Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

City of New York v. CitiSource, Inc.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
679 F. Supp. 393 (1988)


Facts

The City of New York (the City) (plaintiff) sued CitiSource, Inc. (CitiSource), Stanley Friedman, and Marvin Kaplan (defendants) under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for bribing two city officials to procure a city contract. Friedman and Kaplan were also criminally prosecuted by the federal government. On November 25, 1986, Friedman and Kaplan were found guilty by a federal jury of bribing the city officials with shares of CitiSource stock to influence the award of a $22.7 million municipal contract. The State of New York also sought to prosecute Friedman and Kaplan for the fraudulent procurement of the government contract. The Manhattan District Attorney obtained orders of attachment against certain bank accounts owned by Friedman, Kaplan, and a retirement trust in a related civil forfeiture action. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that the state prosecution was barred by double jeopardy and vacated the attachments. Just before the attachments were vacated, Friedman called his bank to inquire about the process to withdraw his funds. Kaplan attempted to have funds transferred from the retirement trust account into his name immediately after the District Attorney obtained an order of attachment against his other property. The City then moved to attach the bank accounts as part of this civil RICO action. The trial court initially granted a temporary restraining order and then denied the motion after consideration. The City moved the trial court to reconsider.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Connor, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.