Case Name: HARLEM RIVER CONSUMERS COOPERATIVE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ASSOCIATED GROCERS OF HARLEM, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1974-04-11
Citations: 493 F.2d 1352
Docket Number: No. 1016, Docket 74-1237
Parties: HARLEM RIVER CONSUMERS COOPERATIVE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ASSOCIATED GROCERS OF HARLEM, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 493
Pages: 1352–1352

Head Matter:
HARLEM RIVER CONSUMERS COOPERATIVE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ASSOCIATED GROCERS OF HARLEM, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 1016, Docket 74-1237.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued April 9, 1974.
Decided April 11, 1974.
Cora T. Walker, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Joseph Zuckerman, New York City (Rosenman, Colin, Kaye,' Petschek, Freund & Emil, of counsel), for defendant-appellee Retail, Wholesale & Chain Store Food Employees Union, Local 338.
Roberto Lebrón, New York City, for defendant-appellee Fedco Foods, Inc.
Howard B. Weinreich, and Guggenhei-mer & Untermyer, New York City, for defendant-appellee Shopwell, Inc.
Bernard J. Ferguson, Woodside, N. Y., for defendant-appellee Mid-Eastern Cooperatives, Inc.
Walter Steck, and Farber, Raucher & Goldberg, New York City, for defendant-appellee Pioneer Food Stores, Inc.
Stanley Bierman, and Unterberg, Ban-dler & Goldstein, New York City, for defendant-appellee Associated Food Stores, Inc.
Robert Sugerman, and Berger, Kramer & Levenson, New York City, for defendant-appellee Sloan’s Supermarkets, Inc.
Sol Needle, and Sirota & Kurta, New York City, for defendant-appellees Theodore Solomon, Aaron Kaufman and Harry Rosenblum.
Before FRIENDLY and HAYS, Circuit Judges, and THOMSEN, District Judge.
Of the District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Despite the unquestionable sincerity of plaintiff's counsel, we are satisfied that Judge Pierce acted well within his discretion in denying temporary injunc-tive relief. 371 F.Supp. 701. His order is therefore affirmed.