Title
Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, 30 F. 3d 339 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1994
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
7-20-1994
Abstract
Plaintiffs-appellants Riverwoods Chappaqua Corporation ("RCC") and Harvey Shapiro appeal from a judgment, entered on June 23, 1993 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Brieant, J.) after a jury trial, dismissing their amended complaint in an action to recover damages pursuant to the civil enforcement provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968. The factual basis for the complaint was appellants' allegation that, through acts of extortion and mail fraud, defendant-appellee Marine Midland Bank coerced appellants to "restructure" certain loan agreements made between RCC and Westchester Federal Savings Bank ("WFSB"). Marine Midland inherited the agreements when it acquired WFSB in 1986.
In the amended complaint, several alternative theories were offered as to how Marine Midland violated the RICO statute. In Count I of the amended complaint, it was alleged that, through a pattern of racketeering activity, Marine Midland and two of its loan officers, Augustus Costaldo and Thomas Brennan, participated in the affairs of an association-in-fact enterprise known as the "Restructuring Group," in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). In Count II, it was alleged that RCC was an enterprise within the meaning of the RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), and that through a pattern of racketeering activity Marine Midland, Costaldo and Brennan acquired an interest in or control of RCC, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b). In Count III, it again was alleged that RCC was the enterprise, and in this count Marine Midland and its loan officers were said to have conducted or participated in the conduct of RCC through a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). In Count IV, it was alleged that Marine Midland, Costaldo and Brennan conspired to violate RICO, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). The district court directed a verdict in favor of Marine Midland on Counts I and IV, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Marine Midland on Counts II and III. On appeal, appellants contend that the district court erred by directing a verdict on Count I. On Counts I, II and III, they challenge the district court's decision not to admit the testimony of other WFSB borrowers whose loans were restructured by Marine Midland. As to Counts II and III, they assign as error certain jury instructions given by the district court. Appellants do not challenge the dismissal of Count IV. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Recommended Citation
Miner '56, Roger J., "Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, 30 F. 3d 339 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1994" (1994). Circuit Court Opinions. 422.
https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/circuit_opinions/422
Comments
30 F.3d 339 (1994)
RIVERWOODS CHAPPAQUA CORP. and Harvey Shapiro, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
MARINE MIDLAND BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 949, Docket 93-7732. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued February 9, 1994. Decided July 20, 1994.
New York Law School location: File #1877, Box #132