In Wall v. US, No. 10-2354, the court denied petitioner's motion for leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. section 2255 habeas petition challenging his child pornography conviction, holding that the claims in petitioner's first section 2255 petition were, in substance, incorporated into his subsequent direct appeal, and thus his proposed section 2255 petition was not "second or successive."
In Bakalar v. Vavra, No. 08-5119, an action seeking a declaration that plaintiff was the owner of a drawing by Egon Schiele, the court vacated judgment for plaintiff on the grounds that 1) although it is unclear whether a cause of action comparable to the counterclaims of defendants could be successfully brought in Austria, allowing the claims to go forward under New York law was consistent with the principles underlying the decision of the Supreme Court of Austria; and 2) the district judge, by applying Swiss Law, erred in placing the burden of proof on defendants to show that the Nazis looted the drawing.