Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Frederick W. Crigger, et al. v. Fahnestock and Company, Inc., et al.
Date: 03-31-2006
Case Number: Unknown4/2/2006
Judge: Unknown
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on appeal from the District of New York, New York County
Plaintiff's Attorney:
ERIC J. GRANNIS, Law Offices of
Eric J. Grannis, New York, NY,
for Plaintiffs-Counter-
Defendants-Appellants.
Defendant's Attorney:
HOWARD WILSON, Proskauer Rose
LLP, New York, NY, for
Defendant-Appellee Fahnestock
and Company, Inc.
Victims of a Ponzi scheme brought suit for common law
fraud against the schemers--Aurelio Vuono and Raymond
Minicucci--and Fahnestock & Co. ("Fahnestock"), a financial
institution that employed Minicucci and was used by him and
Vuono as a financial intermediary. Although Minicucci had
settled, his role was contested at trial in the context of
Fahnestock's liability under the doctrine of respondeat
superior. The jury found that plaintiffs failed to show by
clear and convincing evidence that Vuono or Minicucci was
liable for fraud; and having found no fraud by Minicucci,
the jury did not reach the respondeat superior claim against
Fahnestock. On April 25, 2005, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Keenan, J.)
entered judgment dismissing the complaint.
On appeal, plaintiffs Frederick W. Crigger, Jack
Schueler, Eva Schueler, DS McKee Investments Inc., and CS
Design, Inc. challenge the jury charge on the grounds that
(1) it erroneously stated that plaintiffs had a duty of
investigation triggered by their relative financial
sophistication and by what they were told about the
investment; and (2) it erroneously omitted an instruction on
conspiracy to defraud and on aiding and abetting. In
addition, they contest the receipt into evidence of a "memo
to file" in which an accountant of one of the plaintiffs
recorded his advice that the transaction should be
approached with caution.
We affirm as to Fahnestock on the ground that the jury
charge was sound and because the evidence richly supports a
finding that plaintiffs failed to make inquiries
commensurate with their sophistication, notwithstanding
telltale signs that the investment was a Ponzi scheme or
some other implausible kind of bonanza. We affirm as to
Vuono on the same ground.
Moreover, we conclude that the district court properly
chose to include no instruction on conspiracy or on aiding
and abetting, and did not abuse its discretion by admitting
the accountant's memorandum.
* * *
chose to include no instruction on conspiracy or on aiding
and abetting, and did not abuse its discretion by admitting
the accountant’s memorandum.
About This Case
What was the outcome of Frederick W. Crigger, et al. v. Fahnestock and Company, I...?
The outcome was: Moreover, we conclude that the district court properly chose to include no instruction on conspiracy or on aiding and abetting, and did not abuse its discretion by admitting the accountant’s memorandum.
Which court heard Frederick W. Crigger, et al. v. Fahnestock and Company, I...?
This case was heard in United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on appeal from the District of New York, New York County, NY. The presiding judge was Unknown.
Who were the attorneys in Frederick W. Crigger, et al. v. Fahnestock and Company, I...?
Plaintiff's attorney: ERIC J. GRANNIS, Law Offices of Eric J. Grannis, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Counter- Defendants-Appellants.. Defendant's attorney: HOWARD WILSON, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Fahnestock and Company, Inc..
When was Frederick W. Crigger, et al. v. Fahnestock and Company, I... decided?
This case was decided on March 31, 2006.