Steve Feldman

 

A 1982 Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Cornell University and 1986 graduate of Boston University School of Law, Feldman has won hundreds of civil, criminal, state and federal appeals in New York and throughout the United States in his nearly 40-year career. 

​​​​

In federal court, he has won appeals in the United States Supreme Court, as well as the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal.

 

In state court, he has won appeals in the New York Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division, First, Second and Fourth Departments, and in the Appellate Term. 

​​​

He also handles extremely serious, high-stakes, multi-million dollar personal injury cases.

​

Feldman has been perennially selected as a Super Lawyer. 

​​

He has also been recognized by Lawyers of Distinction. 

​​​

On countless occasions, he has been featured in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Law Journal, The New York Daily News and Newsday. 

​​​

Sample Wins

​​

In the United States Supreme Court

​

Taste v. United States, 576 U.S. 1080 (2015)(“ ... the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ___, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4251 (2015.)”).

 

​In the First Circuit Court of Appeals

​

United States v. Darlene Ford, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6712 (1st Cir. Apr. 13, 2016)(“In a case of first impression, we find that the jury should not have been allowed to convict Darlene of aiding and abetting James’s unlawful possession of a firearm merely because she ‘had reason to know’ that James had previously been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison.”).​

 

In the Second Circuit Court of Appeals

 

United States v. Mohammed Zayed, 545 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2008)(“We conclude that the district court committed evidentiary errors that were sufficiently prejudicial as to deprive the defendants of a fair trial. We therefore vacate the convictions and remand for further proceedings”)(cover, New York Times, October 3, 2008, Metro Section, P. 1, col. A, cover, Wall Street Journal, October 3, 2008; cover, New York Law Journal, October 3, 2008; Case of the Day, New York Law Journal, October 8, 2008).

​

Brooks v. Jones, 875 F. 2d 30 (2d Cir. 1989)(reversed)(cover, New York Law Journal)(“David Brooks appeals from an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Glasser J., dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that Brooks had not exhausted his state remedies before filing his petition in federal court. We find that the circumstances surrounding the delay of Brooks's appeal are such that there was little likelihood that his petitioning for a writ of coram nobis in the state courts would have been effective; we therefore reverse the dismissal of Brooks's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and remand for the entry of an order granting the writ if his appeal is not heard within sixty days.”). 

​

In the Third Circuit Court of Appeals

​​

Buhl v. Cooksey, 233 F.3d 783, 786 (3d Cir. 2000)(reversed)(“Leroy Buhl appeals the district court’s denial of the habeas corpus petition he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition originally contained several claims for relief. However, Buhl only exhausted two of his claims, and only one of those  two exhausted claims is before us now. 1 In the one claim that we consider, Buhl argues that he was denied his constitutional right to conduct his own defense during his criminal trial in state court. The district court rejected that assertion without a hearing. We hold that the trial court's rejection of Buhl’s clear and unequivocal assertion of his right to proceed pro se was improper. Accordingly, we will vacate the district court’s ruling and remand for further procedures consistent with this opinion."). 

​

In the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

​

United States v. William Cloud, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10946 (4th Cir. May 31, 2012)(“A jury convicted William Roosevelt Cloud of various offenses stemming from an extensive mortgage fraud conspiracy * * * We affirm the district court’s judgment on the first two issues, but vacate the court's reimbursement order. Cloud also argues that his money laundering convictions must be reversed under United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507, 128 S. Ct. 2020, 170 L. Ed. 2d 912 (2008), and thus, that the district court erred in rejecting his motion for judgment of acquittal on this ground. Applying Santos, as interpreted by United States v. Halstead, 634 F.3d 270 (4th Cir. 2011), to the facts underlying Cloud’s substantive money laundering convictions, we agree and therefore reverse those convictions.”).

​

In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

​​

Williams v. Harrison, 368 Fed. Appx. 764 (9th Cir. 2010)(“We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a determination as to whether the claims in the motions to recall the remittitur are such that the motions should be treated as state habeas petitions.”). 

​

    In the New York Court of Appeals

 

People v. Spivey, 81 N.Y.2d 356, 358 (1993)(“On this appeal, we modify the order of the Appellate  Division. The count of assault in the second degree, which had been dismissed by the Appellate Division, should be reinstated. Moreover, the Appellate Division's direction to the trial court to fashion a remedy sanctioning the prosecution for failure to produce Rosario material should be deleted. We affirm that part of the order directing a new trial because an improper verdict sheet was submitted to the jury.”). 

 

Call (516) 441-0452

 

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.