Mark Americus Costantino

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case involved the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Vanguard Oil & Service Co., whose assets included real property in Brooklyn that had been marketed for over a year; the Bankruptcy Court approved a bundled sale of the real property along with fuel oil businesses to Bayside for $1.2 million after rejecting a lower standalone bid. Apex Oil Co., a judgment creditor with a lien on the property, appealed the sale authorization, claiming Bayside was not a good faith purchaser, that inadequate notice violated Apex's due process rights, and that the $300,000 allocation to the real property was erroneous. The District Court held the appeal moot under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) because Apex did not obtain a stay before the sale closed, and rejected the remaining claims on the grounds that the Bankruptcy Court acted within its discretion in finding the sale served the estate's best interests after considering marketing efforts, lack of higher bids, and seasonal business factors.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved defendants indicted on multiple counts of conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin, with the government seeking forfeiture of a bank account in Uruguay allegedly containing proceeds from the drug operation under 21 U.S.C. § 853. The court granted a seizure warrant for the account and issued an order compelling the defendants to execute a release form to transfer the funds to U.S. custody, finding probable cause that the assets were traceable to illegal activity and that such measures were necessary to preserve them for potential forfeiture. When the defendants refused to comply despite repeated instructions, the court held them in contempt. The ruling relied on the statute's authorization for warrants and additional protective actions, precedents allowing courts to order document execution, and provisions for seeking foreign judicial assistance to enforce the seizure abroad.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a creditor, I.T.T. Small Business Finance Corp., appealing a bankruptcy court's order expunging its proof of claim in a Chapter 13 proceeding filed by debtor Gladys Frederique. Frederique had guaranteed corporate notes, defaulted, and entered a settlement stipulation reducing the judgment to $40,000 with installment payments and a 20-day cure period after default notice; she paid partially before defaulting and filing for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court ruled that the stipulation's default clause was an illegal de facto cancellation provision triggered by bankruptcy filing and thus expunged the claim for the full unpaid judgment amount. The district court reversed, holding that the clause was not an ipso facto bankruptcy default provision under the Bankruptcy Code, that the creditor's rights to the full judgment upon uncured default were enforceable, and that the automatic stay did not indefinitely toll the cure period under 11 U.S.C. § 108(b) instead of § 362(a).

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Healy v. United States Postal Service, a long-time USPS employee alleged he was denied promotion due to race and age discrimination, asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, along with a Bivens constitutional claim and a tort claim. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing improper parties and lack of a viable cause of action. The court granted the motion, ruling that the Postmaster General was the only proper defendant for the statutory claims and that no Bivens remedy could be created given comprehensive administrative grievance procedures for federal employees; the tort claim was dismissed without prejudice for failure to meet jurisdictional requirements.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

In United States v. Giagoudakis, defendants Elias and Ruth Giagoudakis moved to suppress statements and physical evidence obtained during their warrantless arrest on drug charges, arguing that Ruth's arrest lacked probable cause because it was based only on her presence near the scene and her act of directing officers to her husband's truck, and that post-arrest statements violated Miranda. After a suppression hearing with testimony from arresting officers, the court denied the motion in full. It held that probable cause existed under the totality of circumstances, including Ruth's suspicious behavior, her identification of the truck where a cocaine sample was later exchanged, and the officers' observations of the transaction. The court also found that both defendants were advised of their Miranda rights and that voluntary waiver could be inferred from their conduct, allowing the statements to be used at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a copyright infringement claim by the author of a biography of Benjamin Disraeli against defendants who produced a television program about the same historical figure. The plaintiff alleged that the teleplay copied similarities from her manuscript, which she detailed in notes on the transcript. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that the alleged similarities concerned only historical facts, ideas, or scenes a faire that are not protected by copyright. The reasoning emphasized that copyright does not extend to facts or true events, even if discovered through original research, and that no reasonable observer could find substantial similarity in protectible elements between the works.

propertyprocedure

In this habeas corpus case, petitioner Samuel Lockett sought to bar further state prosecution on robbery and related charges after he entered a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect, which the trial court accepted with the prosecutor's consent based on psychiatric evaluations and his claims of Vietnam service and drug use; the plea resulted in his commitment for civil proceedings under New York law. After the plea, prosecutors discovered that Lockett had never served in Vietnam and successfully moved in state court to vacate it on grounds of fraud, a decision upheld by the New York Court of Appeals as within the courts' inherent authority. The federal district court granted the writ, ruling that the accepted plea was equivalent to an acquittal by verdict, that jeopardy had attached when Lockett's liberty was placed at risk through commitment proceedings, and that retrying him while using his plea admissions would violate double jeopardy and due process. The court therefore enjoined further prosecution under the indictments.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved defendants in a federal criminal prosecution challenging the admissibility of wiretap evidence obtained via New York state eavesdropping orders under Title 18 § 2518(10). The primary claim was that the second wiretap order was an illegal extension of the first due to a fourteen-day gap without authorization, which would taint subsequent orders, and defendants sought to suppress all related conversations. The court denied the motion to suppress the evidence. Only one defendant had standing as an aggrieved person whose conversations were intercepted, and federal law controls admissibility in federal cases. The core reasoning was that the second order constituted a new warrant, not an extension, because the devices were permanently inactivated per state statute, authorities acted in good faith, and Second Circuit precedent did not require applying a later state court interpretation retroactively.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a 19-year-old mentally retarded plaintiff living in a New York City diagnostic shelter who sued the State Commissioner of the Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, claiming that the State violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by failing to provide appropriate long-term placement in a state facility. The court granted in part and denied in part the State's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It reasoned that New York statutes, including the Mental Hygiene Law, assign ultimate responsibility for care of the mentally disabled to the State through the OMRDD regardless of physical custody by the City, so the plaintiff stated a viable due process claim against the State. The court separately denied class certification due to insufficient numerosity and granted the City's motion to intervene permissively.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved a medical malpractice lawsuit arising from complications during a Caesarian delivery performed by Dr. Lesly Kernisant on April 24, 1981, which resulted in the patient's death on May 1, 1981. The United States moved to dismiss the action against the doctor and substitute itself as defendant, asserting that Dr. Kernisant was a federal employee of the National Health Services Corps whose conduct fell under the Federal Tort Claims Act as the exclusive remedy. The plaintiff cross-moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that the doctor was an independent contractor. The court granted the government's motion after finding that federal regulations gave the Secretary of Health and Human Services direct supervision and control over Corps members, that the doctor received a federal salary with deductions, and that the Attorney General had certified the acts were within the scope of employment, thereby deeming the proceeding a tort action against the United States.

healthcarefederal powertorts & liabilityprocedure

This case was an antitrust lawsuit brought by Hayden Publishing Company against Cox Broadcasting Corporation and its subsidiary United Technical Publications, Inc., alleging that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to restrain trade in advertising for electronic catalog directories and that UTP violated Section 2 by monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the market through its EEM publication. The plaintiff claimed its Gold Book competed directly with EEM in a narrowly defined product market. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case in full, denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff's definition of the relevant product market was too narrow and inconsistent with commercial reality because it excluded other actual competitors, and after extensive discovery there were no genuine issues of material fact preventing judgment as a matter of law on the failure to show monopoly power or an unlawful restraint.

business & regulatory

The case involves plaintiff Evelyn Snorgrass seeking leave to file an administrative claim with the Drug Enforcement Administration for damages from an alleged unlawful arrest, imprisonment, and detention at JFK Airport on May 13, 1980, under the Federal Tort Claims Act after she had already filed suit against the United States and other agencies. The court denied the motion in full. It held that the claim was time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), which requires presentation of a tort claim to the appropriate federal agency within two years of accrual or filing suit within six months of final denial, and that compliance is a jurisdictional prerequisite. The court reasoned that the claim accrued at the time of injury rather than when the plaintiff learned of the DEA's involvement, the diligence-discovery rule did not apply because there was no fraud or deliberate concealment, and an additional regulation under 28 C.F.R. § 14.2(b)(4) prevented tolling the limitations period for a claim against a different agency after a final denial.

proceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

In this diversity action, a Mexican corporation that manufactures and exports wicker baskets sued a New York importer and its individual principals for amounts owed on goods sold and delivered, dishonored checks, related interest and service charges, and fraud. The defendants moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds, including that the plaintiff was unauthorized to do business in New York under Business Corporation Law § 1312, that the complaint failed to state a claim, that any debt was solely corporate, and that no fraud was adequately alleged. The court denied the motions in full, concluding that the plaintiff's limited contacts with New York did not rise to the level of doing business requiring authorization, that the fraud allegations met federal pleading standards and could support personal liability for corporate officers, and that material factual disputes existed as to the defendants' intent regarding payment.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case arose from an emergency landing at JFK Airport caused by exploding tires on an aircraft's landing gear, with plaintiffs suing the tire manufacturer Goodrich, tour operators Weekends, and the Synagogue under federal law for related harms. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a federal claim under the Federal Aviation Act (49 U.S.C. § 1374) and for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337. The court granted the motions, holding that no private civil remedy could be implied under the Act per the Cort v. Ash factors and that Goodrich, as a tire manufacturer, was not an "air carrier" subject to the statute's duties. The opinion reasoned that the Act regulates air carriers' duties to provide transportation but does not authorize private suits, with jurisdiction depending on a valid federal claim arising under commerce regulations.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure