The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the criminal conviction of Paul Fishbein in a summary order issued Monday, upholding a lower court judgment in a case that originated in the Southern District of New York.
The appeals court issued its ruling in *United States v. Fishbein* (2d Cir. 2026), with a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Denny Chin, Richard J. Sullivan, and Eunice C. Lee unanimously affirming the February 12, 2024 judgment entered by U.S. District Judge Paul A. Crotty.
The case, designated as Nos. 24-472 (L) and 24-2441 (Con), represents an appeal from Fishbein's criminal conviction in federal court. The appeals court's order states simply that "the February 12, 2024 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED," without providing detailed reasoning for the decision.
Fishbein was represented on appeal by attorney Brian E. Spears of Spears Manning & Martini LLC in Southport, Connecticut, with assistance from Ivan J. Ladd-Smith. The government's position was argued by Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah L. Kushner, supported by colleagues Stephanie Simon and Jacob R. Fiddelman, representing U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York.
The Second Circuit issued its decision as a summary order, which carries specific limitations under federal appellate procedure. According to the court's notice, "rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect," meaning the decision cannot be cited as binding precedent in future cases before the court.
However, the summary order can still be cited in legal filings under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and the Second Circuit's Local Rule 32.1.1, which govern citation to non-precedential decisions filed after January 1, 2007. Parties citing the summary order must reference either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database with the notation "summary order" and must serve a copy on any unrepresented parties.
The appeals court heard the case at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, located at 40 Foley Square in Manhattan, during its stated January 2026 term. The courthouse serves as the primary location for Second Circuit proceedings in New York City.
Summary orders represent a significant portion of federal appellate court decisions, typically used for cases where the legal issues are well-settled or the facts do not warrant a published opinion. These orders allow appeals courts to efficiently manage their caseloads while still providing appellants with their constitutional right to appeal.
The Second Circuit, which has jurisdiction over federal appeals from New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, frequently uses summary orders to resolve criminal appeals where the issues presented do not require extended legal analysis or do not present novel questions of law that would benefit from precedential treatment.
While the specific charges and circumstances underlying Fishbein's conviction are not detailed in the available court documents, the affirmance indicates that the appeals court found no reversible error in the district court proceedings. Federal criminal appeals typically challenge issues such as the sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, sentencing guidelines, or constitutional violations during trial proceedings.
The timeline of the case shows that Fishbein's original conviction occurred in February 2024, with his appeal filed later that year and assigned docket numbers 24-472 and 24-2441. The consolidation of multiple case numbers suggests the appeal may have involved related proceedings or multiple defendants, though the summary order identifies only Fishbein as the defendant-appellant.
Judge Crotty, who presided over the original trial in the Southern District of New York, is an experienced federal jurist appointed to the bench in 2005. The Southern District of New York handles numerous high-profile federal criminal cases due to its jurisdiction over Manhattan's financial district and its role as a major center for federal law enforcement.
The affirmance represents the conclusion of Fishbein's direct appeal, though defendants in federal criminal cases retain limited options for further review, including potential petitions for rehearing en banc before the full Second Circuit or certiorari review by the Supreme Court.
The case illustrates the standard appellate process in federal criminal matters, where defendants have the right to challenge their convictions before a three-judge appellate panel. The use of a summary order suggests the appeals court found the legal issues presented to be routine or clearly governed by existing precedent.
For practitioners in the Second Circuit, the decision serves as a reminder of the court's continued use of summary orders to manage its criminal caseload efficiently while maintaining the appellate review process that serves as a crucial check on district court proceedings.