Support Saunders
Search Saunders
Search all RIT websites
Infocenter/SIS | Directories

Stephen LaGrou, JD

Senior Lecturer

Office Location: LOW-A332

Office Phone: 585-475-2316

Fax: 585-475-6920


Business Legal Studies
Program Info. | Faculty List

Meet Stephen

Office Hours & Staff Assistant Information

Staff Assistant: Andrea Yancone
Staff Assistant Phone: 585-475-6063
  • J.D. in from City University of New York, 1995
  • M.B.A. in Finance from State University of New York at Buffalo, 1991
  • B.A. in Physics from State University of New York at Geneseo, 1982
  • Attorney | Law Office of Stephen E. LaGrou (current); Go | 1997-Present
Expertise [expertise maps]
  • Business Law
  • Finance
  • Fixed income securities and derivatives
  • Litigation
  • Monroe County Bar Association
Professional Certifications
  • Attorney
  • Nominee, Eisenhart Outstanding Teaching Award, RIT - - 2007

Journal Articles

  • LaGrou, S., Joshi, B., & Spooner, D. (1981). Integral of E^v Over Harmonic Oscillator Wavefunctions. Journal of Chemical Education, 58 (1).


  • LaGrou, S. (2007). Guest Lecturer on Option Trading Strategies. St. John Fisher College.


  • 2013: LaGrou, S., Other Publications. I have continued to act as lead counsel representing the plaintiffs in Grodinsky, et al v City of Cortland, et al. Filings total approximately 200 pages net of exhibits. The preliminary injunction that plaintiffs won in 2010 remains in place to bar the City of Cortland from enforcement of certain zoning laws pending the outcome of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. On several occasions, I have used recent developments in this case to illustrate legal points in my classes.   As indicated above, the most recent major development occurred in October of 2013, when defendants moved to lift the preliminary injunction on the grounds that they have corrected the defect in the law upon which the preliminary injunction order was based. On December 9, 2013, I filed opposing papers and an extensive cross-motion seeking a superseding preliminary injunction on various grounds. The motion was complex enough to force the defendants to seek a two-month adjournment in order to respond. Currently, the motion is returnable on February 14, 2014, but given the complexities of the case, further adjournment is likely.   As further indicated above, this case may be a case of first impression on certain issues. Specifically, it appears that there is no New York case law on the issue of whether a criminal malum prohibitum zoning statute that imposes occupancy restrictions based upon blood relationships is impermissibly vague and therefore unenforceable, if it fails to specify the degree of consanguinity.    The aforementioned motion practice will provide real-world course content for my legal courses at SCB.   As noted in previous POWs, as a result of my successes in this case, and in an earlier case against the Village of Geneseo, New York, I have acquired a statewide reputation in this specialized area of law. I continue to receive requests for advice and representation in this area of law from landlords as far away as Binghamton, New York.