Friday, March 4, 2022

Avi zinger sues

 To open the holy church of Nassau oTB with or without ice cream relying on ny const art 1 sec etc 3 with winnings to be donated to support Ukraine Ukrainian refugees


laude Solnik
Long Island Business News
2150 Smithtown Ave.
Ronkonkoma, NY 11779-7348 

Home > LI Confidential > Stop scratching on holidays

Stop scratching on holidays
Published: June 1, 2012



Off Track Betting in New York State has been racing into a crisis called shrinking revenue. Some people have spitballed a solution: Don’t close on holidays.
New York State Racing Law bars racing on Christmas, Easter and Palm Sunday, and the state has ruled OTBs can’t handle action on those days, even though they could easily broadcast races from out of state.
“You should be able to bet whenever you want,” said Jackson Leeds, a Nassau OTB employee who makes an occasional bet. He added some irrefutable logic: “How is the business going to make money if you’re not open to take people’s bets?”
Elias Tsekerides, president of the Federation of Hellenic Societies of Greater New York, said OTB is open on Greek Orthodox Easter and Palm Sunday.
“I don’t want discrimination,” Tsekerides said. “They close for the Catholics, but open for the Greek Orthodox? It’s either open for all or not open.”
OTB officials have said they lose millions by closing on Palm Sunday alone, with tracks such as Gulfstream, Santa Anita, Turf Paradise and Hawthorne running.
One option: OTBs could just stay open and face the consequences. New York City OTB did just that back in 2003. The handle was about $1.5 million – and OTB was fined $5,000.
Easy money.


Israeli ice cream maker sues Ben & Jerry’s over boycott

An Israeli ice cream maker filed a federal breach of contract lawsuit against Ben & Jerry’s on Thursday, claiming his license wasn’t renewed because he refused to abide by the Vermont-based firm’s decision not to sell products in “Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

Ben & Jerry’s, which is part of giant Unilever, announced last year that it would no longer sell its products in the Israeli West Bank settlements and parts of disputed East Jerusalem when its current licensing agreement expires at the end of 2022.

Since then, the states of New York, New Jersey, Arizona, Florida, Illinois and Texas have divested a combined $1 billion in pension fund investments from parent company Unilever, concluding Ben & Jerry’s action violated their anti-boycott laws.

Plaintiff Avi Zinger filed his suit in federal court in Newark, NJ, which alleges Ben & Jerry’s refused to renew the license with his American Quality Products firm to manufacture and distribute their ice cream in Israel because he refused to stop selling the pints of creamy treats in the Israeli-controlled West Bank and parts of contested East Jerusalem. Unilever is headquartered in New Jersey.

Ben and Jerry's Israel
Avi Zinger claims Ben & Jerry’s did not renew his license because of his refusal to abide by its boycott. 
AHMAD GHARABLI

He is seeking an injunction that would allow him to continue making and distributing Ben & Jerry’s ice cream throughout Israel pending a resolution of the case. He also is seeking unspecified damages.

Zinger, who is being represented by lawyers with the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, claims Ben & Jerry’s boycotting certain parts of Israel while continuing to sell in other parts of the country is illegal under Israeli law, as well as US law and policy relating to boycotts.

“For 34 years I have had a strong and incredibly positive working relationship with Ben & Jerry’s, manufacturing and selling its ice cream in all parts of Israel, to Israelis and Palestinians. I refused Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever illegal demands, and as a
result, they are threatening to close my business, affecting hundreds of Israeli and Palestinian workers and distributors,” Zinger said in a press release on his suit.

Ben and Jerry's Israel
Avi Zinger says if his businesses close, it will harm Palestinian distributors he works with. 
EMMANUEL DUNAND

He called Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever’s actions “misguided, unlawful and immoral.”

No comments:

Post a Comment