Schiavone Construction Co. v. Merola

Second Circuit

Schiavone Construction Co. v. Merola

848 F.2d 43, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 7903

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 9, 1988

Docket1190

StatusPublished

This text of 848 F.2d 43 (Schiavone Construction Co. v. Merola) 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

Schiavone Construction Co. v. Merola, 848 F.2d 43, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 7903 (2d Cir. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

848 F.2d 43

SCHIAVONE CONSTRUCTION CO., a New Jersey Corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Tulia MEROLA, as Administratrix of the Estate of Mario
Merola; and the District Attorney for the County
of the Bronx, New York, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1190, Docket 88-7162.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued May 27, 1988.
Decided June 9, 1988.

Theodore W. Geiser, Roseland, N.J., for plaintiff-appellant.

Alan G. Krams, New York City, Asst. Corp. Counsel (Peter L. Zimroth, Corp. Counsel, Leonard Koerner, Fay Leoussis, Asst. Corp. Counsels, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.

Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and PRATT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Leonard B. Sand, J., dismissing plaintiff's complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and holding that plaintiff's acquittal in the underlying criminal proceedings precluded recovery of the extra expenses borne by plaintiff in its efforts to neutralize defendant's prejudicial pretrial statements. The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons given by Judge Sand in his opinion reported at 678 F.Supp. 64 (S.D.N.Y.1988).

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

848 F.2d 43

SCHIAVONE CONSTRUCTION CO., a New Jersey Corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Tulia MEROLA, as Administratrix of the Estate of Mario
Merola; and the District Attorney for the County
of the Bronx, New York, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1190, Docket 88-7162.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued May 27, 1988.
Decided June 9, 1988.

Theodore W. Geiser, Roseland, N.J., for plaintiff-appellant.

Alan G. Krams, New York City, Asst. Corp. Counsel (Peter L. Zimroth, Corp. Counsel, Leonard Koerner, Fay Leoussis, Asst. Corp. Counsels, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.

Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and PRATT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Leonard B. Sand, J., dismissing plaintiff's complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and holding that plaintiff's acquittal in the underlying criminal proceedings precluded recovery of the extra expenses borne by plaintiff in its efforts to neutralize defendant's prejudicial pretrial statements. The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons given by Judge Sand in his opinion reported at 678 F.Supp. 64 (S.D.N.Y.1988).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

848 F.2d 43, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 7903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schiavone-construction-co-v-merola-ca2-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack