Cutting remarks — no pun intended — are at the heart of a libel suit brought before a Brooklyn Federal Judge over, of all things, allegations that a Queens man was not circumcised when in fact he was.
In court papers released last week, John Singer, 49, claimed that he was maligned in an article by the Central Europe Center For Research & Documentation, which alleged he wasn’t circumcised.
The erroneous statement reportedly appeared in a 2005 article entitled “Jewish Witness to a European Century.” The article had a quote from Singer’s mother, where she claimed that neither of her children had been circumcised.
In court papers, the mother alleged that she said no such thing.
Singer’s attorney, Michael Borrelli, contends that his client brought the error to the research group before the article was printed, but the group did not follow through with a correction.
Not only was the article printed, but it was also put on the group’s website last month, the lawsuit states.
Singer is seeking unspecified damages, telling the Daily News, “Centropa.org (the website for the research group) and its editorial staff have violated my right to privacy of the most intimate part of my anatomy. They have caused me tremendous emotional pain and suffering. I feel humiliated and betrayed.”
The article also called his faith into question, inferring that not getting circumcised contradicted Jewish law.
Singer claims that he was circumcised as an infant.
Centropa.org did not return calls for comment.
It’s rare that mob-speak is heard outside of a Sopranos episode.
But such colorful phrases — and nicknames — were found in abundance when an indictment was unsealed in Brooklyn Federal Court this week.
Federal prosecutors said that two Genovese crime family members, Anthony Antico, 74, and Joseph Barrafato, Jr., 50, were indicted on multiple charges this week for conspiring to rob a guy who won $1.6 million in a Pick Six horse racing wager.
FBI officials said that Antico, also known as “Tico” and “Big Nose,” is a Genovese crime family captain while Barrafato was known as a family associate.
The two were caught on wire taps talking about their plans for the robbery.
In one of the conversations, Antico asked about the status of the robbery. Barrafato said that he “need[ed] the right ingredients to make the sauce.”
Investigators believe that the statement was Mafia code for recruiting more members for the heist.
Barrafato was recorded recruiting accomplices, telling them that they were going to “hit a Pick Six for a million point six.”
Besides the robbery, Antico and Barrafato were charged with extortion, conspiracy and racketeering.
If convicted, Antico faces mandatory life imprisonment under the federal “three strikes law” because he has previously been convicted of two serious violent felonies, officials said. Barrafato faces a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment.
A judge threw out a borough resident’s claims that he couldn’t be arrested for trespassing if he was in a city-run building — namely, the 83rd Precinct in Bushwick.
Last summer, suspect Michael Reape was taken into custody on charges of trespassing and resisting arrest during a blow-up inside the Knickerbocker Avenue stationhouse.
According to court papers, Reape entered the stationhouse in August claiming that he was looking for Detective Jones.
Cops told him that no detective by the name of Jones worked in the 83rd Precinct.
When they asked him if there was anything they could do for him, Reape “repeated that he wanted to speak with Detective Jones” and claimed that the officers “were hiding Detective Jones” from him.
Cops contend that Reape began to yell and scream. When they told him to leave the stationhouse, he refused.
Since he “could not provide a legitimate reason” for being in the precinct, cops took him into custody on the trespass charge.
When they reached for him, he began to flail his arms, which led to a resisting arrest charge.
But Reape’s attorney claims that the trespass charge should be thrown out because it was facially insufficient.
As the law is read, Reape would only be culpable of trespass if he “knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a premises.”
Since the precinct is not a private dwelling, that belief did not apply, he alleged, adding that if the trespass charges were to be dropped so should the resisting arrest charges.