United States v. The Premises & Real Prop. At 614 Portland Avenue, 846 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. The Premises & Real Prop. At 614 Portland Avenue, 846 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Premises Known as 318 South Third Street (ca8, 1993-03-08) · Strongest negative: No. 88-2212 (ca8, 1989-08-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "but see" No. 88-2212 (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
8th Cir. · 1989 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see United States v. The Premises & Real Property at 614 Portland Ave., 670 F.Supp. 475, 477-78 (W.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd, 846 F.2d 166 , 167 (2d Cir.1988).
examined Cited "but see" United States v. South Half of Lot 7 & Lot 8 (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
8th Cir. · 1989 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see United States v. The Premises & Real Property at 614 Portland Ave., 670 F.Supp. 475, 477-78 (W.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd, 846 F.2d 166 , 167 (2d Cir.1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Premises Known as 318 South Third Street
8th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Id. at 489 (citations omitted); accord, United States v. On Leong Chinese Merchant’s Ass’n Bldg., 918 F.2d 1289, 1297 (7th Cir.1990), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 52 , 116 L.Ed.2d 29 (1991); United States v. Premises and Real Property at 614 Portland Ave., 846 F.2d 166, 167 (2d Cir.1988) (per curium).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. A Parcel of Real Property Located at Route 1, Box 261
W.D. Wis. · 1990 · confidence medium
United States v. Premises and Real Property at 614 Portland Ave., 846 F.2d 166, 167 (2nd Cir.1988); United States v. South Half of Lot Seven and Lot Eight, etc., 910 F.2d 488, 489 (8th Cir.1990) (en banc).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. South Half of Lot 7 & Lot 8, Block 14
8th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
United States v. The Premises & Real Property at 614 Portland Ave., 846 F.2d 166, 167 (2d Cir.1988) (per curiam), aff'g 670 F.Supp. 475, 478 (W.D.N.Y.1987).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. On Leong Chinese Merchants Association Building (2×)
7th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See 614 Portland Avenue, 846 F.2d at 166 ; United States v. The South Half of Lot 7 and Lot 8, 910 F.2d at 488 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Conley
W.D. Pa. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The court denied a challenge to a civil in rem forfeiture proceeding under § 1955(d)—a challenged based on the ground that no conviction had been obtained under § 1955(a) or (b)—finding that “Section 1955 is- in the tradition of these civil forfeiture statutes and does not require any underlying criminal, in personam, conviction.” Id. at 479; see also 614 Portland Ave., 846 F.2d at 167 (affirming that “the civil forfeiture provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1955 (d)” applies to both real and personal property).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States of America, Monroe County Savings Bank, Claimant-Appellee
v.
The Premises and Real Property at 614 Portland Avenue (Formerly Known as 7-9 Fernwood Avenue), City of Rochester, County of Monroe, State of New York, Robert J. Silveri, Claimant-Appellant, Silvercrest Construction Corp., Claimant-Appellant
960.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
May 10, 1988.
846 F.2d 166
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 76%
Citer courts: W.D. New York (2)

846 F.2d 166

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Monroe County Savings Bank, Claimant-Appellee,
v.
The PREMISES AND REAL PROPERTY AT 614 PORTLAND AVENUE
(Formerly Known as 7-9 Fernwood Avenue), CITY OF
ROCHESTER, COUNTY OF MONROE, STATE OF
NEW YORK, Defendant,
Robert J. Silveri, Defendant-Appellant Claimant-Appellant,
Silvercrest Construction Corp., Claimant-Appellant.

No. 960, Docket 88-6001.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued April 21, 1988.
Decided May 10, 1988.

Appeal from an order entered in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, Telesca, Judge.

Donald F. Potter, Rochester, N.Y. (Culley, Marks, Corbett, Tanenbaum, Reifsteck & Potter, Rochester, N.Y., of counsel), for appellants Property and Robert J. Silveri.

Walter J. Licata, Rochester, N.Y. (Levy, Feldman & Licata, Rochester, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant Silvercrest Const. Corp.

Christopher V. Taffe, Asst. U.S. Atty., W.D.N.Y., Rochester, N.Y. (Roger P. Williams, U.S. Atty. W.D.N.Y., Rochester, N.Y., of counsel), for appellee.

Before TIMBERS, MESKILL and KEARSE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

This appeal arises out of a civil in rem forfeiture proceeding instituted by the United States government against certain real property located at 614 Portland Avenue in Rochester, New York. The government filed a complaint and an affidavit, alleging that the subject property was being used in connection with illegal gambling, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1955 (1982), and was therefore subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1955(d). Based on those submissions, a federal magistrate issued a seizure warrant and a writ of entry allowing federal authorities to seize the property.

2

Subsequently, three parties came forward to claim interests in the property. The claimants were Robert J. Silveri, who claimed to be the owner of the property and who also claimed to represent the property itself; Silvercrest Construction Corp. (Silvercrest), which claimed to hold a mechanic's lien on the property; and Monroe Savings Bank, which claimed to hold a collateral security mortgage. In a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c), Silveri and Silvercrest argued, inter alia, that Congress had never intended the civil forfeiture provision of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1955(d) to reach real property. The United States District Court for the Western District of New York, Telesca, J., denied the motion, holding that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1955(d) could reach real property as well as personal property. Judge Telesca subsequently granted a motion to certify this controlling question of law for appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) (1982 & Supp. III 1985). We permitted the taking of an appeal from the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

3

The order of the district court is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Telesca's opinion below. See United States v. The Premises and Real Property At 614 Portland Avenue, 670 F.Supp. 475, 476-78 (W.D.N.Y. 1987).