Newman v. Silver

Decision Date27 October 1982
Docket NumberNo. 80 Civ. 1775 (RWS).,80 Civ. 1775 (RWS).
Citation553 F. Supp. 485
PartiesMurray NEWMAN and Capitol Motors, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Murray M. SILVER and Murray M. Silver, P.C. and Ralph LiButti, also known as Robert Presti, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York


Robert A. Katz, Flushing, N.Y., for plaintiffs.

Daniel H. Greenberg, New York City, for defendants Murray M. Silver and Murray M. Silver, P.C.

Woodcock & McClure, Hackensack, N.J., for defendant Ralph LiButti; Larry J. McClure, Hackensack, N.J., of counsel.


SWEET, District Judge.

This diversity action was commenced by Murray Newman ("Newman") against his former attorney Murray Silver ("Silver"), a resident of Georgia, and Ralph LiButti who was known to the parties at the time of the transactions in question as Robert Presti ("Presti"),1 alleged without denial to be a New Jersey resident.2 The complaint alleges causes of action for a breach of fiduciary duty, malpractice, fraud, and conversion. Upon the findings and conclusions set forth below, judgment will be entered on the first cause of action, and damages will be awarded in the amount of $169,300.00. The remaining causes of action will be dismissed.

The parties to this dispute would be readily recognized by O. Henry and Damon Runyon,3 and it is regrettable that their skills and knowledge of the foibles of human conduct could not be combined to resolve the issues in this non-jury trial. The testimony, in its totality has presented a disturbing view of scenes behind the defense of a substantial criminal prosecution. As is so often the case, the convicted defendant, Newman, here seeks to blame his counsel, Silver, for his conviction and sentence and to recover amounts which he paid for legal services which he considers constituted malpractice, a breach of his attorney's fiduciary duty and worse.

Findings of Fact

In the fall of 1977 by virtue of a subpoena duces tecum served upon Capitol Motors, Inc. ("Capitol Motors") Newman, the company's president and chief executive officer and thirty percent shareholder, learned that the company, he and the company's other principal officer, Charles Romagnano ("Romagnano") were the targets of a grand jury investigation into the turning back of odometers ("clocking") by a number of used car dealers, some of which, like Capitol Motors, were located on Jerome Avenue in the Bronx. After consulting with his regular counsel, who advised that he had little familiarity with criminal proceedings, Newman retained Paul Perito, a former Assistant United States Attorney in this district, who had been suggested to him by his son, Gary Newman ("Gary").

At this early stage the indistinct outline of the role played by Presti emerges. Presti, by his own testimony, is a horseman, an owner, buyer and seller of horses, as opposed to a player. In that connection he met Gary, who was interested in horses, and a friendship developed. There is also evidence from Gary that Presti had sold substantial numbers of new, or virtually new, cars. For whatever reason, both Gary and Presti testified to the existence of a close relationship, characterized as approximating that of father and son. Gary attended family as well as horse gatherings with Presti. From time to time, prior to the times in question here, Presti had need of legal counsel and in particular had engaged Perito to represent him in connection with a tax case. Presti had recommended Perito to Gary Newman when the latter sought to obtain the necessary licensing to participate in the racing business in New York State. It was as a consequence of this representation that Gary Newman recommended Perito to his father when the investigation into clocking became known.

Perito collected documents, conferred with his client and made submissions to the government in an effort to prevent the filing of an indictment against Capitol Motors and Newman, but these efforts were unavailing. On April 17, 1978 a sixty-six count indictment was returned naming Capitol Motors, Newman and Romagnano as defendants. The indictment charged violations of the odometer statute, wire fraud and mail fraud. The case was assigned to the Honorable Constance Baker Motley of this court, who suggested at an early pre-trial conference that in view of the possibility of conflicting interests, the individual defendants should consider separate counsel. Accordingly, Newman consulted Perito, who recommended Richard Givens, another former Assistant United States Attorney, who was known to have experience in the trial of wire and mail fraud charges. Givens was retained and undertook to represent Romagnano in cooperation with Perito. The two lawyers set about the preparation of the defense. Perito's fee agreement called for the payment of time charges, while Givens was to receive a fee of $100,000 for representation through trial. Pre-trial motions were prepared, argued, and determined, and the case set down for trial on August 23, 1978.

Late in July, preparation for trial was proceeding apace, and documents were being collected relating to the chain of title of the cars at issue. The application of the odometer statute with respect to cars destined for overseas shipment was the subject of research and discussion, since then, as now, Newman conceded the clocking with respect to such cars. According to Givens, the possibility of a viable defense turned upon the ultimate reach to be given the statute by the court and the ability of the government to establish the chain of title which was considered to be an essential element of its case. It was assumed that the government had obtained some evidence from one or more of the participants in the activities which were under indictment.

Both Givens and Newman describe in substantially similar terms a meeting which may well have been the critical one to set the events in motion which gave rise to this action. Newman with dogged determination pressed Perito for a personal evaluation of the case seeking an answer to the question "what would you do if you were in my situation." Perito refused to answer the question on the grounds of its impropriety and then finally acceded to the request by telling Newman that if he were Newman, he would seek to arrange a plea of guilty.

It was obvious to all those present, as it was obvious at this trial, that this was not the answer that Newman anticipated or wanted to hear. This shock is the best evidence of the reality which was being unpleasantly thrust upon him at his request. As a consequence of compelling Perito to answer his inquiry, Newman sought new counsel.4 Gary asked Presti if he could arrange a consultation with Silver,5 to whom Gary had been introduced by Presti during a trip to the Kentucky horse sales earlier in the spring.

Whether this introduction marked the first involvement in Newman's affairs by Silver or not was the subject of conflicting testimony. Gary testified that Presti, in an effort to be helpful, had previously asked Silver if he could find out anything about Newman's case, that Silver had done so and had reported that Perito had made unnecessary concessions to the government and had unduly complicated the case. Silver and Presti deny that this advice had been given, but it is conceded that at some time before Silver was retained, Newman had been told that Silver had represented the former governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter, then President, and that he knew the then Attorney General of the United States, the Honorable Griffin Bell. Based on the testimony of Silver, these representations, standing alone, were accurate. In addition, Presti testified that in the course of seeking to sell Silver a horse, he had visited Silver's Atlanta office in which was displayed a picture of Silver and the Carters. There is no evidence adduced by Newman to establish that Silver's information concerning Perito's conduct of the case, allegedly conveyed to Gary, was knowingly false. On the other hand, it is unquestioned that Silver's relationship to the President and the Attorney General was known to Newman at the time that he requested the initial interview with Silver.

Whether the arrangements for the first meeting on July 28 were arranged by Presti, as testified to by Gary, or by Gary assisted by Presti, is not important, for Presti testified that he talked with Silver before the latter came to New York and told him that if Newman failed to pay the agreed upon fee for the initial consultation, $10,000, he, Presti, would pay the fee. A limousine was laid on at Presti's suggestion, and the morning after the initial telephone call Silver was met at LaGuardia Airport by Mr. and Mrs. Newman, Gary and Presti. They drove to the "21" Club, again at Presti's suggestion, and the case against Newman was discussed. The discussions at "21" went on for two or three hours after which the limousine took everyone present to the offices of Capitol Motors where Silver was given a check for $10,000, and then left town.

Both Gary and Murray Newman testified that in the car going to "21" on July 28 and while at the restaurant, there was discussion concerning the nature of the charges and the facts of the case and that after lunch while the discussion continued in the lounge area, Newman asked how much it would cost to have Silver represent the defendants, that Silver then left to confer with Presti outside of the hearing of the Newmans, that Presti returned alone and advised the Newmans that Silver would undertake the representation for a fee of $250,000 in cash to be made in two payments. Thereafter, according to the Newmans, they rejoined Silver who had been waiting in the limousine, and in the car on the trip to Jerome Avenue, accepted the terms of the fee arrangement. Presti, on the other hand, testified that he heard a discussion of fee arrangements which depended largely on the work to be performed and recalled that "there...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Fairfax Sav., F.S.B. v. Weinberg and Green
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1995
    ...attorneys "may be entitled to recover for their services, even if they have breached their fiduciary obligations"); Newman v. Silver, 553 F.Supp. 485, 496 (S.D.N.Y.1982), aff'd in pertinent part, remanded in part on other grounds, 713 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1983) (attorney who unconscionably over......
  • Schweizer v. Mulvehill
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 31, 2000
    ...duty, since the omission complained of falls more naturally within fiduciary law than within malpractice. See, e.g., Newman v. Silver, 553 F.Supp. 485, 495 (S.D.N.Y.1982), aff'd in relevant part, 713 F.2d 14 (2d Cir.1983) (finding that "staggering fee" constituted breach of fiduciary duty, ......
  • Gotlieb v. Taco Bell Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • December 13, 1994 handling the case, and the results achieved. See Jordan v. Freeman, 40 A.D.2d 656, 336 N.Y.S.2d 671 (1972); Newman v. Silver, 553 F.Supp. 485 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). Counsel for the plaintiffs seek $101,722.86 in attorney's fees and disbursements, not including accrued interest provided for und......
  • Olson v. Fraase
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 31, 1988
    ...treble damages. The damages which may be trebled must result from the attorney's acts of deceit or collusion. See Newman v. Silver, 553 F.Supp. 485, 498 n. 11 (S.D.N.Y.1982), aff'd in part and vacated in part, 713 F.2d 14 (2d Cir.1983); Michalic by Nakovics v. Klat, 128 A.D.2d 505, 512 N.Y.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT