Posts tagged with "Westport"

Captured Fugitive Could Not “Reap the Benefit” of His Status When Appealing Burglary Conviction

Supreme Court of Connecticut: Criminal Law Matter

In a criminal law matter, the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that the fugitive felon disentitlement doctrine applies not just to fugitives in flight, but also those who are arrested prior to filing their appeals.

This case arose from an incident that occurred on April 27, 1999. The victim arrived at his workplace and discovered the unauthorized presence of the defendant, who immediately ran off. Police found that two computers were unplugged with their keyboards in the garbage. The defendant was charged and convicted of burglary in the third degree and attempt to commit larceny in the first degree.

However, prior to sentencing in December 2000, the defendant posted bond and fled to England, though he was rearrested and extradited to Connecticut. He once more posted bond and fled the country prior to his second sentencing date, was rearrested, and finally sentenced in November 2008. The defendant appealed his conviction, in part claiming insufficient evidence to convict for attempted larceny. However, the State argued that the defendant’s appeal should be wholesale dismissed because of the fugitive felon disentitlement doctrine.

Court’s Authority

The doctrine of fugitive felon disentitlement gives the court authority to dismiss a fugitive defendant’s appeal under certain circumstances. It is not accepted in all U.S. jurisdictions, and Connecticut has only addressed the doctrine in three cases where the fugitive filed his appeal while still on the run. Therefore, the Supreme Court set to the task of determining whether the doctrine applied to a fugitive who filed an appeal after being arrested, and if so, the scope of its application.

There are several rationales for the doctrine, only one of which applied in this context: “the promotion and protection of the dignified and efficient operation of the appellate system.” Courts want to ensure that defendants do not game the system through their fugitive status “by gaining unfair advantages due to the passage of time at the expense of the integrity of the appellate process.” In this case, the Supreme Court held that a fugitive’s post-arrest appeal may be dismissed if his conduct undermined the appellate process.

Thus, if the State seeks to assert the doctrine, it must show specific instances of prejudice caused by the fugitive’s flight, such as the loss of evidence or witness-related issues. If the State meets this burden, it is then shifted to the defendant, who must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his flight was not prejudicial.

Court Decision

The Supreme Court found that in this case the State alleged sufficient evidence that the defendant could not rebut. “The appellate process has been prejudiced by the loss of trial exhibits and by the effect that the passage of time has had on the availability and reliability of witnesses.” Therefore, all of the defendant’s claims on appeal, including insufficiency of the evidence, were not reviewable because the doctrine applied.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.


When faced with a charge of larceny, burglary, or attempt, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

In Case Where Employee Abused Her Position to Embezzle Substantial Funds, Sentence Modification Was Denied

Superior Court of Connecticut: Sentence Review Division

In a criminal law matter involving sentence modification, the Sentence Review Division (Division) of the Superior Court of Connecticut affirmed the sentence of a petitioner who stole money from her employer.

Case Details

In this case, the petitioner had a criminal history involving embezzlement, larceny, forgery, and substance abuse. Despite knowledge of this past, the director of a non-profit organization hired the petitioner as its bookkeeper and office manager to give her a chance at an honest living. In this position, the petitioner had “unfettered access” to financial accounts belonging to the organization and director. Subsequently, various employees at the organization complained they were not being timely paid, and the director discovered not just an IRS tax lien on the organization’s assets, but a $20,000 unauthorized withdrawal from her personal account. Police investigated these financial irregularities and questioned the petitioner, and found that she had stolen at least $134,000.

The Trial

At trial for larceny in the first degree, the defendant entered into a guilty plea. She asked that her sentence be fully suspended and she be allowed to participate in an alternative to incarceration plan, but the court instead imposed twelve years of incarceration. The petitioner sought downward modification, arguing that her sentence was inappropriate and disproportionate compared to those who committed similar crimes. She asserted that she “cooperated with the police investigation, [was] contrite, willing to make restitution and was employed at the time of sentencing.”

The State opposed modification due to the defendant’s history of committing similar crimes. It noted how the defendant embezzled funds from a former employer, for which she received a five-year suspended sentence, and then violated her probation. The organization’s director also objected, stating that the sentence was proper because the petitioner “abused her position of trust, is unrepentant, and has caused a great deal of suffering.”

The Division declined to reduce the sentence, finding that under applicable statutes, it was neither inappropriate nor disproportionate. Indeed, the twelve-year sentence was within the parameters of the guilty plea, and the Division agreed with the trial court that “[i]t would stand justice on its head if I were to give you another suspended sentence after you already had one.”

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

When faced with a charge of larceny, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Perpetrator Not “Beamed There By Martians” – Court Upholds Defendant’s Accessory Conviction

Appellate Court of Connecticut: Criminal Law Matter

In a criminal law matter involving a defendant’s accessory conviction, the Appellate Court of Connecticut rejected a defendant’s claim that the State presented insufficient evidence that she participated in a plot to steal nearly a quarter of a million dollars from her employer.

This case involved the February 22, 2005 theft of approximately $248,000 in cash from a bank located in New Britain. The interior of the location has little public access, and employees must first be buzzed into or use their key to access a “mantrap” before proceeding through another door to the employee area. This section of the store contains a bathroom and the safe room, and the only exit is to proceed back through the mantrap.

Case Details

The defendant was a store manager at the bank and was working alone for five and a half hours prior to closing. An hour before leaving the store, she received a phone call from a former district manager (former manager), who had been fired following a previous unsolved robbery at the bank years earlier.

The defendant counted the money in the safe, after which she closed down the store and set the alarm. Approximately thirty minutes later, motion sensors and alarms were rapidly triggered in reverse order from the safe room to the front door. The bank owners called the defendant, who was in the vicinity of the bank, and asked her to allow police into the building. When police arrived, they found no evidence of forced entry, but the money was gone and the defendant did not look or act surprised.

Telephone records revealed that the phone call received by the defendant prior to closing the bank was made from a cell phone in New Britain. She received two more calls from numbers belonging to the former manager: the first from a landline in Manhattan only minutes after the incident; the second twenty minutes thereafter once again from the cell phone, this time placed from the New Haven area.

Arrest Details

The defendant was subsequently arrested for accessory to larceny in the first degree, conspiracy to commit larceny in the first degree, and accessory to burglary in the third degree, in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-8, 53a-122(a)(2), 53a-48, and 53a-103. The State’s theory of the case was that the defendant knowingly permitted someone to stay behind in the employee area prior to her departure. The defendant argued that one of the employees working earlier that day “could have let someone into the bathroom unbeknownst to [her].” The prosecutor countered that this was unreasonable:

“The idea of somebody sitting in this bathroom for five and one-half hours, waiting for business to close, is as ludicrous as saying that they were beamed there by Martians.”

The defendant was convicted on all counts and appealed, arguing that the State presented insufficient evidence identifying her as a participant, and therefore the jury convicted her “on the basis of mere speculation.”

Jury Details

When a jury considers the facts presented in a case, they are permitted to make reasonable and rational inferences stemming from those facts. “When we infer, we derive a conclusion from proven facts because such considerations as experience, or history, or science have demonstrated that there is a likely correlation between those facts and the conclusion.”

The more strained the correlation, the less reasonable the inference will be. In this case, the Appellate Court admitted that the evidence presented was scant, but still sufficient to support the convictions. The jury could reasonably infer that the defendant was knowingly involved in the scheme to steal the money from the bank, permitting someone to remain behind after she set the alarm and left for the night. Therefore, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

When faced with a charge of larceny, burglary, conspiracy, or accessory, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

State of Mind Hearsay Exception Did Not Apply to Letter Allegedly Condoning Larcenous Actions

Appellate Court of Connecticut: Larceny-Related Convictions

In a criminal law matter involving a hearsay exception, the Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the defendant’s larceny-related convictions, finding the trial court did not improperly exclude evidence.

In this case, the defendant was the victim’s resident health care aide. Over the course of two-and-a-half years, the defendant used the victim’s signature stamp to draft more than $300,000 in checks, drawn from the victim’s life savings, payable to herself and her relatives. When the victim was hospitalized, to his shock and dismay, he learned that his savings were wiped out. He had to obtain State financial assistance and could not return home, instead dying in a nursing home ten months later.

The defendant was charged with larceny in the first degree, larceny in the first degree by embezzlement, and larceny in the second degree. At trial, she attempted to introduce a letter drafted by her daughter, allegedly signed by the victim and permitting the transfer of money from him to the defendant. On the signature line was an “X,” and the daughter testified that she did not know who put it on the writing. The defendant admitted that the document was hearsay, but fell under the “state of mind” exception.

The State objected to its admission, arguing that it was past looking and lacked authentication, thus making it unreliable. The trial court agreed and sustained the objection. Subsequently, the defendant was convicted on all counts and appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly excluded the letter from evidence.

§ 8-3(4) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence

Under § 8-3(4) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence one will find the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. This section provides:

[A] statement of the declarant’s then-existing mental or emotional condition, including a statement indicating a present intention to do a particular act in the immediate future, provided that the statement is a natural expression of the condition and is not a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed [will not be excludable hearsay].

In this case, the Appellate Court agreed that the document did not fall under the state of mind exception. The trial court did not err in excluding it from evidence, finding it not sufficiently reliable to qualify: the document could not be authenticated because the victim was dead, and the placement of the X could not be explained. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

When faced with a charge of larceny, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

“The Fact That You Were An Attorney, Sir, Makes the Crime Worse,” Sentence Review Division Denies Modification Request

Superior Court of Connecticut: Sentence Review Division

In a criminal law matter, the Sentence Review Division (Division) of the Superior Court of Connecticut declined to modify a defendant’s sentence because it was neither inappropriate nor disproportionate.

In this case, the petitioner, an attorney, was hired by the complainants to provide services related to the sale of their home. The complainants gave him nearly $111,000 to pay off their mortgage, but the money was never tendered to the bank. The petitioner was charged with larceny in the first degree, a violation of General Statutes § 53a-122 with a maximum punishment of twenty years incarceration. He entered into a plea agreement, and the court sentenced him to twelve years incarceration, execution suspended after four years, with five years of probation and special conditions, including restitution.

Division Sentence Review

The petitioner sought a sentence reduction in light of his practice as an attorney aiding minorities, arguing that the sentence he received as inappropriate and disproportionate. When the Division reviews a sentence, it is without authority to modify unless the sentence is “inappropriate or disproportionate” when considering such factors as the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. In this case, the Division found that the trial court properly considered mitigating aspects of the petitioner’s background. It also noted, however, that he previously misappropriated a quarter of a million dollars of funds entrusted to him from a client. Citing the trial court:

The fact that you were an attorney, sir, makes the crime worse, not simply because you were a lawyer who committed a crime, but you committed a crime out of the breach of the very trust that was placed in you by your clients, and that is an aggravating factor.

The Division held that modification was not warranted in this case where “an attorney embezzled substantial funds from clients and the prior criminal history of the petitioner… reflects the same type of criminal behavior.” It additionally noted that the petitioner never paid restitution to the victims between the time he entered into the plea agreement and sentencing. Therefore, the sentence was affirmed.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Court Denies Motion to Vacate and Confirms FINRA Arbitration Award for Securities Brokerage of over $150,000 plus Interest

Freedom Investors Corporation v. Kahal Shomrei Hadath and Sydney V. Pinter, 2012 WL 383944 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2012)

Freedom Investors Corp. (“Freedom”), a securities broker-dealer and a member firm of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), filed a petition to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to § 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 9.  Sydney V. Pinter (“Pinter”), who controlled Kahal Shomrei Hadath (“Kahal”), a not-for-profit religious entity, filed a cross motion to vacate the arbitration award alleging misrepresentations by Freedom’s agent and improper connections between Freedom’s Chief Executive Officer and the FINRA arbitration panel.

Case Dispute

The underlying dispute in this case arose from a brokerage account that Kahal maintained with Freedom.  In July 2008, Kahal and Pinter used margin credit to purchase preferred stock; however, the stock price dropped dramatically and prompted a margin call by Freedom’s clearing house. When Kahal and Pinter failed to deposit additional funds in the account, the clearing house liquidated the account’s remaining holdings and Freedom paid the remaining margin debt of $149,222.85. Freedom then sought to recover this amount from Kahal and Pinter.

FINRA appointed a panel of three arbitrators to hear the matter after both parties agreed to submit the dispute to arbitration for a decision and award.  On March 22, 2011, the FINRA panel entered an award in favor of Freedom, finding Kahal and Pinter jointly and severally liable for $149,223 in damages, plus eight-percent prejudgment interest, and $5,000 in sanctions for failure to produce documents during the arbitration’s discovery phase.

By August 25, 2011, Kahal and Pinter had failed to comply with the terms of the arbitration award; therefore, Freedom filed this petition for award confirmation in federal district court.  On January 4, 2012, the court received from Pinter an undated “Motion for Oral Arguments to Set Aside Arbitration Award,” which the court construed as opposition to Freedom’s petition and a cross-motion to vacate the arbitration award.  Freedom opposed the motion to vacate.

Dismissal Motion to Vacate on Two Grounds

The court dismissed Pinter’s motion to vacate on two grounds.  First, the motion to vacate was untimely.  “Notice of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is filed or delivered.” 9 U.S.C. § 12. The arbitration award was issued March 11, 2011, but the motion to vacate was not submitted until January 4, 2012, approximately ten months later.  Second, the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 10(a), provides four narrowly delineated circumstances in which a federal district court can vacate an arbitration award:

(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud or undue means;

(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them;

(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or

(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.

The issue with Pinter’s Allegations

Pinter’s allegations raised no credible argument of evident partiality on the part of the arbitration panel and, therefore, he failed to carry his significant burden of showing that the arbitration panel acted in manifest disregard of the law.

The court determined that Freedom sufficiently supported its petition and demonstrated that there is no question of material fact. Therefore, the court granted Freedom’s motion to confirm the arbitration award against the defendants and denied Pinter’s petition to vacate the arbitral award.  Final judgment for Freedom was in the sum of $183,724.18 and costs.


Should you have any questions relating to FINRA or arbitration issues, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County, Connecticut at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Trial Court Did Not Err in Rejecting Irrelevant Evidence; Appellate Court Upholds Conviction

In a criminal law matter involving irrelevant evidence, the Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed a defendant’s convictions following a traffic stop that revealed reckless driving.

Case Details

This case arose from an incident that occurred on March 14, 2006. Bethel police initiated a traffic stop to investigate the defendant’s dump truck and trailer for properly displayed plates. The plates were present but obscured, and officers immediately noticed a wire hanging from the rear of the trailer. Upon further inspection of the trailer, officers determined that the wire was disconnected, from the trailer’s independent braking system.

Furthermore, it did not appear to be connected to the dump truck or “any other source that could have provided power to the trailer’s brakes.” Officers requested that the defendant demonstrate whether or not the trailer’s brakes operated, but the defendant refused to comply. Officers cited the defendant for reckless driving, driving with obscured license plates, and failing to carry a valid insurance card. Upon the arrival of a tow truck, the defendant relinquished his keys and stated to the tow-truck driver, “There’s still no brakes [on the trailer] with you towing it.”

The Defendant’s Motion

The defendant submitted a motion seeking to introduce Connecticut statutes and agency regulations as evidence that the officers lacked authority to inspect his trailer’s brakes. He also proffered evidence that “demonstrated a sense of bias against the defendant among [other] officers that had filtered throughout the Bethel police department and affected the credibility of the officers who were at the scene and who testified during the state’s case-in-chief.” The trial court denied the motion, saying the evidence was irrelevant. Subsequently, the defendant was convicted of the three cited charges as well as interfering with an officer. He appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion.

Connecticut Police Officers

In Connecticut, police officers have the duty to enforce our laws and preserve the peace. “If [an officer] is acting under a good faith belief that he is carrying out that duty, and if his actions are reasonably designed to that end, he is acting in the performance of his duties.” Quite notably, such duties are not merely restricted to the arrest function. In this case, the Appellate Court reviewed the statutes and regulations offered by the defendant but was not persuaded that the officers did not have authority to inspect the brakes on his trailer. Therefore, it concluded that preclusion of this evidence was not an abuse of discretion by the trial court.

Importance of Evidence 

Evidence is relevant if it makes the existence of a material fact more or less probable, so long as it is neither unduly prejudicial nor cumulative. However, it is the duty of the proffering party to establish relevance with a proper foundation. In the context of impeachment evidence, this may be accomplished in one of three ways: an offer of proof, independent establishment by the record itself, or statement of good faith believe that the inquiry is justified by an adequate factual basis.

In this case, the defendant failed to provide any connection between evidence of bias and the lack of credibility of the officers involved in this case. Rather, his claims were purely speculative, and “[i]t is entirely proper for a court to deny a request to present certain testimony that will further nothing more than a fishing expedition… or result in a wild goose chase.” Therefore, the judgments were affirmed.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Larceny Convictions Reversed Where State Provided Insufficient Evidence of Property’s Value

Appellate Court of Connecticut

In a criminal law matter, the Appellate Court of Connecticut reversed a defendant’s larceny-related convictions, agreeing that the State did not provide sufficient evidence to convict.

This case first arose from an incident that occurred on January 26, 2004. Police responded to a Cumberland Farms store that was broken into. They located a hole cut into the roof, as well as the store safe partially broken into: $446 was taken from the bottom drawer, but the top drawer was undisturbed. In addition, an ATM with $7,500 showed signs of an unsuccessful break-in. Police found burglar’s tools, a piece of paper with the defendant’s shoe print on it, as well as knit caps and a bandana.

Case Details

On February 29, 2004, police in a neighboring town responded to an alarm at a liquor store. When they arrived, they spotted a Nissan Altima speeding away. However, an officer permitted the vehicle to leave because his partner did not confirm whether or not a crime had been committed.

An investigation revealed a tampered alarm box as well as a hole cut through the roof, burglar’s tools, and a red knit cap. The suspected burglary was immediately reported, and officers pursued the Nissan Altima, which crossed into Massachusetts. Nonetheless, the vehicle was stopped and four men, including the defendant, were brought to state police barracks. There, a Connecticut state trooper seized the men’s clothing, including the sneakers the defendant was wearing.

The defendant was subsequently arrested and faced numerous charges, including attempt to commit larceny in the first degree and conspiracy to commit larceny in the first degree. At trial, the State presented evidence showing the amounts of money within the ATM and bottom drawer of the safe, totaling $7,946. In addition, a Cumberland Farms employee testified that the top draw had “a fair amount” of money within. However, the State did not present evidence that this “fair amount” exceeded $2,054, or that any other potential source of money was accessible to the defendant.

Nonetheless, the defendant was convicted following a jury trial and he appealed. He argued that the State presented insufficient evidence of the larceny charges because they did not prove that he “attempted to take, or conspired to take, property in excess of $10,000.” Therefore, he sought acquittal on these charges. The State countered that the proper course of action is conviction for second-degree larceny, which they argued was a lesser included offense.

Connecticut General Statute (CGS) § 53a-119

Under Connecticut General Statute (CGS) § 53a-119, larceny is defined in the following manner: “A person commits larceny when, with the intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds such property from an owner.”

First-degree larceny is committed when the value of the property exceeds $10,000, while second-degree has a lower threshold value of $5,000. Conspiracy to commit larceny requires a showing of intent to deprive another’s property, plus wrongful conspired or attempted taking of such property. The Appellate Court of Connecticut has authority to simultaneously reverse convictions order entries of judgment for lesser-included offenses.

Court Decision 

In this case, the Appellate Court was persuaded by the defendant’s sufficiency of the evidence claim. It disagreed with the State that the jury reasonably inferred that a “fair amount” of money located in the top drawer exceeded $2,054, thus bringing the total value to $10,000 as required for first-degree larceny.

The Court further held that acquittal was the proper remedy. It explained, “Although it is true that there was evidence from which the jury might have concluded that the value of the property exceeded $5000, we do not know what evidence the jury accepted and what it rejected or how it reached the conclusion it did reach.” The Court would not speculate, and therefore reversed conviction on these counts with the direction to the lower court to enter findings of not guilty.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

When faced with a charge of larceny or conspiracy to commit larceny, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Court Denies Motion to Vacate FINRA Arbitration Award Without A Hearing

Farhang Oshidary v. Grace Purpura–Andriola, Trustee FBO Grace Purpura–Andriola Living Trust and Olga Michel Basil.  2012 WL 2135375 (N.D. Calif.  Jun 12, 2012)

In a case involving FINRA before the Northern District of California, Farhang Oshidary (“Oshidary”), a securities broker, filed a petition to vacate a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Arbitration Award issued on February 10, 2012 in favor of Grace Purpura–Andriola, Trustee FBO Grace Purpura–Andriola Revocable Living Trust (“Andriola”) and Olga Michel Basil ( “Basil”).  Andriola and Basil filed an opposition to the motion, and a request for entry of judgment on the FINRA award pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9.   The court denied the motion to vacate without a hearing, and confirmed the FINRA award.

Underlying Dispute

The underlying dispute in this case arose from Oshidary’s investment advice to Andriola, Basil, and others while Oshidary was a broker at the Menlo Park, California office of Smith Barney, now Citigroup Global Markets, Inc (“Citigroup”).  Andriola and several other claimants filed suit against Oshidary and Citigroup in California Superior Court, which ordered the case to FINRA Arbitration. After multiple hearing sessions, the FINRA arbitration panel dismissed all claims against Citigroup and dismissed all claims against Oshidary, except for claims for breach of fiduciary duty brought by Andriola, Basil and three other parties.

On February 10, 2012, the panel issued its Arbitration Award. It found that Oshidary was liable for breach of fiduciary duty to Andriola for $250,000 plus seven-percent interest from April 1, 2001.  Oshidary was also found liable for breach of fiduciary duty to Basil for $120,000 plus seven-percent interest from January 1, 2005.

Two of the four separate theories under which Oshidary proposed to vacate the FINRA award were rejected by the court for failure to satisfy the burden of proof.  Under one of the remaining theories, Oshidary argued that, in violation of California Civil Procedure Code § 1281.9, the Chairman of the FINRA arbitration panel failed to disclose information that might preclude him from being impartial. Under his final theory, Oshidary argued that the FINRA arbitration panel manifestly disregarded the law by acting without jurisdiction over Andriola’s claims, which were barred by the “six year rule” regarding arbitration eligibility.

The Federal Arbitration Act

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 10(a), provides four narrowly delineated circumstances in which a federal district court can vacate an arbitration award:

(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud or undue means;

(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them;

(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or

(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.

Courts may not reverse an arbitration award even in the face of an erroneous interpretation of the law.  However, the court may vacate an award where the arbitrators’ decision is in manifest disregard of the law. Johnson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 635 F.3d 401, 414–15 (9th Cir.2011).  “Manifest disregard of the law” has been interpreted to mean “something beyond and different from a mere error in the law or failure on the part of the arbitrators to understand and apply the law.” Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 505 F.3d 874, 879 (9th Cir.2007) (quotation omitted).

California Civil Procedure Code § 1281.9

California Civil Procedure Code § 1281.9, subdivision (a), imposes on arbitrators a duty to “disclose all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt that the proposed neutral arbitrator would be able to be impartial.”  In decisions interpreting this statute, courts have highlighted the importance of the link between the subject matter of the arbitration and the matter subject to disclosure. In the instant case, the alleged conflict occurred over two decades ago, and was completely unrelated to the subject of the arbitration. Therefore, the court denied vacatur on these grounds.

FINRA Rule 12206

FINRA Rule 12206(a) provides that “[n]o claim shall be eligible for submission to arbitration under the Code where six years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the claim. The panel will resolve any questions regarding the eligibility of a claim under this rule.”  Eligibility under Rule 12206 is a question for the arbitrators and not for the court.

The FINRA arbitration panel was free to interpret Rule 12206 as it saw fit, in particular with respect to the triggering date, i.e. the “occurrence or event giving rise to the claim.” FINRA Rule 12206.  That the investments at issue were loans supported the Panel’s decision to not choose the purchase date as the triggering event because, unlike other investments, the investor likely will not know whether repayment will occur until the agreed-upon return date.

Because the court denied Oshidary’s vacatur of the award on each of the four separate grounds, the court found that confirmation of the FINRA arbitration award was appropriate.  Judgment would be entered by separate order, once respondents confirmed that they withdrew their parallel request to the state court.

Should you have any questions relating to FINRA or arbitration issues, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County, Connecticut at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Special Education Law – Relevant Terms

Within the realm of Special Education Law there are several relative terms one should be familiar with. Below are some of these key terms.

Applied Behavior Analysis (“ABA”):

An intensive, structured teaching program in which behaviors to be taught are broken down into simple elements. Each element is taught using repeated trials where the child is presented with a stimulus; correct responses and behaviors are rewarded with positive reinforcement, while when incorrect responses occur, they are ignored and appropriate responses are prompted and rewarded.

Alternative Assessment:

The use of assessment strategies, such as performance assessment and portfolios, to replace (or supplement) the assessment of a special education student by standard machine-scored multiple-choice tests.

Assistive Technology:

Refers to any piece of equipment, product, system, or other item that is used to increase, maintain or improve the functional capabilities of an individual with a disability.

Behavior Intervention Plan (“BIP”):

Refers to a plan, strategies, program or curricular modifications, and supplementary aids and supports, which are positive in nature (not punitive) and are developed by the PPT to teach a child appropriate behaviors and minimize behaviors that impede learning.

Extended School Year (“ESY”):

This refers to special education and related services that a school provides to a student beyond the normal school year and/or the normal school day, at no additional cost to parents, in accordance with the child’s IEP.

Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”):

Each special education student is entitled to a free, appropriate public education. It is defined as special education and related services that are provided at public expense and under public supervision and direction, without charge to the student. “Related services” include, but are not limited to, transportation, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology, and psychological services, among others.

A special education student’s FAPE must meet state and federal requirements, and be provided in accordance with the child’s IEP. In Connecticut, children must be provided a FAPE from age three through the end of the school year in which the child reaches the age of twenty-one (or until the child has graduated from high school with a regular diploma, whichever is first to occur).

Functional Behavior Assessment (“FBA”):

Refers to an assessment of the reasons why a child behaves the way he or she does, given the nature of the child and what is happening in the environment. It describes a process for collecting data to determine the possible causes behind certain behaviors in order to identify strategies to address those behaviors.

Identification:

Refers to the decision that a child is eligible for special education services.

Independent Educational Evaluation (“IEE”):

Refers to an evaluation of a special education student performed by a professional who is not employed by the school district. If you disagree with the PPT’s evaluation of your child, you may request an independent educational evaluation. The school district must either pay for the cost of the IEE, or prove to a due process hearing officer that its own PPT evaluation is in fact appropriate. Of course, parents may obtain an IEE for their child at their own expense at any time. When presented with the results of the IEE, the PPT must consider the findings, but is not bound to adopt them.

Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”):

This refers to a written education program developed for an individual child with a disability. It is developed by a multi-disciplinary team of school professionals and the child’s parents and is reviewed and updated at least once per school year. The IEP describes the child’s present performance and learning needs, as well as detailing which services will be necessary at what time, for how long, and by whom those services will be provided.

Least Restrictive Environment (“LRE”):

A child with a disability must, to the maximum appropriate extent, be educated with children who are not disabled, in a general education class in the school that the child would attend if he or she did not have a disability requiring special education services. A child with a disability should not be removed from the general educational setting unless the nature and severity of that child’s disability is such that education in the general class with the use of supplemental aids and services cannot be satisfactorily achieved.

Manifestation Determination:

If a school seeks to change the placement of a child with a disability because that child behaved in a way that violated the school’s code of conduct, then a “manifest determination” must be made, to determine whether the behavior complained of is caused by the child’s disability.

Positive Behavior Supports (“PBS”):

Refers to an approach to addressing challenging behaviors, and includes: functional assessment of the behavior; organizing the environment; teaching skills; rewarding positive behaviors; anticipating situations; and redesigning interventions as necessary.

Planning and Placement Team (“PPT”):

Refers to a group of professionals who represent each of the teaching, administrative and pupil personnel staffs at a special education student’s school, and who, with the student’s parents, are equal participants in the decision-making process to determine the specific educational needs of the student. The PPT, along with the parents, develops, reviews and revises a student’s IEP; the PPT also reviews referrals to special education, determines if the child needs to be evaluated, decides what evaluations the child will have, and determines whether the child is eligible for special education services.

Stay Put:

Refers to the requirement that a special education student must stay in his or her current program or placement during the course of a due process hearing. This provision may be modified upon agreement by both the parent and the school district.


The attorneys of Maya Murphy P.C. are well practiced in the realm of Special Education Law. Should you have questions regarding Special Education Law matters, contact managing partner Joseph C. Maya at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com for a free initial consultation.