No. 25-224

Bernard Gelb v. Preston Niblack, Individually and as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Finance, et al.

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2025-08-26
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: due-process fourteenth-amendment notice-requirement property-rights takings-clause unclaimed-funds
Key Terms:
DueProcess Securities Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2025-11-07
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the Respondents taking $500 million dollars without sending any notice to the Owners violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and this Court's precedents?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

The Respondents cancel uncashed checks outstanding six (6) months after the date of issuance and take $500 million dollars without sending notice to the rightful owners (“Owners”). As a growing source of revenue, Respondents, States and Government Agencies increasingly target and seize billions of dollars in unclaimed funds without providing notice or compensation to the Owners. The questions presented are: 1. Did the Respondents taking $500 million dollars without sending any notice to the Owners violate the Due Process Clause of the of the Fourteenth Amendment and this Court’s precedents? 2. Did the Respondents taking $500 million dollars without paying just compensation to the Owners violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and this Court’s precedents?

Docket Entries

2025-11-10
Petition DENIED.
2025-10-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/7/2025.
2025-08-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 25, 2025)

Attorneys

Bernard Gelb
Bernard Gelb — Petitioner
Bernard Gelb — Petitioner