JCTC sued CRS for breach of a commodity contract involving the sale and delivery of rice under the PL-480 program, claiming that CRS's failure to deliver the full shipment to a single nominated port caused JCTC to incur damages from a related arbitration with its ocean carrier Panama. The court found after trial that CRS breached the contract by delivering rice to two loadports, which violated the terms requiring one-port loading and directly led to the arbitration and associated costs. It awarded JCTC $122,586.90 plus interest, covering the arbitration award and recoverable legal fees but excluding certain unrelated expenses, based on contract interpretation and New York law allowing recovery of third-party litigation costs caused by the breach.
In this maritime contract dispute, plaintiff Ariel Maritime Group sued defendants Zust Bachmeier of Switzerland and Royal Forwarding to recover unpaid ocean freight charges of about $19,200 plus additional handling, storage, and demurrage costs allegedly incurred after the defendants failed to pay for shipping eight containers of calcium hypochlorite from Savannah, Georgia to Matadi, Zaire. Ariel claimed Zust had provided oral and written guarantees of payment and was liable as a substitute for the shipper, while Zust denied any guarantees, asserted it acted only as an agent, and contested the amounts claimed. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of Zust, finding that Ariel failed to present credible evidence establishing either Zust's liability for guarantees or that Ariel had actually incurred the alleged additional expenses, relying instead on inconsistent testimony and self-serving invoices with errors and insufficient supporting documentation.
The case involved plaintiff George A. Fuller Company suing defendants Alexander & Reed, Esqs., the escrow agents, for allegedly breaching an escrow agreement and fiduciary duty by releasing $300,000 in funds before the closing of a real property acquisition and without holding a recordable deed of trust as security. The defendants argued that Fuller had abandoned or ratified modifications to the agreement through inconsistent instructions and conduct. After a bench trial, the court found that Fuller abandoned the escrow agreement by directing the release of funds contrary to its terms, failing to enforce the March 31, 1986 termination date, and delaying any inquiry about the funds or deed for over a year and a half. The court therefore held that the defendants were not liable for the early release of the funds and denied their motion to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence.
In this case, plaintiff Rosa Maria Caballero sued defendants Reynold V. Anselmo and Julian M. Kaufman to recover 4,546 shares of stock in Spanish International Communications Corporation that she alleged Anselmo had wrongfully sold to Kaufman in 1973. After a prior ruling finding Anselmo liable for conversion and dismissing claims against Kaufman, the court addressed damages, rejecting the plaintiff's request for a constructive trust or punitive damages. The court held that damages for conversion are measured by the stock's highest value from the time of conversion until a reasonable period after discovery (fixed as January 16, 1983), plus interest, following New York law that does not support a constructive trust here or punitive damages absent sufficient malice. The parties were directed to agree on the specific amount or face a limited hearing.
The case was a civil in rem forfeiture action brought by the United States against real property at 710 Main Street in Peekskill, New York, based on alleged drug trafficking activity there under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). Claimant Jesse James Bunch opposed the action, asserting an innocent owner defense by showing he took affirmative steps to stop the narcotics activity. The district court initially dismissed the government's complaint and ordered the property returned to Bunch. After granting reargument to consider a new Second Circuit decision on the consent standard for the innocent owner defense, the court denied the government's motions for a new trial or to vacate the judgment, finding that the new precedent and additional evidence did not change the result because Bunch had acted reasonably. The court granted a stay of enforcement pending appeal.
The case involved a commercial dispute between H. Sand & Co. and Airtemp Corp. concerning the delivery dates of refrigeration units (chillers) under a contract governed by the UCC, specifically whether the statute of limitations barred the plaintiff's claims. In a prior May 30, 1990 opinion, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the amended complaint. Plaintiff then moved for reargument under Local Rule 3(j), asserting that the court had overlooked controlling decisions and factual matters about the timing of tender of delivery for one chiller and related accessories. The court denied the reargument motion, holding that plaintiff introduced no new controlling law or overlooked facts, and that all arguments had already been considered and rejected in the original opinion.