-137-
was dissatisfied living in Newark and requested that Cox transfer
him to another hotel that Cox managed in Atlanta. Connolly,
Transcr. at 2623.66 Although Cox granted Connolly’s request,
Ostroff wanted Connolly to stay at the Gateway Hilton, and he
approached Cox with a proposal to transfer the Gateway Hilton
management contract to Connolly and give Cox another management
contract at a different hotel. Connolly, Transcr. at 2623-2624.
Ostroff and his superiors at Prudential then decided to terminate
Prudential’s management contract with Cox and awarded the
management contract to a hotel management company owned by
Connolly.67
Ostroff advised Connolly of Prudential’s desire to have him
manage the Gateway Hilton; however, Ostroff advised Connolly that
he would have to establish a management company of his own
because Prudential did not want to have its employees involved in
operating the hotel and did not want any of the hotel’s employees
to be Prudential employees. All hotel employees would have to be
66 The STJ report, at 54, incorrectly recommended as a
finding of fact that “Connolly informed Ostroff that he was
considering leaving his position as onsite manager of the Gateway
Hilton, because he felt he was not being adequately compensated
for his services.”
67 This recommended finding of fact is manifestly
unreasonable. As discussed in additional findings of fact, see
infra pp. 138-144, John Connolly (Connolly) continued to manage
the Gateway Hilton, but he neither organized nor operated a hotel
management company.
Page: Previous 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011