District Court, E.D. New York — appointed by Richard Nixon
Doubleday & Co., Inc. v. United States
District Court, E.D. New York · 1989-09-12
In this tax refund suit, Doubleday & Co. sought over $1.4 million in corporate income taxes paid for its 1977 fiscal year after acquiring Dell Publishing and filing a consolidated return that used the installment method for paperback sales and claimed various royalty and prepublication deductions. The IRS initially accepted one adjustment that would have supported the refund but denied the claim after disallowing a royalties reconciliation deduction and making related adjustments, treating the publishing rights costs as capital expenditures. The court granted summary judgment to the United States, holding that royalties paid for book publishing rights constitute direct production costs that must be capitalized and recovered through depreciation rather than deducted as period expenses, and that prepublication expenses are indirect production costs; as a result, the net adjustments did not entitle the taxpayer to the full refund sought.
taxesbusiness & regulatory
Frankel v. Slotkin
District Court, E.D. New York · 1989-01-18 · cited 5×
This case is a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of United Brands Company alleging violations of federal securities laws, including Rule 10b-5 fraud claims related to nondisclosure of a planned tender offer when lowering debenture conversion prices, as well as claims under Sections 14(e) and 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 involving a put option granted in connection with the tender offer. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rules 9(b), 12(b)(6), and 23.1, and alternatively sought a bond under New York law, while the plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the Section 16(b) claim. The court denied the motion to dismiss the 10b-5 claim, finding that the amended complaint sufficiently pleaded facts giving rise to an inference of the defendants' knowledge of the future tender offer, but granted dismissal of the Section 14(e) and 16(b) claims on the grounds that the put option was not exercisable within six months and thus did not constitute a prohibited purchase and sale. The court also denied the request for a bond because jurisdiction was based on federal statutes. The core reasoning emphasized the particularity requirements for fraud pleadings under Rule 9(b) while applying standards that allow general averments of intent when specific events support an inference of scienter, along with settled precedent on the scope of Section 16(b).
business & regulatoryprocedure
Polygram S.A. v. 32-03 Enterprises, Inc.
District Court, E.D. New York · 1988-10-17 · cited 9×
The case involved a dispute between a French manufacturer of records and compact discs and its New York distributor over unpaid invoices for delivered merchandise. The plaintiff sued for the contract price after the defendant failed to pay, citing defective goods and seeking credit or return; the defendant also raised a statute of frauds defense and a counterclaim for storage costs. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarding the full amount due plus interest and dismissing the counterclaim. It reasoned that the invoices satisfied the UCC statute of frauds between merchants, the contract terms requiring written notice of defects within 90 days were clear and enforceable, and the defendant provided no timely written objections or evidence creating a genuine factual issue.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Two Star Surgical Supply, Inc. v. New York State Department of Social Services (In Re Two Star Surgical Supply, Inc.)
District Court, E.D. New York · 1988-10-11 · cited 4×
This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order sanctioning attorney Gerald Slotnik under Bankruptcy Rule 9011 for using 'denial of knowledge or information' responses in an answer to a debtor's complaint without sufficient prior inquiry. The complaint, filed by Two Star Surgical Supply, Inc., sought $350,000 from the New York State Department of Social Services under bankruptcy provisions, but the answer included jurisdictional defenses that led to dismissal of the case. The district court reviewed the matter de novo and vacated the sanctions, holding that the responses were technical and that Slotnik's inquiry—consulting with DSS counsel and researching defenses amid tight filing deadlines—was reasonable under the circumstances. The court emphasized that sanctions require a showing that a competent attorney could not have formed a reasonable belief in the pleading after inquiry, and doubts should be resolved in favor of the signer.
procedure
Parker v. Hearn
District Court, E.D. New York · 1988-09-19 · cited 5×
In Parker v. Hearn, plaintiff Angela Parker brought a § 1983 action alleging that defendant Jon Parker and Detective David Hearn wrongfully arrested, falsely imprisoned, and maliciously prosecuted her following a criminal complaint about an assault and robbery. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It determined that Detective Hearn had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff based on his investigation, including interviews with witnesses, the victim, and the ambulance attendant, as well as the plaintiff's own admissions, which defeated the false arrest and imprisonment claims. The claim against Jon Parker failed because he was not acting under color of state law when initiating the complaint. With no remaining federal claims, the court dismissed the state law claims for lack of jurisdiction.
civil rightscriminal lawprocedure
Ligi v. Regnery Gateway, Inc.
District Court, E.D. New York · 1988-06-24 · cited 6×
This case involved a breach of contract suit brought in federal court under diversity jurisdiction by a New York plaintiff against an Illinois corporation and a Romanian-born individual living in New York. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the individual defendant was allegedly stateless after renouncing his citizenship, and lack of personal jurisdiction over the corporation because it did not transact business in New York. The court denied the motion, holding that the individual remained a Romanian citizen since he had not completed the required revocation procedures under Romanian law and that any purported change occurred after the suit was filed, and that the corporation's ongoing distribution relationship in New York constituted sufficient contacts to support personal jurisdiction under state long-arm statute. The ruling rested on the presumption of continuing citizenship at birth, the uncontroverted evidence of foreign renunciation requirements, and the totality of the corporation's New York business activities linked to the dispute.
procedurebusiness & regulatoryimmigration