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.

LACORTE v. HUDACS

April 18, 1995

KENNETH LACORTE, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN HUDACS, individually, ROBERT F. GOLLNICK, individually, THOMAS M. HINES, individually, CHESTER RYSEDORPH, individually, CHRISTOPHER ALUND, individually, RICHARD CORENTHAL, individually, JANE LAUER BARKER, individually, THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, JOHN L. BUONO, both individually and as Executive of Rensselaer County, MARILYN K. DOUGLAS, both individually and as Chairperson of the Rennselaer County Legislature, THE COUNTY OF ALBANY, MICHAEL POLOVINA, both individually and as an employee, agent and/or servant of Albany County, RICHARD MEYERS, both individually and as a member of the Albany County Legislature and/or an employee, agent and/or servant of Albany County, FRANK COMMISSO, both individually and as a member of the Albany County Legislature, HAROLD JOYCE, both individually and as a member of the Albany County Legislature and as a business agent of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, BERNARD MERICLE, both individually and as a business agent of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, CLOUGH HARBOR AND ASSOCIATES, LARRY V. FAIRCHILD, both individually and as partner and/or employee, agent and/or servant of Clough Harbour and Associates, ANDREW TOMS, both individually and as an employee, agent and/or servant of Clough Harbour and Associates, Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: THOMAS J. MCAVOY

 DECISION & ORDER

 I. BACKGROUND

 A. Summary of Facts:

 In 1987 plaintiffs Kenneth P. Lacorte and Lacorte Electrical Construction admitted to violating New York State Labor Laws by willfully underpaying employees on public works projects. Lacorte agreed to repay the employees but was subsequently charged with compelling those employees to return the repaid back-wages. Based on these charges plaintiffs pled guilty to grand larceny and were fined and sentenced to probation. As part of their plea agreement, however, plaintiffs received a certificate of relief from any civil forfeitures or disabilities under New York law.

 Plaintiffs by their amended complaint now claim that the above captioned defendants engaged in a series of actions and conspiracies to act which intended to deprive plaintiffs of life, liberty and property without due process of law. They claim that the defendants did so by initiating unfounded investigations against plaintiffs, by distributing defamatory information to various state and municipal contracting entities concerning the above violations of New York law and by drafting legislation and executive orders, all with the purpose of having plaintiffs declared "nonresponsible" bidders and hence disqualified from being awarded public works contracts. Therefore, claim plaintiffs, the direct and proximate result was that various public entities, particularly Albany and Rennselaer Counties, denied public works contracts to plaintiffs without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard.

 B. Procedural History:

 Many of the named defendants have previously moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for dismissal of plaintiff's complaint as to them. By a decision issued from the bench on December 14, 1994, the Court granted the motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim against them of defendants Hudacs, *fn1" Gollnick, *fn2" Hines, *fn3" Rysedorph, *fn4" Alund, *fn5" Barbaro, *fn6" and Corenthal and Barker *fn7" (collectively the "State defendants"). The Court also granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motions of defendants Mericle, *fn8" and Nirsberger *fn9" (collectively the "Union defendants"). The Court indicated at that time its intention to treat defendant IBEW's motion as one for summary judgment. Plaintiffs were granted fourteen days to respond thereto in light of the principles identified in that decision from the bench or to discontinue as against IBEW. On February 13, 1995 plaintiffs filed with the Court a Consent to Dismissal of their Complaint with prejudice against defendant IBEW.

 Comes now defendants County of Albany, Michael Polovina, Richard Meyers and Frank Commisso (the "Albany County defendants") seeking dismissal of plaintiff's complaint as to them under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), or, in the alternative, judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c).

 II. DISCUSSION

 A. The Standards for a Motion to Dismiss and for Judgment on the Pleadings:

 1). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6):

 Plaintiffs have alleged a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which requires that the plaintiffs make two allegations: (1) that some person has violated the plaintiffs' protected rights under the U.S. Constitution or federal law; and, (2) that the person who allegedly violated such rights acted under color of state law. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535, 68 L. Ed. 2d 420, 101 S. Ct. 1908 (1981); Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640, 64 L. Ed. 2d 572, 100 S. Ct. 1920 (1980). When examining a suit brought under § 1983 it is the duty of the court to examine whether plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts which, if proved, would comprise an actionable deprivation of a federal right. Robinson v. Mount Vernon, 654 F. Supp. 170, 172 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). The court should not dismiss on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion unless it appears clear that the plaintiffs cannot in any way establish a set of facts to sustain their claim which would permit relief. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 10, 66 L. Ed. 2d 163, 101 S. Ct. 173 (1980); Bass v. Jackson, 790 F.2d 260, 262 (2d Cir. 1986).

 In determining the legal sufficiency of a claim, the facts must be judged in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1686, 40 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1974). The federal courts are prohibited from applying a "heightened pleadings standard" to certain § 1983 cases, see Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 113 S. Ct. 1160, 122 L. Ed. 2d 517 (1993) but nonetheless, complaints based on civil rights statutes must include specific allegations of facts showing a ...


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.