an opportunity and sufficient time to respond.” The 
letter also requested October 22 as the deadline to file a responsive brief. 
 
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT PRECLEARANCE ACTIVITY 
 
Attorney General Grants “Preliminary” OK to Monroe County 
 
With the state Voting Rights Act preclearance process now underway, the Voting 
Rights Section of the Attorney General’s office has granted preliminary approval to 
Monroe County’s request to relocate an early voting poll site. The poll site was 
moved 275 feet away from its prior site to do the previous site no longer being 
available for use by the landlord. The request was made on October 1st and 
preliminarily approved the next day. 
 
This was the first preclearance action taken under the new state law. Updates on 
future preclearance activity will be included in future reports. 
 
ELECTIONS 
 
Lawsuit Filed Against Working Families Party Candidate for 
New York’s 17th Congressional District 
 
The Westchester County Democratic chairwoman, Suzanne Berger, and a 
representative from the Working Families Party (WFP) have filed a lawsuit to remove 
WFP candidate Anthony Frascone from the ballot.  
 
A Westchester State Supreme issued a restraining order on Wednesday, which 
barred the election boards in Hudson Valley’s 17th District (including all of Putnam 
County and Rockland County, as well as portions of northern Westchester and 
 
 
southern Dutchess Counties) from issuing ballots to voters with Frascone’s name on 
it until a court ruling. A hearing is scheduled for today. 
 
The plaintiffs argue that Frascone should be disqualified because he is a convicted 
felon in an insurance scam. In June 2022, Frascone was indicted by a grand jury for 
lying to obtain workers’ compensation insurance for his firm. He also underpaid 
premiums by $1.49 million. Frascone later pled guilty and paid insurers more than 
$600 million in restitution. However, some experts argue that a federal conviction 
does not bar individuals from serving in Congress.  
 
Frascone defeated Democratic candidate Mondaire Jones for the WFP ballot line in 
the June primary. A recent campaign poll showed that Jones was trailing Republican 
incumbent Mike Lawler by 3 points: 46% compared to 43%, with Frascone at 5%. 
Without Frascone on the ballot, Jones would trail Lawler by only 2 points: 47% 
compared to 45%. The lawsuit claims Frascone will “siphon” and “dilute” the vote 
from other candidates, such as Jones. 
 
New Yorkers Are Refusing Party Labels  
 
According to a report published in the Albany Times Union authored by Emilie 
Munson and Raga Justin, “upstate migration and a deep political polarization could 
influence New York's 2024 election, as voter registration data from each county in 
the state reflects a changing political dynamic, especially in the Hudson Valley and 
further upstate in Saratoga and St. Lawrence.” 
 
Highlights from the report include: 
 
• More voters have dropped party affiliations and left New York City for upstate 
locales, changing long-established patterns “in a traditional left-leaning state 
in ways that could cause ripples in the Nov. 5 election.” 
 
• One in four registered active voters in New York do not belong to a party. 
 
• 2020 was the first year since 1961 that unaffiliated voters outnumbered 
Republican voters in New York. In 1961, there were about 5,000 more 
unaffiliated voters than Republicans; that margin has increased to about 
302,000 statewide. 
 
• While voter registration numbers are lower in Manhattan, more voters are 
voting in the Hudson Valley and Saratoga County.  
 
These numbers may be due to “an increase in political polarization and the 
pandemic-era relocation of voters as contributing to the changing dynamics of party 
affiliation across New York. Many voters stick to their party lines when voting and 
changes in registration enrollments can help predict the likely outcome of a race.”   
 
• More than 12 million New Yorkers are registered to vote as of October 1st, a 
1% decrease from November 2020. “That aligns with a recent surge in 
outmigration from New York, which caused the state to lose a congressional 
seat and an electoral college vote in 2022.” 
 
 
 
• Every county recorded an increase in unaffiliated voters between the 2012 
presidential election and today. Over the last four years, unaffiliated voters 
increased everywhere in the state except New York and Jefferson counties. 
The biggest spikes in “no party” voters have been in Washington, Hamilton, 
Broome, Delaware, and Monroe counties. 
 
• While unaffiliated voters are not the dominant party in any county, they are 
the second largest party in many New York counties. 
 
Read the complete article here: https://bit.ly/3NfO3UZ 
 
AROUND THE NATION 
 
Absentee Ballot Case Could Impact New York: RNC v. Wetzel 
  
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments for RNC v. 
Wetzel on September 24th of a District Court ruling upholding Mississippi state law 
allowing absentee mail-in ballots to be counted if postmarked on Election Day and 
received up until five days following Election Day. 
 
The Republican National Committee (“RNC”), the Mississippi Republican Party, and 
the Libertarian Party of Mississippi filed a set of lawsuits attempting to block 
Mississippi from accepting mail-in absentee ballots that are postmarked by Election 
Day but not received up until five days after Election Day. Washington, D.C. and 
eighteen other states, including New York, have similar laws allowing these ballots to 
be counted if they arrive after Election Day. Democrats are asserting that the 
Republicans are trying to throw out valid votes while the Republicans say that they 
want to strictly follow voting laws and the view that this lawsuit is an attempt of voter 
suppression is a “far-left conspiracy theory.” 
 
The RNC brought this lawsuit in January, arguing that elections must be completed 
by Election Day since Election Day is a specific day set by Congress. The RNC 
argued that Election Day is a ballot-receipt day and by allowing post-election receipts 
for mail-in ballots, states are extending the election beyond the day set by Congress. 
District Court Judge Louis Guirola Jr. upheld the law, noting that the purpose of 
having a single General Election is to ensure that voters are not burdened or 
influenced by results in other states. Additionally, Judge Guirola noted that the states 
are traditionally in charge of setting rules on accepting absentee ballots, not 
Congress.  
 
On appeal, the RNC argued that the receipt deadline exceeds the time to “complete 
the election” beyond what federal law permits. They argue, that “election” is a 
conclusive term and as such, cannot extend past the one day granted by federal law 
and that what matters is the date of receipt, not the day the ballot was cast. The RNC 
also argues that Mississippi’s receipt deadline violates the First and Fourteenth 
Amendments as “forcing a candidate to expend resources to campaign against an 
unlawful regulation burdens their rights to stand for office” since the election would 
not be considered complete. 
 
 
 
New York joined Washington, D.C. and 17 other states in a jointly filed an amicus 
brief in support of Wetzel, arguing that the Constitution gives the states “the primary 
power to regulate elections” and how every state has used its best judgment to craft 
their voting laws, whether allowing late-arriving absentee ballots to be considered 
timely or not. Additionally, the amici briefs detail how mail ballots are deeply rooted in 
history. Lastly, the Appellees, Amicus States, and the DNC detail the burden that 
changing the law could have on those who reply on mail-in ballots, including the 
armed forces. 
 
The three judges who heard the case in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 
were all appointed by former president Donald Trump. The judges asked questions 
about the history of voting laws and definitions of “Election Day” and “casting” ballots. 
While a decision has not been published yet, the judges noted that the U.S. Supreme 
Court has expressed concerns about changing election rules right before an election. 
The Fifth Circuit’s ruling will be binding in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; 
however, it could cause an uproar in the other circuits, should a lawsuit be filed in 
any of the other eighteen states, or the case be brought before the Supreme Court, 
which would impact every state’s election laws. 
 
Many people are concerned about the outcome that ruling in favor of the RNC would 
have. Such impacts could include decreased voter participating, as this would 
negatively impact the armed forces, other U.S. citizens living overseas, college 
students, and those who simply cannot make it to the polls on Election Day. 
Additionally, as Election Day is less than a month away and many absentee ballots 
have been being printed and sent our shortly. Invalidating the law could cause a lot 
of confusion among voters and place a heavy burden on lawmakers to change their 
election laws, and voters who were relying on their mail-in ballots. The Purcell 
principle counsels courts against ordering these types of voting changes in the run-
up to the election because of all the confusion it would cause. However, it is 
ultimately up to the Fifth Circuit to decide how to rule on these challenges and how 
their ruling could disrupt the upcoming election. 
 
 
The N.Y. Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute is supported by grants 
from the New York Community Trust, New York Census Equity Fund, the 
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the New York City Council. This report was 
prepared by Jeff Wice, Alexis Marking & Jordan Karpoff. 


October 7 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update

March 26, 2024https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/innovation_law_tech_events_flyers/1012/thumbnail.jp

Innovation Center for Law and Technology

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Innovation Center for Law and Technology Event Posters 
3-26-2024 
LegalTech Talks | Medical Malpractice in the Age of Artificial 
Intelligence 
Innovation Center for Law and Technology 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/innovation_law_tech_events_flyers 
Medical liability and regulation is an area of law 
that requires an understanding of technology 
and established protocols in the medical field. 
With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI), the 
field of medicine is changing and raising new 
issues. Join Steven Pegalis ’65, Adam 
Herbst, and Shahrokh (Seve) Falati ’08 as 
they discuss their work in this field and their 
recent article on AI. 
LEGALTECH
T A L K S
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
Since 1891
DATE 
Tuesday, 
March 26, 2024
TIME 
12:45–1:45 p.m.  
Lunch will be provided  
to those who register.
LOCATION 
WA10
New York Law School 
185 West Broadway 
New York, NY 10013
RSVP: www.nyls.edu/innovationRSVP 
Medical Malpractice in the Age of 
Artificial Intelligence
Innovation Center for
Law and Technology
Steven E. Pegalis ’65 is one of the nation’s foremost plaintiffs’ medical malpractice trial lawyers. In 
his long career, Pegalis has obtained some of the highest jury verdicts in New York State. He is a 
Dean Emeritus of the New York State Trial Lawyers Institute, and author of the three-volume text The 
American Law of Medical Malpractice. He was named the 2024 “Lawyer of the Year” by U.S. News & 
World Report’s Best Lawyers® for both Plaintiffs’ Medical Malpractice Law and Plaintiff’s Personal 
Injury Litigation for the Long Island, New York, region.
Adam S. Herbst, Esq. is Deputy Commissioner at the New York State Department of Health. He is 
also an adjunct professor at NYLS.
Moderator: Seve Falati ’08, Professor of Law from Practice; Co-Director, NYLS Innovation Center for 
Law and Technology; and Director, NYLS Patent Law Clinic
Steven E. Pegalis ’65 Adam Herbst, Esq. Seve Falati ’08
