Insalaco v. Alaimo

Second Circuit

Insalaco v. Alaimo

46 F. App'x 662

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedSeptember 25, 2002

DocketNo. 00-7469

StatusPublished

This text of 46 F. App'x 662 (Insalaco v. Alaimo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Insalaco v. Alaimo, 46 F. App'x 662 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Stephen Charles Insalaco appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Telesca, J.), dismissing Insalaco’s claims, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state law, against defendants Gerald W. Aaimo, Aaimo Enterprises, Ltd., and the Town of Greece, New York. Insalaco also appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to submit new evidence.

Finding no reversible error, we affirm the dismissal of Insalaco’s claims for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion. See Stephen Charles Insalaco v. Gerald Alaimo, 99-CV-6344T (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2000). Because Insalaco has not addressed the district court’s order denying his motion to submit new evidence in his briefs, this claim is deemed waived. See LoSacco v. Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir.1995).

All outstanding motions are hereby denied.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Stephen Charles Insalaco appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Telesca, J.), dismissing Insalaco’s claims, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state law, against defendants Gerald W. Aaimo, Aaimo Enterprises, Ltd., and the Town of Greece, New York. Insalaco also appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to submit new evidence.

Finding no reversible error, we affirm the dismissal of Insalaco’s claims for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion. See Stephen Charles Insalaco v. Gerald Alaimo, 99-CV-6344T (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2000). Because Insalaco has not addressed the district court’s order denying his motion to submit new evidence in his briefs, this claim is deemed waived. See LoSacco v. Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir.1995).

All outstanding motions are hereby denied.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 F. App'x 662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/insalaco-v-alaimo-ca2-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack