1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 684 F.Supp.
  5. 684 F.Supp. 1229 (1988)
 

STATE OF N.Y. v. CEDAR PARK CONCRETE CORP.

Nos. 85 CIV 1887(LBS), 86 CIV 8128(LBS).

684 F.Supp. 1229 (1988)

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.

April 28, 1988.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., State of N.Y., New York City, for plaintiff; Lloyd Constantine, Chief, Antitrust Bureau, Alice McInerney, Robert L. Hubbard, Carol Antonacci, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel.

Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer, Woodbridge, N.J., and Christy & Viener, New York City, for Cedar Park Concrete Corp. and Cedar Park Const. Corp.

Shea & Gould, New York City, for Century-Maxim Const. Corp.

Sylvor, Schneer, Gold & Morrelli, New York City, for Nasso-S & A, A Joint Venture, and Julius Nasso Concrete Corp.

Parcher, Arisohn & Hayes, New York City, for North Berry Const. Corp. and Joseph Martinelli.

Edward J. Halloran, pro se.

Stillman, Friedman & Shaw, P.C., New York City, for S & A Concrete Co., Inc., S & A Structures, Inc., A & S Structures, Inc., A & S Concrete Co. and Nicholas Auletta.

Gerald L. Shargel, New York City, for G & G Concrete Corp.; Meister, Leventhal & Slade, of counsel.

Golenbock & Barell, New York City, for The DIC Concrete Corp., DIC Industries, Inc., Underhill Const. Corp., Underhill Industries, Inc., The DIC Concrete Corp. and Underhill Const. Corp., a joint venture, and IIJ Enterprises, Inc.

Obermaier, Morvillo & Abramowitz, P.C., New York City, for Joseph DePaola, Walter Goldstein and Frank Phelan.

Patrick M. Wall, P.C., New York City, for Alvin O. Chattin.

OPINION

SAND, District Judge.

In the cases before us, the defendants previously moved to dismiss the antitrust claims brought by the State of New York under section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, and under sections 340 and 342-b of the New York General Business Law ("Donnelly Act") for alleged participation in a continuing scheme to rig bids and to allocate shares of the market for reinforced-concrete construction work.1

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Citing Cases