This case concerns back pay claims by black and Spanish-surnamed individuals who were found to have been discriminated against by the Enterprise Association Steamfitters Local 638 when applying for membership in the union's A Branch. An Administrator-Designee held hearings on liability and damages and issued reports identifying 31 successful claimants and the amounts due to each. The court reviewed objections from the plaintiffs, EEOC, NELP, and the union regarding the administrator's methods for calculating back pay start dates and related factors such as admissions of B Branch members, apprentices, transfers, and reinitiations, and largely upheld those determinations. On reconsideration, the court ordered that prejudgment interest be calculated at the adjusted federal prime rate rather than the New York legal rate to fully compensate the victims.
The case involved plaintiffs General Atlantic Investments Limited (a Bermuda company) and Medac, Inc. suing defendants including Business Development Capital Limited Partnership-II for specific performance or damages on a May 1985 letter contract. The court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. It reasoned that under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c), GAIL, despite being organized in Bermuda, had its principal place of business in New York and thus was a New York citizen, as was defendant BDC-II, destroying complete diversity. The court followed precedents applying the principal place of business rule to alien corporations.
AccuSystems, Inc. and its founder William Selden sued Honeywell Information Systems, Inc. in a diversity action alleging fraud, negligence, and breach of contract arising from the purchase of Level 6 computer hardware and TL-6 software that plaintiffs claimed failed to support the promised 32 online terminals and multitasking functions. The court had previously granted summary judgment dismissing the contract claims due to the agreements' limitation periods and liability caps. Following a bench trial, the court ruled for plaintiffs on the fraud and negligence claims, finding that Honeywell sales and technical representatives made material misrepresentations about the system's testing, performance, and support that Selden reasonably relied upon when forming AccuSystems and entering the contracts. The court concluded these statements constituted fraud and that Honeywell breached a duty of care, while noting that damages could not be calculated from the existing evidence and scheduling a further hearing.
The case involved defendants Andres Viera, Fernando Lanigan, and Ramona Ibert, who were charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The court considered motions to suppress oral and written statements made after arrest, as well as physical evidence seized from Ibert's apartment, based on arguments regarding the legality of detentions, Miranda warnings, and searches. After a hearing, the court denied Viera's and Ibert's suppression motions, finding their consents to questioning and searches voluntary, Miranda rights properly waived, and evidence in plain view or otherwise admissible; it granted Lanigan's motion on the ground that his detention violated the Fourth Amendment. The core reasoning examined the circumstances of the initial encounter at a Western Union office, subsequent interviews, polygraph tests, and apartment searches to determine whether statements and evidence were obtained lawfully.
Nyasco Sports, Inc. sued the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and a private insurer to recover proceeds under two crime insurance policies for losses from alleged burglaries in July 1979. The court granted the federal defendant's motion to dismiss after an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Nyasco had misrepresented its annual gross receipts on the policy application by stating an estimate of $50,000 when evidence showed far lower actual and anticipated activity, and that it failed to submit a detailed sworn proof of loss within the required sixty days. With the federal claims dismissed, the court found no basis for pendent jurisdiction over the state-law claims against the private defendant and dismissed those without prejudice.
The case involved federal narcotics charges against defendants Frank James and Wallace Rice, with additional counts against James for cocaine possession and receiving a firearm in interstate commerce. The government moved to disqualify the Goldberger firm from representing both defendants, citing the firm's prior representation of government witness Leroy Barnes in related trials and the defense's plan to call Barnes as a witness for an entrapment defense. The court granted the motion to disqualify the entire firm, holding that members had been privy to confidential information about Barnes through coordinated defenses and substitutions in earlier proceedings. This created an impermissible conflict under Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as continued representation risked compromising Barnes's ability to cooperate and the integrity of the process. The court also addressed potential conflicts in joint representation but focused the ruling on the Barnes connection.
