STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff,
v.
CEDAR PARK CONCRETE CORP., et al., Defendants.
STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff,
v.
CENTURY-MAXIM CONSTRUCTION CORP., et al., Defendants.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
June 25, 1987.
June 25, 1987.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. of State of N.Y., New York City, for plaintiff; Lloyd Constantine, Chief, Antitrust Bureau, Alice McInerney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Carol Antonacci, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel.
Murray, Hollander, Sullivan & Bass, New York City, Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, Woodbridge, N.J., for defendants Cedar Park Concrete Corp. and Cedar Park Const. Corp.
Stillman, Friedman & Shaw, P.C., New York City, for defendants S & A Concrete Co., Inc., S & S Structures, Inc., A & S Structures, Inc., A & S Concrete Co., and Nicholas Auletta.
Gerald L. Shargel, New York City, for defendant G & G Concrete Corp.; Meister Leventhal & Slade, of counsel.
Gerald Lefcourt, New York City, for defendant Marine Pollution Service, Inc. d/b/a Certified Concrete Co.
Parcher, Arisohn & Hayes, New York City, for defendants North Berry Const. Corp. and Joseph Martinelli.
Sylvor, Schneer, Gold & Morelli, New York City, for defendants Julius Nasso Concrete Corp. and Nasso-S & A, a Joint Venture.
Goldman & Hafetz, New York City, Greene & Zinner, White Plains, N.Y., for defendants Transit-Mix Concrete Corp. and Edward Halloran.
Shea & Gould, New York City, for defendant Century-Maxim Const. Corp.
Patrick Wall, P.C., New York City, for defendant Alvin O. Chattin.
Golenbock and Barell, New York City, for defendants THE DIC Concrete Corp., DIC Industries, Inc., Underhill Const. Corp., Underhill Industries Inc., THE DIC Concrete Corp. and Underhill Const. Corp., a Joint Venture, DIC-Underhill Industries, a Joint Venture, IIJ Enterprises, Inc.
Obermaier, Morvillo & Abramowitz, P.C., New York City, for defendants Joseph Depaola, Walter Goldstein, and Frank Phelan.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
OPINION
SAND, District Judge.
The State of New York initiated this antitrust litigation by filing complaints (85 Civ. 1887 and 86 Civ. 8128) in this Court against more than thirty named defendants, all alleged participants in a collusive bid-rigging and market allocation scheme which allegedly pervaded and still permeates the New York City market for "major reinforced-concrete superstructure construction work." Cedar Park Amended Complaint, 85 Civ...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
