Record
Court opinion
1988-09-14
CourtListener (Free Law Project), text of the opinion
United States v. Local 560 (I.B.T.), 694 F. Supp. 1158 (D.N.J. 1988)
On the court-appointed trustee's application, the district court bars two former Local 560 officers from union affairs. It restates the 1984 findings that the Provenzano Group was organized in the late 1940s as part of the Genovese family and that Anthony Provenzano "was a made-member" of it.
- Date
- 1988-09-14
- Kind
- court-opinion
- Retrieved
- 2026-10-12
- Docket
- Civ. A. 82-689
- Rights
- Opinion of a United States court. Works of the federal judiciary are in the public domain in the United States. The text was read on CourtListener.
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 82-689, Judge Debevoise, September 14, 1988. “With the approval of Edwin H. Stier, court-appointed Trustee of Teamsters Local 560, the United States applied to modify and extend the equitable relief” of the 1984 judgment by rejoining Michael Sciarra and Joseph Sheridan as defendants and enjoining them from further participation in the local’s affairs. An evidentiary hearing was held in August 1988.
Restating the earlier findings, the court wrote: “As detailed in the 1984 Opinion, 581 F.Supp. at 303-06, the Provenzano Group was organized by Anthony Provenzano in the late 1940’s. It was a part of the New York organized crime family which was headed at the time by Mike Miranda, who was serving as the acting boss while its former head, Vito Genovese, was imprisoned. Anthony Provenzano was a made-member of the Genovese organized crime family.” The government’s new allegations, as the court states them, were that Matthew Ianniello, “alleged to be a made-member and a caporegime (i.e., a mid-level supervisor) in the Genovese Crime Family,” had exercised supervisory authority over Provenzano Group members who controlled the local.
The first quoted passage is the court restating its own earlier findings; the Ianniello passage is an allegation. Sciarra may be living, and only the court’s statements are summarized. The Third Circuit later affirmed an injunction against him (974 F.2d 315).
