UNITED STATES of America
v.
YONKERS CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., County Asphalt, Inc., Peckham Materials Corp., Westchester Colprovia Corporation, Putnam Asphalt Corp., Nigro Bros. Inc., Area Paving Corp., Edward J. Petrillo, Jr., Frank D. Cooney, Jr., William A. Bassett, Anthony B. Cahill, Peter Nigro, August Nigro, Matthew N. Mauriello, Defendants.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
April 21, 1988.
April 21, 1988.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Ralph T. Giordano, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Chief, Antitrust Div., New York City (Rebecca Meiklejohn, Geoffrey Swaebe, Jr., Robert Einstein, Attys., Dept. of Justice, of counsel), for U.S.
Berman, Paley, Goldstein & Berman, New York City, for defendant Yonkers Contracting Co., Inc.; David R. Paley, of counsel.
Marchi Jaffe Steinberg Crystal Katz & Burke, New York City, for defendant County Asphalt, Inc.; David Jaffe, of counsel.
Kelley Drye & Warren, New York City, for defendant Peckham Materials Corp.; Robert E. Crotty, of counsel.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Washington, D.C., for defendant Westchester Colprovia Corp.; Rodney O. Thorson, of counsel.
Scopetta & Seiff, New York City, for defendants Putnam Asphalt Corp., Anthony B. Cahill; Eric A. Seiff, of counsel.
Loeb and Loeb, New York City, for defendants Nigro Bros. Inc., Peter Nigro, August Nigro; Harry First, of counsel.
Santangelo, Santangelo & Cohen, New York City, for defendants Area Paving Corp., Matthew N. Mauriello; Michael L. Santangelo, of counsel.
Baden Kramer Huffman & Brodsky, P.C., New York City, for defendant Edward J. Petrillo, Jr.; William M. Brodsky, of counsel.
Ross & Hardies, Washington, D.C., for defendant Frank D. Cooney, Jr.; Myles J. Ambrose, of counsel.
Dunnells, Duvall, Bennett & Porter, Washington, D.C., for defendant William A. Bassett; Robert S. Bennett, of counsel.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM C. CONNER, District Judge.
Defendants, paving contractors in Westchester County, New York, have moved to dismiss the indictment in this case on the ground that the Southern District jury plan, followed in selecting the grand jury which returned the indictment, does not achieve proportionate representation of races and national origins. Specifically, defendants maintain that since the Southern District jury pool is drawn from voter...
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.
