411NSIDER: Wiercinski vs Mangia

October 30th, 2013 by abbe diaz

Mangia NYC

411NSIDER: Wiercinski vs Mangia

** UPDATED 4/29/14**
Mangia VINDICATED in Final Verdict of Wiercinski vs Mangia


In keeping with Mr Wiercinski’s ongoing strategy to malign an innocent company, several media outlets have erroneously reported that Adam Wiercinski aka Adam Jamroz was awarded $900K by a jury after federal trial.

This statement is in fact wrong. The $900K amount was a punitive award, which by its very definition asserts that it was not awarded to Mr Wiercinski but against Mangia Corp.
"punitive damages are not awarded in order to compensate the plaintiff…"Wikipedia


Mr Wiercinski’s compensatory award was $1.00 (one dollar), which was a very important fact that was omitted by several media reports. Only the New York Daily News, on page 12 of its Friday, October 25 2013 print issue, reported the actual facts. And as you can see, their article is wholly lacking in the sensationalism that is prevalent in every other erroneous article.

"Compensatory damages, called actual damages, are paid to compensate the claimant for loss, injury, or harm suffered as a result of another’s breach of duty." – Wikipedia

By the very definition of compensatory awards, the jury has stated that Mr Wiercinski deserves one dollar to compensate him for loss, injury, or harm suffered. That is to indicate: the jury was unconvinced that Mr Wiercinski aka Mr Jamroz suffered any loss, injury, or harm. In other words, the jury did not believe Mr Wiercinski’s allegations.

The one dollar compensatory award is a very important and pertinent fact that was omitted from several media outlets. Because it is purely by virtue of the compensatory award that the punitive award becomes unconstitutional.

"In a number of cases, the Supreme Court has indicated that a 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is high enough to lead to a finding of constitutional impropriety, and that any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional." – Wikipedia

As in 2009 when Mr Wiercinski’s case was dismissed from both State and City courts, by willful omission of the facts, Mr Wiercinski has manipulated the media into spreading his fallacious and sensationalistic story, the most egregious of which so far has been the Huffington Post, which failed to amend its story waited almost four days to amend its story, even after it was contacted by an official spokesperson for Mangia, and The New York Post from which it garnered most of its quotes, had at least updated its reportage to include the pertinent fact that Adam Wiercinski aka Adam Jamroz had invoked the Fifth Amendment in order to avoid perjury.

Adam Wiercinski MANGIA

Attorney Daniel Kaiser confirms "the act of a PLAINTIFF, under oath, refusing to answer multiple questions [regarding his prior testimonies, his other employment, his attempt to defraud the US Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, and the US Immigration and Naturalization Services, etc] in a CIVIL suit in order to protect himself from criminal charges was so egregious that Judge Leo Glasser recommended during trial that Wiercinski’s testimony be investigated by the Federal District Attorney’s office for fraud."

Abbe Diaz, the owner of this website and the wife of Sasha Muniak, has been fielding comments and questions at the Huffington Post website, which seemingly go largely ignored. Since the article in question has yet to be amended, we hereby address every allegation set forth in that erroneous article:

"Delivery man Adam Wiercinski was subjected to horribly anti-Semitic harassment for years by his supervisors at Midtown restaurant Mangia 57, in New York City. However, he’s had his day in court, and Mangia 57 will have to pay the price for the shocking behavior of its employees to the tune of $900K, after a jury took just four hours to reach a verdict on Thursday in Wiercinski’s favor."

It remains to be seen whether Mangia will "have to pay the price." Again, the $900K is, by its very definition of a punitive award, unconstitutional in its ratio to Mr Wiercinski’s one dollar compensatory award. Attorney Daniel Kaiser has issued a statement that Mangia "can and will seek to vacate the jury verdict. The $900K punitive award is unsustainable under the Constitution."

The article then goes on to assert the same sensationalistic exploits that Mr Wiercinski had asserted in both State and City courts, both of which dismissed his lawsuit, after Mr Adam Wiercinski aka Mr Adam Jamroz "represented by legal counsel, withdrew his claims with prejudice to avoid potential prosecution for perjury" per prior attorney, Roger Juan Maldonado.

Document 91 of the US Federal District Courts describes the process by which Adam Wiercinski was able to file his case with the federal courts after it was dismissed by both the State and City court system. In another document and memorandum, Judge James Orenstein asserts several times that Mr Wiercinski’s claims regarding his employment at Mangia (under two different names and two different social security numbers) are not credible, and that his claims that he was not employed elsewhere and/or that his unemployment was not of his own choosing are also not credible.

"Only three days of testimony were needed to decide the case last week, which included supporting accounts from three of Wiercinski’s furious co-workers."

The article fails to mention at all, that in fact Mangia presented FIVE witnesses to testify on its behalf that Wiercinki/Jamroz’s allegations are untrue, including contemporaneous and current Mangia employee Robert Ranfranz, who asserted under oath that Mr Wiercinski had phoned and offered him $2000 to incongruously testify on his behalf.

Also testifying on Mangia’s behalf was Mr Zindel Zelmanovitch, a highly respected member of the Jewish community who stated under oath that it was he who had helped Mr Wiercinski become employed with Mangia, had acted as his "mentor" and "confidante" for 25 years, and had never once heard Wiercinski complain about anti-Semitism. He also testified that Wiercinski had stated his desire to be fired from Mangia so "he will get triple damages. He felt that the insurance company will cover awards for him… he told me to stay out of the [prior unrelated legal wage] dispute." Mr Zindel Zelmanovitch, an Orthodox Jewish community leader, also gravely asserted, "Let me state it that if Adam would ever indicate to me, that Mangia or [proprietor] Sasha expressing anti-Semitism to him, I give you my word I would have [gotten] involved in that."

"Blit called the win ‘a moral victory’ for Wiercinski…"

That is an optimistic way of viewing the outcome of the trial, which by the very virtue of its verdict and compensatory/punitive award, is neither a validating victory nor a monetary one.

We are awaiting a full transcript of the trial, said to be deliverable on Tuesday, November 5, 2013. The transcript will provide official evidence of all the assertions set forth in this statement.
[UPDATED: transcripts now available – see links at bottom of article]


Mangia released this official statement in November 2009, the last time that Mr Wiercinski aka Mr Jamroz attempted to falsely manipulate the media for his own glorification:

We, at Mangia, are profoundly shocked and dismayed to find egregious and maliciously concocted charges of anti-Semitism and verbal abuse against a former employee are credible and/or plausible to any of our supporters and patrons. We have been an equal opportunity employer for over 28 years, proudly and happily serving New Yorkers since 1981. We have always arduously strived to be an honorable and distinguished company, and thus we were quite astounded and dismayed to have recently been the victim of fraudulent claims against certain members of our management team. These claims were filed with the Division of Human Rights in an attempt to instigate a fallacious lawsuit against Mangia. Thankfully, the case was put to rest quickly, when facts and evidence in our favor inarguably rendered a judicial decision that a lawsuit for these claims was not viable, and all claims were immediately withdrawn.

Despite this instantaneous decision by the governing courts, the claims were forwarded to several media outlets, who subsequently quickly and erroneously published the atrocious and deceitful claims without facts, proof, or complete veracity. These reports now appear on the internet— some without "update" or retraction, despite our diverse attempts to present the absolute truth and clear our name. Certain blogs and other news outlets have outright ignored the facts, choosing instead to continue in their insatiable quest for the more popular sordid controversy their readership demands.

To this end, we present the official statement from our attorney, Roger Juan Maldonado, regarding the venomous and loathsome claims (which were fallaciously and spuriously filed more recently a second time, despite its utter infeasibility, for the sole purpose of media attention and sensationalism):

"There is no merit to the case. Adam Wiercinski, represented by counsel, agreed to withdraw his claims with prejudice— to avoid potential prosecution for perjury. This means he cannot re-file the claims.

Wiercinski initially and immediately withdrew all claims when asked by the court if he intended to ‘continue perjuring [him]self.’ There is no lawsuit."

We are deeply hurt, angered, and exasperated by any allegations or assertations to the contrary, as they are inaccurate, misguided, injudicious, and simply untrue. We urgently hope you will consider the facts and not base any judgements on the abhorrent vilification of an innocent company and its employees. If you have and/or are employed for a respectable and hardworking business enterprise yourself, we hope you can find it in your heart to empathize with this dire and unscrupulous matter.

Thank you so much for all your support and patronage over the years.


See also:



** UPDATED 4/29/14**
Mangia VINDICATED in Wiercinski vs Mangia



Tags: , , , , , , ,

9 Responses to “411NSIDER: Wiercinski vs Mangia”

  1. Dick Johnson (PX This) Says:

    I just wanted to say as an objective observer with no ties to Mangia, that it blatantly appears that the $900,000 punitive award basically amounts to a metaphorical slap on the hand for Mangia, for accusations that the jury doesn’t even believe really happened.

  2. Dishwasher Says:

    Woooah so that took me a long time to sort through this mess.

    I can’t believe how irresponsible the media is being.

    I can tell you one thing, I read that court Document 91, and the fed court does not take lightly to being dicked around, especially on taxpayer dollars. And if a fed judge says that the DA needs to check him out, he is in deep trouble.

    So sorry you and Mangia have to go through this Abbe. But just like your lawyer I am confident that Mangia will prevail. The $1.00 court award says it all. Buck up, kid :) ;)

  3. Inkslinger Says:

    What doesn’t Huff Po just amend it’s article? What the hell is wrong woth them??? They call that journalism??? They should be ashamed of themselves.

  4. john.smith Says:

    huff po blows. no big shocker there.

  5. Maira Says:

    So sorry you’re going through this. Hope the best possible outcome comes to fruition and the truth prevails above all else.

  6. Dishwasher Says:

    Read the transcripts. So the 900K was bc this asshole’s lawyer said “Hamptons”???What a douche bag.

  7. pat Says:

    “This statement is in fact wrong. The $900K amount was a punitive award, which by its very definition asserts that it was not awarded to Mr Wiercinski but against Mangia Corp.
    “punitive damages are not awarded in order to compensate the plaintiff…” – What does that mean in reality, who gets the 900k? if the case is dismissed for a dollar, why this 900k business. I’m thinking they don’t have to pay it, this “punitive” aspect is weird

  8. Saul Goodman Says:

    After seeing the court docs, there is no way that 900K is getting handed to this clown.

    It is a weird verdict tho. If they didn’t believe the plaintiff, the punitive makes no sense. If they did believe him, the compensatory makes no sense.

    The punitive is way too harsh anyway, nobody died, one manger calling a worker nasty names does not make the company egregiously invidious> It does not show the company acted with malice or intent. It does not show that this was a recurring problem, it was an isolated incident.

    The judge did advise them on damages, but they obvs didn’t get it. Love the judge’s reaction at the end “How much?” Would have loved to see the look on his Honor’s face, wonder if he rolled his eyes.

    Take it back to the judge, he will toss it right out. You can’t go around filing lawsuits and then plead the Fifth the whole time.

    Dishwasher got it right, sounds like the jury was just dumb. Either that or they really wanted to fuck with this clown the same way he fucked with them for three days. Make him think he’s getting rich and then laugh when he finds out what punitive means.

    Dying to know if the US Attorney Office started an investigation yet. No job, no damages, no more SS, and possible jail time. This guy should be shitting himself instead of taking pictures looking like the cat that ate the canary.

  9. Inkslinger Says:

    You got it right, Saul Goodman! :D


Leave a Reply

[in an effort to avoid "spam," comments with URLs are subject to pre-approval]