Ying Jing Zeng v. United States
696 F. App'x 42
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff-appellant Ying Jing Zeng, pro se, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging TSA agents negligently broke his antique jade dragon during an outgoing baggage inspection at JFK Airport.
- The box containing the dragon was inspected and resealed with TSA-issued tape at JFK, then traveled to Guangzhou, China with a layover in Hong Kong.
- Zeng did not observe the TSA inspection; the dragon was discovered broken only after delivery in Guangzhou.
- The box was handled by multiple parties after the TSA inspection: airport personnel in Hong Kong and Guangzhou and a courier who delivered the package.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Government, concluding Zeng produced no evidence that TSA caused the damage; Zeng appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TSA caused the damage to the dragon under FTCA negligence standards | Zeng contends TSA’s inspection and resealing implicate TSA as the cause; intact TSA tape upon delivery suggests TSA responsibility | Government argues multiple intervening handlers could have caused the damage and Zeng has no evidence linking TSA to the breakage | Court held Zeng failed to show any evidence that TSA caused or contributed to the damage; summary judgment for Government affirmed |
| Whether an inference of TSA responsibility arises from intact TSA tape at delivery | Zeng argues intact tape supports inference damage occurred during TSA handling | Government argues intact tape does not rule out subsequent damage by others | Court declined to consider the argument raised first on appeal and, on the merits, found intact tape does not establish TSA causation |
| Whether allegations that TSA or its counsel concealed or fabricated evidence create factual dispute | Zeng asserts misconduct by TSA/counsel to defeat summary judgment | Government denies and notes lack of supporting evidence | Court held allegations are speculative and unsupported; cannot defeat summary judgment |
| Whether summary judgment standard was properly applied | Zeng suggests disputes of fact exist | Government argues the record lacks evidence creating a genuine dispute about causation | Court reviewed de novo and found no genuine dispute; affirmed summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Townsend v. Benjamin Enters., Inc., 679 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Fountain v. Karim, 838 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2016) (FTCA waiver and scope principles)
- Pasternack v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 27 N.Y.3d 817 (N.Y. 2016) (elements of negligence under New York law)
- Aegis Ins. Servs., Inc. v. 7 World Trade Co., 737 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2013) (burden to prove causation when multiple possible causes exist)
- Mhany Mgmt. v. Cty. of Nassau, 819 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 2016) (appellate review of issues raised for first time on appeal)
- Major League Baseball Props., Inc. v. Salvino, Inc., 542 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2008) (speculation and conclusory assertions insufficient to create genuine factual dispute)