- 42 -
Partnership." Winer had agreed to the filing of the petition,
e.g., in Davenport Recycling and knew that the caption of the
case identified him as the TMP.
During his testimony at the evidentiary hearing,
Lichtenstein was unable to recall whether he or DL & Associates
had received notices of FPAA regarding Davenport. However,
respondent's records indicate that the notices of FPAA were
issued by certified mail to DL & Associates on May 15, 1989.
Lichtenstein never filed a petition in the case involving
Davenport.
In preparation for trial in the Davenport Recycling case,
respondent conducted discovery, to which Gordon and Hack
responded. Respondent's primary interest during discovery was in
records relating to the placement and production of the Sentinel
EPS recyclers and "correspondence to and from the general partner
and tax matters partner, Samuel L. Winer." During the course of
discovery, none of the discovery responses from Gordon and Hack
contained any information regarding any section 7408 injunction
proceedings involving Winer.
During the period of preparation for trial in the Davenport
Recycling case, respondent prevailed on the merits in test
litigation with respect to the Plastics Recycling issues. The
case of Harold M. Provizer and Joan Provizer, docket No. 27141-
86, was chosen as a test case and ultimately was the only test
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011