Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Janecka v. Franklin

decided: April 4, 1988.

DR. IVO JANECKA AND CHERYL JANECKA, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT S. FRANKLIN, ESQ.; SAMUEL G. FREDMAN, ESQ. & NEIL A. FREDMAN, ESQ., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND/OR AGENTS OF FINK, WEINBERGER, FREDMAN, BERMAN & LOWELL, P.C.; AND FINK, WEINBERGER, FREDMAN, BERMAN & LOWELL, P.C., A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES



Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Leonard B. Sand, Judge, dismissing complaint. See F. Supp. (1987). Affirmed.

Timbers, Kearse, and Friedman*fn* , Circuit Judges.

Author: Per Curiam

Per Curiam:

Plaintiff's appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court entered in the Southern District of New York, Leonard B. Sand, Judge, dismissing their complaint seeking damages from defendants for alleged violation of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. ยง 2510 et seq. (1982). The complaint alleged that defendants had violated the Act by causing a recording device to be attached to the home telephone of defendant Robert S. Franklin, the former husband of plaintiff Cheryl Janecka, during the course of a contested child custody proceeding following their divorce. In an opinion reported at F. Supp. (1987), the district court ruled that the complaint should be dismissed on the authority of Anonymous v. Anonymous, 558 F.2d 677 (2d Cir. 1977). We agree and affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district court.

We have considered all of plaintiffs' argument on the present appeal and have found them to be without merit, though not so lacking in merit that sanctions should be imposed.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Defendants' motion for special sanctions are denied. Normal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.