The jury found that Spain committed 8,027 acts of copyright infringement under the Federal Copyright Act. District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the New York Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York assessed damages against both the president individually and the publishing corporation.

Want Ad Digest Inc,  represented by Salvatore D. Ferlazzo, Esq. and Robert F. Manfredo, Esq. of the Albany law firm of Girvin & Ferlazzo, P.C., brought suit against both the competing company and its president for misappropriating classified advertisements from the publisher’s magazine and printing them in its own competing publication in early 2008.

Prior to the trial, Judge Sharpe held that Want Ad Digest had legal ownership of the classified ads published in its magazine for the purpose of asserting a copyright infringement claim.  During the trial, the jury credited the publication’s proof that the classified commission ads were sufficiently original to allow an infringement claim and that the owner/president of Display Advertising was personally responsible, in addition to the corporation, for the acts of infringement.

For more information contact Salvatore D. Ferlazzo or Robert F. Manfredo at 518.462.0300 or email Ferlazzo at sdf@girvinlaw.com.

Click here to see a copy of the judgement.

Pfeiffer has extensive experience working with individuals to develop and execute comprehensive wealth transfer programs.  As a former partner of the Ayco Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs, his practice was focused on senior corporate executives, venture capitalists, physicians and other high net worth individuals and their families.

A member of the Elder Law and the Trust and Estate Sections of the New York Bar Association, Pfeiffer is a graduate of Georgetown University and Albany Law School.

He and his family reside in Niskayuna

            While New York’s Freedom of Information Law is premised on a general policy of disclosure, it also contemplates the need on the part of government to keep some matters confidential.  In this regard, when rendering its decision, the Court adopted the arguments raised by Girvin & Ferlazzo, P.C. on behalf of the School District that the contents of the investigative report, as well as the e-mail communications fell within various exemptions to the Freedom of Information Law.  After reviewing comprehensive submissions by the School District in opposition to the petition, including an affidavit submitted by the outside consultant, the Court agreed with the District that, among other things, the investigative report was largely the product of interviews with District employees who spoke with the consultant only after being told that their conversations would remain confidential.  The Court also agreed with the School District’s argument that the report should not be disclosed because it contained allegations of misconduct which had not yet resulted in final determinations by the District; in doing so, the Court aligned itself with an advisory opinion rendered by the New York State Committee on Open Government provided by the Committee during preliminary phases of the petitioners’ request for access.

            This proceeding was highly publicized and Girvin & Ferlazzo, P.C. was pleased to obtain a favorable result for the School District.

Click here to go to the New York Publishers Association website for more information.

 In this case, a real estate salesman entered into a contract with a group of individual defendants and agreed to obtain financing for those individuals for the construction of a hotel in Ticonderoga, New York.  In return, the individual defendants agreed to pay the salesman a commission based on a percentage of the amount of financing obtained by the salesman.  After obtaining a 3.5 million dollar loan, the individual defendants refused to pay the salesman the agreed upon commission.

Due to a statutory restriction that prohibited the salesman from bringing a lawsuit against the defendants, a real estate broker with whom the salesman was associated filed suit based on breach of contract.  The Supreme Court dismissed the case, holding that because the broker was not a party to the contract he did not have standing to sue on behalf of the salesman.  The Third Department, however, reversed the Supreme Court’s decision based on the argument raised by Girvin & Ferlazzo that a real estate broker has standing, as a matter of law, to enforce such contracts.  The Court also directed the Supreme Court to enter judgment in favor of the broker for the agreed upon commission.

 If you would like more information about this case, please contact Robert F. Manfredo at rfm@girvinlaw.com.

test (1)