United States of America v. JK Peris, Inc. et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying 18 Motion for Sanctions. The government may renew its motion for contempt should it become aware that defendants have failed to comply with this Courts December 17, 2012 Injunction Order. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 6/12/14. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DECISION
and ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

12-CV-6628T

JK PERIS, INC., JOHN PERIS,
and KATHY PERIS,
Defendants.
________________________________________
The United States of America, (“the government” or “the United
States”) on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury, brings this
action against defendants JK Peris, Inc., (the “Taxpayer”) and John
Peris, and Kathy Peris, as Officers of the Taxpayer, pursuant to
26U.S.C. §§ 7401 and 7402 claiming that the defendants have failed
to pay federal and state employment taxes and unemployment taxes
owed by the Taxpayer as required by state and federal law.
By Judgment dated January 29, 2013, I entered judgment in
favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $291,503.37, and ordered,
inter alia, that defendants pay $1,000.00 per month towards the
judgment,

and

that

defendants

make

timely

income

tax

and

withholding payments.
According to the government, the defendants, in violation of
this Court’s Order, failed to deposit any of the withheld FICA and
income tax payment for the month of October 2013 (which were
required to be deposited on or before November 15, 2013), and have
failed to make all payroll tax deposits for the quarter ended

September 30, 2013.

Plaintiff also contends that the defendants

failed to remit required payments of $1,000.00 per month for the
months of October and November, 2013.
now

moves

the

Court

for

an

Order

As a result, the government
of

Contempt

against

the

defendants, and, as a sanction, seeks incarceration of either John
Peris or Kathy Peris, as corporate officers of defendant JK Peris,
Inc., until such time as the defendants come into compliance with
the Court’s Order.
Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion, and represent to the
Court that they have made the delinquent payments owed.

The

government has not controverted defendants’ representations to the
Court.
Based on the record before the Court, it appears that the
delinquent

payments

owed

by

the

defendants

have

been

made.

Accordingly, the government’s motion for an Order of Contempt is
denied at this time.

The government may renew its motion for

contempt should it become aware that defendants have failed to
comply with this Court’s December 17, 2012 Injunction Order.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.
S/ Michael A. Telesca
____________________________
MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
Dated:

Rochester, New York
June 12, 2014

2