Janecka v. Franklin, 944
| Decision Date | 04 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 944,944 |
| Citation | 843 F.2d 110 |
| Parties | Dr. Ivo JANECKA and Cheryl Janecka, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert S. FRANKLIN, Esq.; Samuel G. Fredman, Esq. & Neil A. Fredman, Esq., individually and as officers, employees and/or agents of Fink, Weinberger, Fredman, Berman & Lowell, P.C.; and Fink, Weinberger, Fredman, Berman & Lowell, P.C., a Professional Corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New York, Defendants-Appellees. ocket 87-7997. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
David A. Goldstein, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Lawrence Farkash, New York City (Laufer & Farkash, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee Franklin.
Robert S. Groban, Jr., New York City (David N. Brockett, Fink, Weinberger, Fredman, Berman & Lowell, P.C., New York City, on the brief), defendants-appellees pro se.
Before TIMBERS, KEARSE and FRIEDMAN *, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court entered in the Southern District of New York, Leonard B. Sand, Judge, dismissing their complaint seeking damages from defendants for alleged violation of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510 et seq. (1982). The complaint alleged that defendants had violated the Act by causing a recording device to be attached to the home telephone of defendant Robert S. Franklin, the former husband of plaintiff Cheryl Janecka, during the course of a contested child custody proceeding following their divorce. In an opinion reported at 684 F.Supp. 24 (1987), the district court ruled that the complaint should be dismissed on the authority of Anonymous v. Anonymous, 558 F.2d 677 (2d Cir.1977). We agree and affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district court.
We have considered all of plaintiffs' arguments on the present appeal and have found them to be without merit, though not so lacking in merit that sanctions should be imposed.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Defendants' motions for special sanctions are denied. Normal costs are awarded to defendants.
* United States Circuit Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources ex rel. Wright v. David L.
...But see Anonymous v. Anonymous, 558 F.2d 677 (2nd Cir.1977); Janecka v. Franklin, 684 F.Supp. 24 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd, 843 F.2d 110 (2nd Cir.1988). [192 W.Va. 669] inescapable "conclusion that 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) establishes a ......
-
Pollock v. Pollock
...phone within the home. Scheib v. Grant, 22 F.3d 149 (7th Cir.1994); Newcomb v. Ingle, 944 F.2d 1534 (10th Cir.1991); Janecka v. Franklin, 843 F.2d 110 (2d Cir.1988); Anonymous v. Anonymous, 558 F.2d 677 (2d Cir.1977). The "extension telephone" exemption, also known as the "ordinary course o......
-
Goodman v. Goodman
...now-overruled Simpson logic. See Anonymous, 558 F.2d at 679; Janecka v. Franklin, 684 F.Supp. 24, 26-27 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), aff'd, 843 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1988) (drawing on Anonymous and Simpson to affirm the applicability of the interspousal exception to a husband's attachment of a recording de......
-
Glazner v. Glazner
...in his own home in purely domestic matters, which are "clearly to be handled by the state courts." Id. at 679. See also Janecka v. Franklin, 843 F.2d 110 (2d Cir.1988) (upholding dismissal of Title III claim on the authority of Anonymous). 8. Chevron Oil involved whether to apply a change i......
-
Should Parents Be Allowed to Record a Child's Telephone Conversations When They Believe the Child Is in Danger?: an Examination of the Federal Wiretap Statute and the Doctrine of Vicarious Consent in the Context of a Criminal Prosecution
...then references a series of federal court decisions that have adopted this extension telephone exemption. Id. See Janecka v. Franklin, 843 F.2d 110 (2nd Cir. 1988); Scheib v. Grant, 22 F.3d 149 (7th Cir. 1994); Newcomb v. Ingle, 944 F.2d 1534 (10th Cir. Not everyone who has encountered the ......