Bingham v. Zolt, No. 86 CIV 9477 (KC).
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York |
| Writing for the Court | CONBOY |
| Citation | 810 F. Supp. 100 |
| Parties | J. Reid BINGHAM v. Marvin ZOLT, et al. |
| Docket Number | No. 86 CIV 9477 (KC). |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1993 |
810 F. Supp. 100
J. Reid BINGHAM
v.
Marvin ZOLT, et al.
No. 86 CIV 9477 (KC).
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
January 4, 1993.
Robert Brundige, Jr., Hughes Hubbard & Reed, New York City, for plaintiff.
Paul D. Friedland, Courdert Bros.; Kaare Phillips, Grais & Phillips; Adam Simms, Brody & Fabiani; Kathryn Keneally, Kostelanetez Ritholz Tigue & Fink, Ray Beckerman, New York City; and Jeremy Miskin, Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, Philadelphia, PA, for defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
CONBOY, District Judge:
Following twelve weeks of trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff estate against two of the defendants, Marvin Zolt and David Steinberg, in the sum of $800,000 on the three RICO counts and $250,000 on the common law counts. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), the Court has trebled the RICO recovery and awarded reasonable attorney's fees to the plaintiff.
The issue before the Court is whether to grant plaintiff's request for prejudgment interest on the RICO recovery. The RICO statute is silent on the subject of prejudgment interest. Nu-Life Const. v. Board of Education, 789 F.Supp. 103, 104 (E.D.N.Y.1992). In the face of this silence, the Court has discretion to award or not award prejudgment interest. Wickham Contracting Co. v. Local Union No. 3, 955 F.2d 831, 835 (2d Cir.1992).
In Wickham Contracting Co. v. Local Union No. 3, 955 F.2d 831 (2d Cir. 1992), the Second Circuit analyzed the general factors to consider in deciding whether or not to award prejudgment interest. In that case, the Court wrote:
... the award should be a function of (i) the need to fully compensate the wronged party for actual damages suffered, (ii) considerations of fairness and the relative equities of the award, (iii) the remedial purpose of the statute involved, and/or (iv) such other general principles as are deemed relevant by the court.
Id. at 833. Applying the Wickham factors to the present case, we find that the treble
While denying an award of prejudgment interest based on the particular circumstances of this case, the Court observes that the Second Circuit has yet to decide whether prejudgment interest is ever available on a RICO verdict. At least one Court in this Circuit has suggested that prejudgment interest should not be available on a RICO verdict. In Nu-Life Const. v. Board of Education, 789 F.Supp. 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1992), the Court denied plaintiff prejudgment interest, stating "it appears that interest awards under RICO are unnecessary to fairly compensate a successful plaintiff." Id. at 105. The Nu-Life Court based its reasoning on the holding in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes, 449 F.2d 51, 80 (2d Cir.1971), in which the Court found that the treble damages provided under the Clayton Act sufficiently compensated the plaintiff and made an award of prejudgment interest unnecessary. In Trans World Airlines, Inc., the Court asserted that "it is reasonable to interpret Congress's silence on the matter as indicating that trebled damages are sufficient penalty and that interest need not be included." Id. at 80.1
The main function of an award of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W. Hills Farms, LLC v. Classicstar Farms, Inc. (In re Classicstar Mare Lease Litig.), Nos. 12–5467
...reasoning that the trebled damages are sufficient to adequately compensate plaintiffs for their losses. See, e.g., Bingham v. Zolt, 810 F.Supp. 100, 101–02 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (finding that a [727 F.3d 496]RICO treble damages award “obviates the need to award prejudgment interest”); Nu–Life Cons......
-
In re Crazy Eddie Securities Litigation, No. 87 CV 0033.
...Airlines, 449 F.2d at 80 (pre-judgment interest not necessary where treble damages were granted under the Clayton Act); Bingham v. Zolt, 810 F.Supp. 100, 102 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Nu-Life Const. v. Board of Educ., 789 F.Supp. 103, 105 (E.D.N.Y.1992); but see Tri Component Products Corp. v. Benarr......
-
Ungar ex rel. Strachman v. Palestinian Authority, No. 00-105L.
...606 F.Supp. at 1274. See also Rao v. New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 882 F.Supp. 321, 325 (S.D.N.Y.1995) and Bingham v. Zolt, 810 F.Supp. 100, 101 (S.D.N.Y.1993)(both noting that when the applicable federal statute is silent on the availability of prejudgment interest, a court may aw......
-
Estates of Ungar v. The Palestinian Authority, No. C.A.No. 00-105L (D. R.I. 1/27/2004), No. C.A.No. 00-105L.
...606 F. Supp. at 1274. See also Rao v. New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 882 F. Supp. 321, 325 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) and Bingham v. Zolt, 810 F. Supp. 100, 101 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)(both noting that when the applicable federal statue is silent on the availability of prejudgment interest, a court ma......
-
W. Hills Farms, LLC v. Classicstar Farms, Inc. (In re Classicstar Mare Lease Litig.), Nos. 12–5467
...reasoning that the trebled damages are sufficient to adequately compensate plaintiffs for their losses. See, e.g., Bingham v. Zolt, 810 F.Supp. 100, 101–02 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (finding that a [727 F.3d 496]RICO treble damages award “obviates the need to award prejudgment interest”); Nu–Life Cons......
-
In re Crazy Eddie Securities Litigation, No. 87 CV 0033.
...Airlines, 449 F.2d at 80 (pre-judgment interest not necessary where treble damages were granted under the Clayton Act); Bingham v. Zolt, 810 F.Supp. 100, 102 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Nu-Life Const. v. Board of Educ., 789 F.Supp. 103, 105 (E.D.N.Y.1992); but see Tri Component Products Corp. v. Benarr......
-
Ungar ex rel. Strachman v. Palestinian Authority, No. 00-105L.
...606 F.Supp. at 1274. See also Rao v. New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 882 F.Supp. 321, 325 (S.D.N.Y.1995) and Bingham v. Zolt, 810 F.Supp. 100, 101 (S.D.N.Y.1993)(both noting that when the applicable federal statute is silent on the availability of prejudgment interest, a court may aw......
-
Estates of Ungar v. The Palestinian Authority, No. C.A.No. 00-105L (D. R.I. 1/27/2004), No. C.A.No. 00-105L.
...606 F. Supp. at 1274. See also Rao v. New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 882 F. Supp. 321, 325 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) and Bingham v. Zolt, 810 F. Supp. 100, 101 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)(both noting that when the applicable federal statue is silent on the availability of prejudgment interest, a court ma......