14‐4330
United States v. Rozbruch
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER
JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S
LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER
THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A
SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, in the City of New York, on the 2nd day of November, two thousand and
fifteen.
PRESENT: CHESTER J. STRAUB,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
Circuit Judges.
____________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff‐Counter‐Defendant‐Appellee,
‐v.‐ No. 14‐4330
JACOB ROZBRUCH, MARSHA ROZBRUCH,
EAST 72ND STREET ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY
SPECIALISTS, PC,
Defendants‐Cross‐Defendants‐Appellants.
____________________________________________
FOR APPELLANTS: Jeremy Klausner (Lawrence Sannicandro, on the brief),
Agostino & Associates, Hackensack, NJ.
FOR APPELLEE: Tomoko Onozawa, Assistant United States Attorney
(Benjamin Torrance, Assistant United States Attorney,
on the brief), for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for
the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.
____________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Gorenstein, M.J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and
hereby is AFFIRMED.
Defendants‐Appellants Jacob Rozbruch, Marsha Rozbruch, and East 72nd
Street Orthopaedic Surgery Specialists, P.C. (collectively “Appellants”) appeal
from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), against the
Rozbruchs for unpaid Trust Fund Recovery Penalty (“TFRP”) liabilities. We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and
issues on appeal.1
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Kaytor v. Elec. Boat
1
Corp., 609 F.3d 537, 546 (2d Cir. 2010).
2
Appellants argue that the District Court erred in holding that TFRPs
imposed pursuant to Section 6672(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. §
6672(a), do not trigger the written supervisory approval requirement of Section
6751(b)(1), id. § 6751(b)(1). But even assuming, without deciding, that TFRPs are
governed by Section 6751(b)(1), the record here nevertheless supports a finding
that the Government functionally satisfied Section 6751(b)(1)’s written
supervisory approval requirement. Thus, we affirm the District Court’s grant of
summary judgment, which reduced to judgment Appellants’ unpaid TFRPs. See
Thyroff v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 460 F.3d 400, 405 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[W]e are free
to affirm a decision on any grounds supported in the record, even if it is not one
on which the trial court relied.”).
We have considered all of Appellants’ remaining arguments and find them
to be without merit. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the judgment
of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3