Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Radar Sector 9; and had received a handoff on Aircraft X from radar sector 25.  Aircraft X was a PHL departure routed over STOEN REEFI EMI J48; climbing to FL230.  I accepted the handoff as the aircraft was leaving about 15;000 and continued to climb the aircraft to FL280 on the route.  When Aircraft X was leaving FL180; flashing occurred with this aircraft and Aircraft Y level at FL180; an aircraft landing DCA.  Both aircraft were approximately 6 miles apart and closing fast.   The Controller at 25 thought the departing Aircraft X was on a different route and would not be a factor with each other; but he did not read the flight plan correctly before shipping the Aircraft X to me.  I called out to the controller at Radar 25 (who was talking to Aircraft Y) and said I would turn Aircraft X; with whom I was in contact with; left behind the Aircraft Y due to the fact that the Aircraft X was slower and could prevent separation with that turn.  I used a 350 heading which was very drastic; but worked; resulting in no loss of separation with these two aircraft.  It turned out to be a 'bubble rubber.'  When the separation was accomplished; I turned Aircraft X back on course to EMI which is approximately a 260 heading.  Aircraft X was turning slowly.  Before turning back; the Aircraft X began flashing with another aircraft; Aircraft Z; which was climbing out Westward from PHL out of FL190.  After a few hits; loss of separation occurred between these two aircraft; Aircraft X and Aircraft Z.  When the flashing occurred; I had stopped the climb of Aircraft X at FL200 while the Aircraft Z was continuing the climb.  At total separation of 2 hundred feet and 2.81 miles occurred.Radar 25 controller should have read out the flight plan and understood the aircraft he gave to me was on a more westerly route.  I tried to save a deal by turning the aircraft I had; but that turn resulted in another deal with a departing aircraft in Sector 25's airspace.  Better communication between me and the controller at 25 would have resulted in no loss of separation.  If he listened to me and heard that I was going to turn the climbing plane to left behind his aircraft; then he could have warned me about other traffic that he had in his airspace.  As far as myself; I should have quick looked his airspace to see if there was any other traffic for Aircraft X before giving him such a drastic turn.


Second narrative: Aircraft X was a PHL departure.  Aircraft Y was a DCA arrival coming over MXE.  I mistakenly thought Aircraft X was a STOEN J75 departure.  I vectored Aircraft Y west and put on a 250 heading to parallel Aircraft X's departure route.  I shipped Aircraft X to sector 9 and continued working Aircraft Y.  Aircraft X turned toward J48 (his correct assigned route) and conflict alert went off.  I immediately turned Aircraft Y further west on a 280 heading and descended to 16;000. The Sector 9 controller yelled over he was going to turn Aircraft X and I said ok. Aircraft X was turned on a northbound heading that then became a problem for my MXE J110 departure (Aircraft Z); which was climbing at the same altitude.  Sector 9 controller had turned back Aircraft X toward the south; but the aircraft did not turn fast enough.  We lost separation minimums.I should have read the flight plan correctly in the first place and I would have known to parallel the Aircraft Y and the Aircraft X aircraft until they were out of each other's altitudes.  Other than that; the Aircraft X would have been more efficient to have been turned southbound instead of northbound.  Even northbound; the heading was a bit severe for vectoring and a lesser turn would have been more effective and kept the planes separated.


Synopsis: ZNY controllers report of a conflict between two aircraft that is observed and then fixed by the controller. One of the aircraft then becomes a conflict for another aircraft and separation is lost.