Scribd
Upload
175 views1 page

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.: No. 1190, Docket 88-7162

This document summarizes a court case between Schiavone Construction Co. and Tulia Merola as administratrix of the estate of Mario Merola and the District Attorney for the County of the Bronx. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Schiavone's §1983 complaint seeking recovery of extra expenses from efforts to counter prejudicial pretrial statements, agreeing with the district court that the plaintiff's acquittal in the underlying criminal case precluded such recovery.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
175 views1 page

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.: No. 1190, Docket 88-7162

This document summarizes a court case between Schiavone Construction Co. and Tulia Merola as administratrix of the estate of Mario Merola and the District Attorney for the County of the Bronx. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Schiavone's §1983 complaint seeking recovery of extra expenses from efforts to counter prejudicial pretrial statements, agreeing with the district court that the plaintiff's acquittal in the underlying criminal case precluded such recovery.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

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).

You might also like