Consider this your guide to New York City eats offering you a monthly go to restaurant in each corner of our beautiful city.  Bon appétit!

Lower East

Kotobuki

11^th St and 3^rd Ave

Zagat: NR

Yelp: 4/5 Stars

            Just a stones throw from Cardozo, this Long Island transplant serves up some of the freshest and most unique sushi dishes in town.   Kotobuki hits you with enough standard sushi bar décor to make you feel right at home, but throws in a splash of upscale flare to distinguish itself from the norm.  They are famous for their Spicy Tuna Pizza, but I highly suggest you deviate from this and try some of the lesser-heralded dishes such as the Spicy Calamari or Pink Lady roll.

Upper East

Sushi Seki

63^rd St and 1^st Ave

Zagat: 28/30

Yelp: 4/5 Stars

            I usually do not like writing about two restaurants of the same variety, but both Kotobuki and Sushi Seki are worthy of being in the same edition of Four Corners.  This Upper East Side sushi staple leaves much to be desired when it comes to décor, but makes up for it with the quality of their dishes.  If you have a special occasion and are willing to stretch your wallet, I highly recommend you go for the Omakase menu where twelve types of Nigiri sushi are selected by the chef, each of which will be more unique and tasty than the last.

Lower West

Boqueria SoHo

Thompson St and Spring St

Zagat: 23/30

Yelp: 4/5 Stars

            Boqueria is a bustling Spanish tapas restaurant boasting a hip SoHo crowd with an ambiance to match.   You can expect to wait for a table, as they only take reservations for the tasting menu, but you will be rewarded for your patience.  Start with a pitcher of sangria and move on to their menu full of goodies.  Taking a step out of your comfort zone when you visit Boqueria is encouraged.  Try the unique dishes they have to offer like the Bacon Wrapped Dates or Sautéed Wild Mushrooms with Manchego Cheese.

Upper West

Don Giovanni’s

44^th St and 9^th Ave

Zagat: 21/30

Yelp: 3/5 Stars

            Located on the outskirts of the theatre district, Don Giovanni’s makes for an ideal pre or post show meal.  Don Giovanni’s possesses an incredibly affordable and authentic Italian menu with an equally authentic Italian wait staff.  All the standard Italian dishes are phenomenal, from the Chicken Parmigiana to the Pasta Primavera.  My personal favorite, the Vegetable Primavera with a side of chicken, will leave your taste buds and your waste line feeling incredibly satisfied.

If you try any of these restaurants I recommend and wish to tell me about it, or would like any personal recommendations from me than send an email to CardozoEats@Gmail.com

Related posts:

1. Four Corners: Tastes from Across Manhattan – February 2013
2. Four Corners: Tastes from Across Manhattan – March 2013
3. Village Yokocho Offers Outstanding Japanese Alterative to Sushi

An anti-hero blurs the line of hero and villain, twisting the minds of the audience with a narrative sleight of hand. The anti-hero, Marta Walraven (Radha Mitchell) lives the “suburban-mommy” life in Marin County, San Francisco. After her brother Irwin Petrov (Wil Traval) decides to steal from the one person not even their father would mess with, Nicholae Schiller (Goran Visnjic), Marta’s husband Evan is gunned down in their driveway.

The daughter of a Russian mobster, Marta told her husband the night before his death that she wanted no part in that lifestyle and that she wanted to take the kids and leave. However, after FBI Agent James Ramos (Clifton Collins Jr.) tells Marta that her husband approached him about witness protection in exchange for a thumb drive that would reveal everything about her family, Marta decides to take on Schiller herself.

Marta is no longer the innocent and naïve (was she ever really?) suburban mom. Now, she is a mobster mom, taking on the world and doing whatever it takes to protect her children. Marta begins to embrace her new role quickly…too quickly.

Schiller insists that Marta pick up where Evan left off, importing one consignment (of cocaine) for him. Little does Marta know that it was actually Irwin who stole from Schiller and set up a side deal, not Evan. In return Schiller agrees to protect Irwin who is now in prison and promises to leave her family alone after the job is done.

In every drama there needs to be a sense of hope. Irwin is attacked in prison and when Marta confronts Schiller, his response is that he is still alive. Is that enough hope for Marta? Can she trust that she will be left alone and her family can live in peace after the deal is done? The audience needs something to hold on to, something to root for, which is lacking in this drama.

Schiller tells Marta that she has Petrov blood; crime is in her DNA. Marta protests that she is just a mom with a mortgage and grieving children, but she made a choice to take this on. She could have gone to the FBI with the thumb drive, but she has Petrov blood and cannot betray her family.

There are several layers in this series, one slapped on top of the next with no real development, at least not yet. On the bright side, the series has some potential. There’s Evan’s murder, which is a mystery even though it was first believed that Schiller was responsible. Then there is the FBI investigation into the family, and the Petrov blood that runs in Marta’s children, the eldest in particular who has now taken on the role of man of the house. There is also the relationship between Marta and her father, the man she knows runs his business out of an empty Russian restaurant and the man she believes just loves her as her father. The layers are there, but they are thin. Nothing of any depth is given to us. Marta has yet to do anything major to show what she is capable of, to show that she is not just a victim, but that she is a Petrov.

Simply put, “Red Widow” is a darker and worse “Weeds.”

Related posts:

1. No Ordinary Family Makes Comic Books Look Ordinary
2. Homeland: Thrillingly Unpredictable
3. New Alcohol Policy Promotes Professionalism

Despite the overwhelming posts on Facebook, blog reviews, Instagram, and ads on other Lay’s products, the chips eluded me as I scoured Manhattan and Brooklyn for the three flavors. After two months of searching, I finally got my hands on one bag of each flavor. After first hearing about the new flavors, I made assumptions as to which one I was likely to vote for, and which ones sounded completely ridiculous.

My predictions, or rather, my hopes, were that the Sriracha chips would be sweet, garlicky, and fiery. Sriracha sauce holds a permanent spot on the table at every summer barbeque I go to, and it certainly finds its way in so many of my meals. My expectations were high; I anticipated an addicting and flavorful bite. Unfortunately, the chip evoked none of the satisfying heat or flavor that I expected. Instead, it tasted like a muted blend of salt and vinegar and barbecue flavored chips.

The Cheesy Garlic Bread chips were interesting. At first thought, I imagined it might taste like a mix of cheddar cheese chips and garlic and onion chips. Again, my predictions were way off. One might find the chips to be a little smelly, as cheese can be, but it certainly doesn’t taste as good as cheese. I didn’t find it as flavorful as I had imagined, and it was a little too buttery for my taste. Does it taste like cheesy garlic bread? In a way, yes, and maybe that was what disappointed me. Perhaps I just wanted that chewy, warm, greasy texture with a slight crackle in the crust and didn’t find that satisfaction in the mere crunch of a potato chip.

Last, but not least, the winner of the three contestants is the Chicken & Waffles. I can eat a dangerous amount of this chip. Set me in front of a television with a big bag, and I will unknowingly devour the entire thing to my arteries’ demise. Like the Cheesy Garlic Bread, the chip actually tastes like chicken and waffles, syrupy and savory at the same time. But unlike the other two chips, the flavors are perfectly balanced in a harmony of sweetness and saltiness. These chips are comparable to honey barbecue flavored chips, and in my opinion, just as addicting.

Would I buy these chips if they were regular items in the chip aisle? Do they compare to the existing flavors? I think the Chicken & Waffles certainly does, but I’m not sure if I would choose it over other options in the chip aisle. Then again, I did devour three-quarters of the bag watching weekday daytime television during spring break.

Related posts:

1. Low-Hanging Fruit Leads To Berrylicious Concoctions
2. Transform Turkey Leftovers Into Many Delicious Dishes
3. Food For Thought

Adidas could have satisfied their desire to be one with the trends by going bright, but their mistake was by not breaking up the neon colors with more muted colors.  Electric shades were hot on the runway this Spring, but the Fashion Week designers were more successful in finishing off their looks.  Oscar de la Renta paired a lively pink blazer, embellished with blue beading, with a lighter blue leather skirt.  De la Renta was able to utilize the bright colors by pairing them with a complimentary and gentler color.  While the sports teams have their set colors, Adidas should have used pastels or made the jersey or shorts darker. One of my least favorite jerseys is Baylor’s, as yellow is the only color used except for the harsh black lining, making the jersey nothing but an eye sore.  Contrast was also a significant theme on the runways, especially black and white.  Adidas would have been successful employing these basic colors to create more of a contrast with the neon colors, instead of mixing bright with bright like in UCLA’s blue and yellow uniform. I understand the concept of school spirit, but I think Adidas stepped out of bounds when their uniforms were unveiled.

Related posts:

1. Moot Court Team Prepares to Battle
2. MLB: The Scott Boras Effect
3. Fashionably Debatable

theSkimm was started last summer by two 20-somethings, Carly Zakin and Danielle Weisberg. Carly and Danielle met while studying abroad in Rome and were immediately connected by their interest in current events. After working for a few years at NBC, Carly and Danielle noticed a void in the market. They noticed their friends, bright, young professionals were interested in what’s going on around them but didn’t have the time to sit and sift through headlines. Last July, Carly and Danielle left their jobs at NBC and started theSkimm. It is clear these two know what they’re doing. Every aspect of this newsletter is geared towards the young professional, including the delivery method. The founders looked to their own habits and the habits of their friends for ideal distribution. The first thing most busy 20-somethings do when they wake up is roll over and look at their phone. With distribution at 6:00 am ET, even the early gym riser can start their morning with a skim. theSkimm is written in plain text (it doesn’t eat up data) and it is easily retrievable for the subway commute.

This news source can be especially vital to law students. Law students are in a unique position, we’re supposed to keep up with everything that’s going on in the world while we have journal notes due, clinic hours, job searches, and readings for class. theSkimm tells you what you need to know in an easy and effective method. So now when a professor makes a current events reference in class, you don’t need to quickly Wikipedia what they said to get it, you already know because you skimmed it.

You can sign up for theSkimm at www.theSkimm.com.

Related posts:

1. Cardozo Cracks U.S. News Top Fifty Best Law Schools
2. Hearsay: Great Expectations
3. Vol II Issue 5

ReDigi is an online marketplace for pre-owned digital music and the only cloud storage service that verifies whether each music file uploaded for storage was legally acquired from an eligible source. ReDigi argues that its system relocates a file from a user’s hard drive to ReDigi’s cloud-based sharing system, which ensures that the same file, and not a reproduction thereof, is transferred to the server. However, in a moment of necessarily intense semantics, Judge Sullivan asserted, “the electronic file (or, perhaps more accurately, the appropriate segment of the hard disk) is a ‘phonorecord’ within the meaning of the first sale doctrine.” Thus, because digital music files must be stored in a new segment of hard disk on a purchasing user’s hard drive, the transfer onto the second drive is an unlawful reproduction within the meaning of the Copyright Act. “ReDigi is not distributing material items; rather, it is distributing reproductions of the copyrighted code embedded in new material objects.”

Despite concerns from content creators, allowing for the establishment of a ‘used’ digital marketplace might prove profitable to the creators of content, granted that certain provisions be put in place by the major online retail players.

Amazon.com was recently awarded a fairly comprehensive patent on a “secondary market for digital objects.” With its vast retail infrastructure already in place, Amazon seemed poised to offer a system for its users to sell and loan ‘used’ digital content, including audio files, eBooks, and mobile applications.

If Amazon institutes a suitable minimum price threshold for the re-sale of essentially ‘new’ electronic items (currently, eBooks have 99¢ minimum), the market would avert an immediate race-to-the-bottom of digital prices.  In addition, the content creator could (and should) be given a cut of the second-hand transaction; currently, when used hard copy content is re-sold, the original creator isn’t compensated. To prevent instantaneous re-sale, the trading or selling of ‘used’ digital content could be prohibited for a fixed period after a product’s initial release to warrant an item’s ‘used’ denomination. On the side of content creators, record companies or book publishers could promote special advantages of original purchase. For example, special features made available only to the first purchaser of any given digital copy.

Under this platform, the ‘used market’ would allow consumers to profitably purge their unwanted digital content, Amazon could make more money (in addition to its profits tied to original transactions), bargain-conscious shoppers could purchase inexpensive digital content, and content creators could finally realize a percentage of the secondary market that has already undermined their sales.

Related posts:

1. IP Panel Presents: Future of Digital Music
2. Streaming Music Program May Help Halt Illegal Downloading
3. Costco v. Omega: SCOTUS Feigns Decision on First-Sale Doctrine

In Louisville’s marquee matchup against Duke in the regional final, Louisville guard Kevin Ware suffered a brutal compound fracture after attempting to block a shot by Duke’s Tyler Thornton.  Ware jumped to stop a 3-point attempt but landed awkwardly, causing his shinbone to snap and pierce out of his skin.  This description does not do the injury justice.  If you want to see the replay for yourself, you better have an Internet connection; cable networks and their producers are refusing to show it on television.

Those watching the game live saw the whole injury, unfiltered.  CBS then replayed the injury twice, without using a close-up angle, then resigned to only showing reactions of the players, coaches, fans, and medical technicians over the next several minutes as Ware was put onto a stretcher and taken to a hospital.  The chairman of CBS Sports, Sean McManus, stands by his decision to never show the injury again after those replays.  CNN and ABC’s “Good Morning America” both later aired the play, but blurred Ware’s leg.  Fox, MSNBC, and ESPN never aired the footage, although ESPN guidelines allowed producers to show the injury if they only showed it once, did not air it in slow motion, and if they warned viewers in advance.

While Title 18, Chapter 71 of the U.S. Code does criminalize the broadcasting of obscene language, it does not prohibit obscene or gruesome images.  Nor does the Federal Communications Commission require images like the Kevin Ware injury to be censored (although, feel free to file a complaint if you wish).  The decisions by McManus and other network executives to censor or not show the footage are their own and have been largely praised.  The CBS game commentator Clark Kellogg described the injury as “gruesome” and not showing it protected more squeamish viewers from seeing an upsetting image.  Additionally, showing reaction shots rather than a continuous loop of the injury could be considered more respectful to Kevin Ware.

But refusing to replay an image by no means makes that image unavailable.  Most people who wanted to see the raw footage had to resort to YouTube or their DVRs.  Many argue that cable networks, CBS especially, should have shown the uncensored play because they are in a unique position to document history.  The decisions by cable executives also indicate that the major networks are becoming less relevant.  One of the many YouTube videos covering Ware’s injury has over 3 million views.  People are obviously fascinated with what is, essentially, a medical condition.  Maybe if CBS replayed the footage a couple more times, Kellogg might have seen that there was no knee or ligament damage and could have told viewers the injury was not as significant as the image might have suggested.  As it turns out, Ware has been released from the hospital and is walking around on crutches.  You certainly wouldn’t know it from the looks of despair on the faces of Ware’s teammates, which have assumed the role of representing Ware’s injury on cable TV.

Related posts:

1. Supreme Court Review: Summers v. Earth Island Institute
2. Proposition 8 Appeal Not Likely Says Federal Judge
3. 2d Circuit Review: Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli filed two briefs on behalf of the Obama Administration. One brief was about the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and the other brief was about the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Not only was this the first time the High Court agreed to hear challenges to the Act, but as SCOTUS blog writer Lyle Denniston highlights,  it was the first time the federal government proposed “heightened scrutiny” as the constitutional standard of review in a gay rights case. Furthermore, many have suggested that if the Court accepts the higher standard, none of the state denials of marriage to same-sex couples can be considered constitutional.

Before argument, groups speculated that the Court would not even reach constitutionality with respect to Ms. Windsor if it found that there was no longer a controversy on which it could rule. The Republican members of the House of Representatives’ leadership — the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) argued that since DOMA had been held unconstitutional by the 2nd Circuit, and Ms. Windsor would  be paid, that the proceeding was no longer properly adversarial in respect to her. The brief went further to argue that as both other parties (Ms. Windsor and The Administration) were without standing to appeal, the only party still aggrieved “is, of course, the House.” Whether or not the BLAG even had standing was also an issue in the case.

Verrilli’s brief argued that since the issue in the case was a federal estate tax collected and then refunded by the United States government, the federal government had a continued stake in the case.  He cited 2nd Circuit case law that states, generally: when the Executive Branch enforces a federal statute, it is an Article III controversy, regardless of whether the Executive “expresses” that the statute is unconstitutional.  Writing: “The United States was not required to accede to the district court’s judgment and to accept those injuries, by virtue of the Executive’s belief that the statute is unconstitutional. Rather, the United States is entitled to seek further review of whether those injuries are constitutionally mandated. Such review satisfies the constitutional, statutory, and prudential limitations on appellate jurisdiction.” It is of note that Ms. Windsor has not yet received her money, and DOMA is still in force. The ACLU urged the Court to hear the case and warned against the dangers of widespread uncertainty if the question is left to the lower courts.

Where does the lay population stand on the issue? Some interesting facts can be found in a Fox News Article called “Obama Urges Supreme Court to Strike Down Federal Defense of Marriage Act” and a piece written by Marty Lederman’s on SCOTUS blog. The Fox News article cites a May 2008 Gallup that found “Fifty-six percent of Americans felt same-sex marriages should not be recognized by the law as valid.” By November 2012, fifty-three percent felt they should be legally recognized. Mr. Lederman wrote that “only twenty of the forty-one states (that prohibit same sex marriage) . . . filed briefs in support of the constitutionality of Proposition 8.”

Related posts:

1. CT Justices Discuss Same-Sex Marriage
2. Proposition 8 Appeal Not Likely Says Federal Judge
3. Closing the Gap: Republican Support for Same-Sex Marriage

Of course, social pressure is at play. Particularly as a Jewish male, relatives both close and distant encourage me to pursue a career as a doctor, a lawyer, or, as a worst-case alternative, a CPA. As the son of a self-made immigrant, I have, of course, the desire to better the accomplishments my father has achieved. He arrived in New York with two hundred dollars in his pocket, the stereotypical newcomer in the spirit of those who sought fortune in the New World: a buffoonish, mustachioed man whose desire to achieve the American dream overcame the challenges of his modest physical presence.

The concept of the American dream is an alluring one, around which there is much romance and lore. But the fear of the American reality is what serves as the foundation for my own work ethic. I’ve always looked upon the banality of the typical middle-American experience with some trepidation. I live in apprehension of going to an office at 9 AM, mired in the egos of middle-management, to work for the benefit of another man’s entity. Even worse, I don’t wish to come home at 5 PM, with my tie unknotted, in a minivan purchased at the height of the dot-com bubble, to a home encircled by a white picket fence and occupied by 2.3 children. To me, such a commonplace existence is the antithesis of the reasons for which my parents migrated to this country. I strive to be a singular character, both in personality and profession, one with the privilege of speaking in public and living according to my inclination and convenience. I’d like to be ‘somebody,’ and not just another ‘body’ amidst the suburban sprawl.

I admit it. I hold firm a fear of banality, of regularity, of being but another notch in the census. I do not wish to have a career defined, as so many do, by making progress, and, subsequently, seeing that progress reversed by an economic crisis. I wish to be sufficiently singular so as to achieve immunity – if such immunity is obtainable – from the cycles of office hiring and firing, from the canyons and valleys of Wall Street. This effort, to position myself outside the realm of normality, provides me with the enthusiasm – with the energy, vigor and tenacity – with which I go about my business. Caffeinated beverages on their own cannot substitute.

No related posts.

Judge: Welcome to Room 204, or rather, the New York Court of Appeals. I will be presiding. Are the parties ready to proceed?

Student 1: Yup.

Student 2: Fo’ shizzle.

Judge: Counsel for the appellant, you may proceed.

Student 1: Good afternoon, chairs. I will be…

Judge: We’re not chairs; we’re judges. Start over, counselor.

Student 1: Okay. Chief Judge and regular judges, at oral arguments today, I will be addressing procedure and my co-counsel will be addressing substance. So let’s get oral.

Judge: Oral? What do you mean by “get oral?”

Student 1: Um, yeah, isn’t that what you do at oral arguments? “Get oral?”

Judge: I thought what we were doing here was appellate advocacy, but proceed counselor.

Student 1: This case is simple. This court should reverse the lower courts because they were goofed. They messed up big time. They had no idea what they were doing.

Judge: What do you base your proposition on?

Student 1: Precedent, duh.

Judge: Can you cite to any binding authority?

Student 1: Well, there’s this website.

Judge: That’s enough, counselor. You may sit down now.

Student 1: I’ll be back in a sec to rebut.

RESPONDENT PROCEDURAL:

Judge: Counsels for the respondent, what are you doing?

Student 2: Nothing.

Student 4: Nothing.

Judge: Why was she scratching your hair, counselor?

Student 2: For good luck.

Student 4: Totally for good luck.

Judge: Please stop touching each other and proceed with your argument.

Student 2: Sure. This case is simple. This court should affirm the lower court because they were right. They knew what was “up.” And in response to the counsel for the appellant, I say, “Don’t player hate.”

Judge: Where do you get your logic?

Student 2: When you’re high, you don’t want to get higher or else you’ll puke and stuff. In this case, there was no need to go to the highest court of New York because the Appellate Division was high enough. Shazam! I thought really hard about that, no big deal.

Judge: I’m sure you did. Please sit down. Counsel for the appellant, any rebuttal?

REBUTTAL:

Student 1: I would like to say one sentence in rebuttal: respondent, shut the front door! That is all.

APPELLANT SUBSTANTIVE:

Judge: Moving on, we will hear now from the counsel for the appellant on the substantive issue. Counselor, you may proceed.

Student 3: Your honors and friends, you’ve heard from my co-counsel and now you’ll hear from me. If I were to reduce the opposing counsel’s argument to one word, it would be “crazy.” It’s crazy for them to argue that our client did the deed. It’s crazy for the lower courts to believe them. It’s crazy that I even have to tell you this.

Judge: Do you have any facts to support this assertion?

Student 3: Yes, video games.

Judge: Video games?

Student 3: Our client was playing video games when the purported crime was committed. Signed, sealed, delivered! Cha-ching!

Judge: Where do you get these facts?

Student 3: He’s a dude. Since he was alone without anyone seeing him during the time in question, he was definitely playing video games. Judicial notice, baby.

Judge: Your position is crazy. Judicial notice is not taken. Counsel for the respondent, your submission?

RESPONDENT SUBSTANTIVE:

Student 4: Earlier, I rubbed my co-counsel’s hair for good luck. It turns out we don’t need it. It occurred to me we have something better, precedent.

Judge: What precedent do you have?

Student 4: There’s a case with the exact same facts and favor’s respondent arguments.

Judge: Which case is that?

Student 4: It’s the case from the Appellate Division with the same case name as the one today.

Judge: Are you referring to the lower court decision?

Student 4: Yeah, yeah! I’m all for it.

Judge: How do you respond to opposing counsel’s video games argument?

Student 4: Well, no comment.

Judge: No comment noted. Counsel for appellant, any rebuttal?

REBUTTAL

Student 3: The following precedent is not binding but it’s terribly persuasive. What precedent is that? Respondent, shut the front door!

Related posts:

1. Fall SCOTUS Preview
2. SCOTUS February: Soy-lent Green is Commodity Seed
3. Tax Clinic on the Cusp of a Supreme Court Appearance