# Respondents Brief — M. W. Zack Metal Co. v. Supreme Court of New York

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385010_2775%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Respondents Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1984
- **Citation:** 469 U.S. 820

## Text

! Office - Supreme Coui
/ FILED ;

if

JUN 14 1984
No. 83-1776
—E ALEXANDER WU. ST AS
In THE i CLER

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1983

>
vw

M. W. ZACK METAL CO.,
Petitioner,

—against—

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK, et al., etc.,

Respondents.

—— EE

RESPONDENT FEDERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

———

VINCENT L. LEIBELL, JR.
Counsel for Respondent,
Federal Insurance Company
14 Wall Street

New York, New York 10005
(212) 732-4646

BIGHAM ENGLAR JONES
& HOUSTON
HELEN M. BENZIE

Of Counsel

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

RESPONDENT FEDERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY’S* BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

This is the fourth time the M. W. Zack Metal Co. has peti-
tioned this Court for a Writ of Certiorari during the twenty-
three year period the matter has been litigated in various courts.
The first three were denied at 423 U.S. 835, (1975); 439 U.S.
894, (1978); and 103 S.Ct. 449 (1982).

Petitioner’s “Concise Statement Of The Case” covers twenty-
three pages. It is replete with allegations that American and Ger-
man Courts have been “deceived” by various parties and attor-
neys who acted “shamelessly” (p. 9)** by “falsifying facts”
(p. 10), using “unlawful actions” (p. 11), “false arguments”
(p. 20), “deceit” (p. 28), “paying for these decisions” (p. 32)
all resulting in “a real, live, stinking occurance [sic] in the an-
nals of modern-day justice” (p. 35).

Petitioner also accuses both State and/or Federal Courts of
having “unconstitutionally decided” matters (p. 36); “arbi-
trarily and capriciously” denying due process (pp. 37); “arbi-
trary conduct” (p. 43), and issuing decisions that “express the
personal predilections of the law assistant, the architect of this
decision” (pp. 44).

This respondent, Federal Insurance Company cannot pos-
sibly improve upon the language of Judge Meskill in his opin-
ion for the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in M. W.
Zack Metal v. International Navigation Corporation of Monrovia,
675 F.(2d) 525, 530, (2d Cir.) cert. den. 103 S.Ct. 449,
(1982), when he said:

“We do not approve of the scatter shot approach taken
by Zack’s counsel over the last twenty-two years in seeking
to recover for the cargo loss. We do not know, however,

*Federal Insurance Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Chubb Group of Insurance Companies.

**Page references are to the Petition.

2

whether it should be attributed to incompetence or bad
faith.”

WHEREFORE, it is submitted that the writ should be denied
in all respects.

Dated: June 12, 1984.

Respectfully submitted,

VINCENT L. LEIBELL, Jr.
14 Wall Street

New York, New York 10005
(212) 732-4646

Attorney for Respondent,
Federal Insurance Company

BIGHAM ENGLAR JONES
& HOUSTON
HELEN M. BENZIE

Of Counsel

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385010_2775%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.