Renzulli Law Firm

This matter was commenced by a well-known pet cemetery in Westchester County which had removed and disposed of the remains of a dog belonging to our client, without her knowledge.

In early January of 2000, arrangements were made for the interment of our client’s pet at a pet cemetery located in Hartsdale, New York. Unbeknownst to our client, however, in 2007, her pet was disinterred and disposed of by the cemetery. Hoping to prevent others from suffering from similar occurrences in the future, she wrote an article on her personal webpage explaining what happened to her pet. In January of 2009, the pet cemetery commenced a $10 million defamation action against her for the statements written in her article.

We were retained to defend our client in the multi-million dollar lawsuit and we moved for the immediate dismissal of the case on a number of grounds, including lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a cause of action, lack of standing, and expiration of the statute of limitations. We argued that there was no jurisdiction in New York over our client (a New Jersey resident) on a defamation claim arising from an article published on the internet. New York law generally does not permit an action for defamation to be brought against an out-of-state resident using its long-arm statute. Although our client contracted to bury her dog at the cemetery located in New York, we argued that the contract was not a proper basis for holding jurisdiction over our client for the defamation action.

The Honorable Mary M. Smith agreed with our arguments and granted our motion and dismissed the $10 million lawsuit against our client.

This case was also featured in the New York Daily News. For more information, contact Christopher Renzulli or John Tait.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court issued its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and, on that basis, striking down the District of Columbia’s ban on possessing a handgun in the home. The decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, however, only applied to federal gun control laws. In its McDonald decision, the Court addressed the issue of whether the Second Amendment also applies to state and local laws through the Fourteenth Amendment, which states in relevant part that: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . .” The first clause is known as the privileges and immunities clause; the second is known as the due process clause.

Justice Alito wrote the opinion of the Court, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Kennedy. Justice Thomas joined in the judgment, and certain parts of Justice Alito’s opinion. Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion and Justice Thomas wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion and Justice Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined.

Attachments:

Supreme Court's Decision in McDonald v. Chicago

1111 Kb

Renzulli Law Firm recently obtained summary judgment for a major firearms manufacturer.  The plaintiff, a Westchester County (NY) police officer, was injured when he was shot in the leg by a fellow officer.  Reports following the incident indicated that the fellow officer attempted to activate an accessory tactical light mounted underneath the barrel of his pistol and accidentally pulled the trigger of the pistol resulting in significant permanent injuries to the plaintiff.

Plaintiff commenced litigation against the manufacturer of both the pistol and the tactical light, alleging that the pistol and tactical light were both defective in design.  Renzulli Law Firm successfully defeated plaintiff’s theories of defect with respect to the pistol through effective questioning of plaintiff’s design and handling experts.  By performing thorough research and carefully questioning plaintiff’s experts, Renzulli Law Firm was able to elicit testimony demonstrating that the pistol was not defective in any way and was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, leaving no issue of fact for the jury to decide.  In fact, given the testimony plaintiff was essentially unable to oppose summary judgment.  Accordingly, United States District Judge Sidney H. Stein granted the motion and dismissed the firearms manufacturer from the case.  The case is proceeding to trial against the manufacturer of the tactical light.  Renzulli Law Firm did not represent the manufacturer of the tactical light.

For further information regarding this matter, please contact John F. Renzulli or Christopher Renzulli.

National Defense Magazine, one of the major publications in the defense industry, featured John Renzulli and Michael Patrick's article Defense Contractors Increasingly Targeted in Corruption Investigations in its August 2010 issue.

The article addresses the exploding costs associated with bribery and corruption around the world, and especially in the United States under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (or FCPA). Mr. Renzulli and Mr. Patrick explain in the article that the key to avoiding the high costs associated with bribery and corruption and, indeed, even just the allegations of bribery or corruption, is to effectively address risks through stringent, comprehensive compliance programs.

Mr. Renzulli and Mr. Patrick assist corporations in designing and implementing compliance programs that are tailored to the individual corporation's needs and budget. For more information, please contact John Renzulli or Michael Patrick.