Four members of the New York Knicks basketball team went to court May 16, 1997 after being suspended for leaving the bench when a brawl broke out during Game 5 of their playoff series with the Miami Heat. A federal judge denied the players' request for a TRO barring NBA Commissioner David Stern from enforcing the suspension pending a review by one of two NBA arbitrators. Patrick Ewing, Allan Houston, Larry Johnson and John Starks brought the suit with the NBA Players' Association. Charlie Ward, also suspended, was not involved in the suit.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK

PATRICK EWING, ALLAN
HOUSTON, LARRY JOHNSON, JOHN
STARKS, and NATIONAL
BASKETBALL PLAYERS
ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs,

v.

DAVID STERN, ROD THORN, and
NATIONAL BASKETBALL
ASSOCIATION,

Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

97 Civ.

Upon the accompanying Summons and
Complaint; the Declaration of Jeffrey L.
Kessler, the supporting affidavits of
Patrick Ewing, Allan Houston, and G.
William Hunter; and Plaintiff's
Memorandum of Law in Support of its
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order, and
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and 65.1,
it is hereby

ORDERED that the Defendants David
Stern, Rod Thorn, and National
Basketball Association show cause
before the Honorable of this Court, in
Room __, United States Courthouse, 500
Pearl Street, New York, New York, on
May , 1997 at o'clock _.m., or as soon
thereafter as counsel can be heard, why
Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction should not be granted and an
order entered:

1. directing Defendants to permit
Plaintiffs Ewing, Houston, Johnson, and
Starks to play until such time as final
determinations are issued by the System
Arbitrator and the Grievance Arbitrator
in expedited arbitrations initiated May
16, 1997 under the NBA Collective
Bargaining Agreement concerning a rule
requiring automatic suspensions of
players who leave the bench area during
an altercation, including any appeals
permitted under that Agreement.

ORDERED that, pending a hearing and
determination of the motion for a
preliminary injunction, Defendants
Stern, Thorn, NBA, and their directors,
officers, servants, employees, agents,
and all persons in active concert or
participation with them are:

1. enjoined from enforcement of a rule
requiring automatic suspensions of
players who leave the bench area during
an altercation; and

2. directed to permit Plaintiffs Ewing,
Houston, Johnson, and Starks to play
until such time as final determinations
are issued by the System Arbitrator and
the Grievance Arbitrator in expedited
arbitrations initiated May 16, 1997
under the NBA Collective Bargaining
Agreement concerning a rule requiring
automatic suspensions of players  who
leave the bench area during an
altercation, including any appeals
permitted under that Agreement.

ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall be
required to post a bond in the amount of
$ by o'clock _.m. on May , 1997; and it
is further

ORDERED that Defendants shall serve
by hand any affidavits or memoranda of
law in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion
upon Plaintiffs' attorneys on or before
May , 1997, at o'clock _.m., and that
Plaintiff shall serve reply papers upon
Defendants' attorneys by , 1997 at
  o'clock _.m.

Dated: New York, New York

May _, 1997

Issued at o'clock .m.

United States District Judge

============================

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK

PATRICK EWING, ALLAN
HOUSTON, LARRY JOHNSON, JOHN
STARKS, and NATIONAL
BASKETBALL PLAYERS
ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs,

v.

DAVID STERN, ROD THORN, and
NATIONAL BASKETBALL
ASSOCIATION,

Defendants.

97 Civ.

DECLARATION OF JEFFREY L.
KESSLER JEFFREY L. KESSLER
hereby affirms:

1. I am a member of the Bar of the State
of New York and of this Court and a
member of the law firm of Weil, Gotshal
& Manges, L.L.P., attorneys for
Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action.

2. I submit this Affidavit in support of
Plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration
and for a preliminary injunction and a
temporary restraining order to enjoin the
enforcement of a rule requiring
automatic suspensions of Plaintiffs,
National Basketball Association
("NBA") players, for leaving the bench
area during an altercation in a game,
until such time as final determinations
are issued by the System Arbitrator and
the  Grievance Arbitrator in expedited
arbitrations initiated May 16, 1997
under the NBA Collective Bargaining
Agreement concerning this rule,
including any appeals permitted under
that Agreement.

3. The suspensions under the rule are
precluding Plaintiffs from participating
in crucial games of the NBA playoffs. In
light of the irreparable harm being
inflicted on Plaintiffs by the suspensions,
I informed the Court of Plaintiffs' intent
to move for expedited relief by Order to
Show Cause on May 16, 1997.

4. Plaintiffs are moving by an Order to
Show Cause and not by a Notice of
Motion because Plaintiffs require
immediate relief to prevent irreparable
injury until final resolution of the issues
in this case.

5. Plaintiffs have made no prior
application for the relief sought herein.

Jeffrey L. Kessler (JK-7891)

============================
===

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK

PATRICK EWING, ALLAN
HOUSTON, LARRY JOHNSON, JOHN
STARKS, and NATIONAL
BASKETBALL PLAYERS
ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DAVID STERN, ROD THORN, and
NATIONAL BASKETBALL
ASSOCIATION,

Defendants.

CASE NO.

PURSUANT TO RULE 1.9 [Formerly
Local General Rule 9] OF THE RULES
OF THE US DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN AND EASTERN
DISTRICTS OF NEW YORK AND TO
ENABLE JUDGES AND
MAGISTRATE JUDGES OF THE
COURT TO EVALUATE POSSIBLE
DISQUALIFICATION OR RECUSAL,
THE UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFFS (A PRIVATE NON-
GOVERNMENTAL PARTY)
CERTIFIES THAT THE FOLLOWING
ARE CORPORATE PARENTS,
AFFILIATES AND/OR
SUBSIDIARIES OF SAID PARTY
WHICH ARE PUBLICLY HELD.

NONE

DATE: 5/16/97

Signature of Attorney

============================
==

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK

PATRICK EWING, ALLAN
HOUSTON, LARRY JOHNSON, JOHN
STARKS, and NATIONAL
BASKETBALL PLAYERS
ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs

v.

DAVID STERN, ROD THORN, and
NATIONAL BASKETBALL
ASSOCIATION,

Defendants.

97 Civ

Jury Trial Demanded

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, by their undersigned
attorneys, for their Complaint herein
allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This action is brought for a
declaratory judgment seeking to compel
arbitrations under the Collective
Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between
the National Basketball Association
("NBA") and its players over a blanket
rule promulgated by the NBA that
automatically suspends players for
leaving the bench area during an
altercation, without any case-by-case
determination as to whether the player
participated in any belligerent conduct.
The plaintiffs seek a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary
injunction to preserve the jurisdiction of
the arbitrators  until they are able to
reach a decision on the merits of the
players claims.

2. Plaintiffs are four professional
basketball players who are members of
the New York Knickerbockers (the
"Knicks"), a member team of the NBA,
and the NBA Players Association (the
"NBPA"), the exclusive collective
bargaining representative of all NBA
players.

3. Defendants are the NBA, David Stern,
the Commissioner of the NBA, and Rod
Thorn, the Senior Vice President of
Basketball Operations at the NBA.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. The claims set forth in Count I arise
and are brought under the Declaratory
Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201(a), the
Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.
Section  1 et seq., and the Labor
Management Relations Act.

5. This Court has jurisdiction over these
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections
1331, 2201(a) and 9 U.S.C. Section  15.

6. Venue in this action is proper
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section  1391.
Each of the defendants can be found,
resides, has an agent, or transacts
business in the Southern District of New
York, and the activities complained of
herein were carried on in part by one or
more of the defendants within this
district.

THE PARTIES

7. Plaintiff Patrick Ewing ("Ewing") is a
professional basketball player who is
employed by the New York
Knickerbockers (the "Knicks"), a
member team of the NBA.

8. Plaintiff Allan Houston ""Houston") is
a professional basketball player who is
employed by the Knicks.

9. Plaintiff Larry Johnson ("Johnson") is
a professional basketball player who is
employed by the Knicks.

lO. Plaintiff John Starks ("Starks") is a
professional basketball player who is
employed by the Knicks.

11. Plaintiff National Basketball Players
Association (the "Players Association")
is the exclusive collective bargaining
representative of all NBA players.

12. Defendant National Basketball
Association ("NBA" or the "League") is
the professional basketball league of
which the Knicks are a member team.

13. Defendant David Stern ("Stern" or
the "Commissioner") is the
Commissioner of the NBA.

14. Defendant Rod Thorn ("Thorn") is
the Senior Vice President of Basketball
Operations at the NBA.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

15. The 1996-97 NBA season is
presently at its climax. Twenty-four of
the twenty-nine NBA teams have been
eliminated from contention, and the
remaining teams are deep in the playoffs
vigorously seeking a championship.
During a playoff game on May 14, 1997,
in the Eastern Conference semi-finals
between the Knicks and the Miami Heat
("Heat"), an altercation occurred
between two opposing players, P.J.
Brown ("Brown") of the Heat and
Charlie Ward ("Ward") of the Knicks,
not far from the Knicks bench. Several
players who were in the game at the time
quickly rushed to the scene, most
interested in keeping apart Brown and
Ward. Instinctively, with all this activity
going on, a few players left the Knicks
bench, with the sole intention of
bringing and maintaining peace on the
court. The altercation ended moments
after it began, without any belligerent
actions taken by the players who left the
Knicks bench.

16. Yesterday evening, May 15, at
approximately 5:00 p.m., the NBA
announced that four members of the
Knicks basketball team - plaintiffs
Ewing, Houston, Johnson, and Starks -
were to be fined and suspended for one
game for conduct that took place during
the May 14 game. Messrs. Ewing and
Houston have been directed not to play
in  tonight's crucial sixth game of the
seven-game playoff series between the
two teams, and Messrs. Johnson and
Starks are to miss the following game,
which will either be the deciding seventh
game of this series, or the first game of
the next series, which would be the
conference finals against the reigning
NBA champion Chicago Bulls.

17. According to the press release issued
yesterday by the NBA and attached as
Exhibit A to the Hunter Aff., the players
were suspended "for violating the rule
that requires automatic suspension for
leaving the bench area during an
altercation." There is no indication that
the NBA found that any of the players
engaged in any belligerent activity.

18. Though the NBA and the NBPA
have engaged in collective bargaining
for more than 25 years, and have agreed
on countless rules involving issues that
range from minimum and maximum
salary amounts to the availability of
game tickets for retired players, never
have the parties discussed or agreed on
an automatic suspension - or any other
rule - for players leaving the bench area
during an altercation. The rule that the
NBA seeks to enforce here is not
collectively bargained for, but instead
was developed and imposed by the NBA
and its Teams without the participation
of the NBPA. It allegedly is contained in
the  "NBA Operations Manual," a full
copy of which never has been provided
to the NBPA.

19. The NBPA has filed two separate
arbitrations challenging the NBA's
blanket suspension rule. First, a
proceeding has been filed under Article
XIV of the CBA, contending that the
NBA rule is a violation of the CBA's
anti-collusion provisions. The
determination of whether collusion
under the CBA has occurred is to be
made exclusively by the "System
Arbitrator," as set forth in Article XIV
of the CBA. The System Arbitrator is
Professor Kenneth Dam of the
University of Chicago Law School, and
it will likely be necessary for the parties
to have a hearing in Chicago next week
to determine these issues.

20. In addition to the anti-collusion
proceeding, the NBPA has also filed a
separate arbitration before Dean John
Feerick of Fordham Law School, the
"Grievance Arbitrator" appointed under
Article XXXI of the CBA. In that
proceeding, the NBPA contends that the
CBA only permits the Commissioner to
impose on-court discipline on a case-by-
case basis against a player whose
specific conduct is found to be
"prejudicial to or against the best
interests of the [NBA] or the game of
basketball." (NBA Constitution Article
35(d), a copy of which is attached and
incorporated into the Uniform Player
Contract). It does not permit a blanket
rule  that mandates suspension for
merely leaving the bench area, leaving
no room for consideration of the
underlying facts and circumstances to
determine whether the player's actions
are sufficiently belligerent to warrant a
suspension. Pursuant to this article
"[a]ny dispute ... involving the
interpretation or application of, or
compliance with, the provisions of this
Agreement or the provisions of a Player
Contract ... shall be resolved exclusively
by the Grievance Arbitrator...."

21. There is no dispute that the only
reason the NBA suspended the four
Knicks plaintiffs was for violating the
NBA's automatic suspension. For
example, while plaintiffs Ewing and
Houston did leave the bench area after
the altercation began, they never joined
in the altercation.

22. Further, plaintiff Ewing waited by
the bench area until he believed that the
altercation had concluded, and when he
finally did leave the bench area, it was
only to do what he could to encourage
his teammates to return to the sidelines,
keep the peace, and ensure that no
further altercations took place.

23. Plaintiff Houston only left the bench
area because he was concerned for the
safety of his teammate, believing that
Ward could have been seriously injured
from being thrown down so hard by the
much larger Brown.

24. The harm that the plaintiffs will
suffer if a TRO is not granted is clearly
severe and irreparable. Mr. Ewing's
background is very well-known by New
Yorkers and basketball fans across the
world: since coming into the NBA as the
first pick in the 1985 Draft, Mr. Ewing
has been an NBA All-Star in all but one
of his 12 seasons, recently being named
as one of the NBA's all time 50 best
players. Having achieved great fame and
wealth, Mr. Ewing seeks only one
professional goal that has thus far eluded
him: an NBA championship. If this star
player is not permitted to play in such a
crucial post-season game, his team's
chances of winning the championship
will decrease. For Mr. Ewing and the
other three plaintiffs - the top four
scorers for the Knicks in the 1996-97
season - enormous emotional and
indeterminable financial harm will be
suffered if their suspensions are not
enjoined. There simply can be no
making it up to them if their absence
from the next two games - later found to
be unjustified under the CBA - causes
their team to fail.

25. If plaintiff players, are suspended
from participation in one of the two next
games, the Knicks chances for victory in
tonight's game and in the series are
seriously diminished. Further,
suspension of Ewing would be a terrible
blow to his career, since he believes the
Knicks  have an excellent Championship
that

26. No with the granting contrary, the
NBA chance this year to win an NBA
has heretofore eluded him. harm will
result to the non-moving party of a
preliminary injunction. To the has an
interest in making sure that its games
are decided fairly and on their merits.
The integrity and credibility of the
league and its players would suffer
greatly if it was later found that the
results of crucial playoff games were
compromised by the League's improper
actions. Moreover, even if the arbitrators
were to rule against the players, they
could serve their suspensions at that
time, allowing the defendants to receive
their complete remedy. By contrast,
there is no way to make the players fully
whole if they are wrongly made to serve
their suspensions.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

27. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 26 above.

28. The CBA clearly provides for the
arbitration of both disputes concerning
the blanket rule promulgated by the
NBA that automatically suspends
players for leaving the bench area during
an altercation. There is a real
controversy between the parties
concerning the legitimacy of this rule
under the CBA.

29. Plaintiffs are and will be
substantially and irreparably harmed by
the enforcement of the suspensions
imposed upon them. The balance of
hardships for injunctive relief tips
decidedly in plaintiffs' favor, and the
public interest weighs in favor of
injunctive relief in aid of arbitration.

30. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory
judgment compelling arbitration, and to
a temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction in aid of, and
pending the final determination of, such
arbitration proceedings.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for
judgment with respect to their
Complaint as follows:

A. That the Court declare

B. That the Court temporarily restrain
and preliminarily enjoin Defendants
from suspending Plaintiffs Ewing,
Houston, Johnson, and Starks, pending
the final determination of all arbitration
proceedings, including any appeals
therefrom, between the parties
concerning the blanket rule promulgated
by the NBA that automatically suspends
players for leaving the bench area during
an altercation;

C. That the Court direct Defendants to
permit Plaintiffs Ewing, Houston,
Johnson, and Starks to play, pending the
final determination of all arbitration
proceedings, including any appeals
therefrom, between the parties
concerning the blanket rule promulgated
by the NBA that automatically suspends
players for leaving the bench area during
an altercation;

D. That the Court award Plaintiffs such
damages as may be proven at trial; and

E. That the Court grant such other and
further relief as the Court may deem
proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs demand a
trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: May 16, 1997

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
By: Jeffrey L. Kessler
(JK-7891)

767 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10153
(212) 310-8000
(212) 310-8007 (fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

============================

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK

PATRICK EWING, ALLAN
HOUSTON, LARRY JOHNSON, JOHN
STARKS, and NATIONAL
BASKETBALL PLAYERS
ASSOCIATION

Plaintiffs,

v.

DAVID STERN, ROD THORN, and
NATIONAL BASKETBALL
ASSOCIATION,

Defendants.

97 Civ.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, FOR A
PRELIMINARY  INJUNCTION AND
FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

At approximately 5:00 p.m. yesterday
afternoon, the National Basketball
Association ("NBA") announced that

four members of the New York
Knickerbockers ("Knicks") -plaintiffs
Patrick Ewing, Allan Houston, Larry
Johnson and John Starks (collectively,
the "Knicks Players") -- were each being
suspended from one playoff game for
violating a purported NBA rule that
provided for the automatic suspension of
any player who leaves the bench area
during an altercation, regardless as to
whether the player is a  peacemaker, a
bystander, or acting belligerently (the
"Blanket Bench Rule").

The National Basketball Players
Association ("Players Association"), the
exclusive collective bargaining
representative of the NBA players, has
today filed two separate arbitrations
under the Collective Bargaining
Agreement between the NBA and the
players ("CBA"), seeking a
determination that the NBA's Blanket
Bench Rule violates various sections of
the CBA. This motion for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary
injunction is necessary in aid of this
action to compel arbitration, pursuant to
9 U.S.C. Section  4, and to preserve the
jurisdiction of the two CBA arbitrators
until they can render a decision on the
merits of plaintiffs' claims. Unless a
Temporary Restraining Order is entered,
the Knicks Players will suffer severe and
irreparable injury to their playing
careers, as the Knicks are deprived of
four of the team's very best players
during these crucial playoff games.

The case for a Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary Injunction could
not be stronger. As discussed below, the
Players Association has filed two
meritorious CBA arbitrations,
challenging the players' suspensions,
which are currently pending. However,
these arbitrations -- which cannot be
fully  adjudicated prior to Sunday -- will
be  rendered futile if Mr. Ewing and Mr.
Houston are suspended from playing in
tonight's game, and Mr. Johnson and
Mr. Starks are suspended from playing
in the next playoff game scheduled for
Sunday. The status quo will have been
irreparably shattered and there will be
no way for the arbitrators or the Court to
make the players whole.

By contrast, if the two arbitrators
ultimately rule against the players, the
League's discipline can still be
meaningfully imposed by suspending the
players at that time. The balance of
hardships, as well as the strong federal
policy in favor of labor arbitrations, thus
strongly supports the entry of interim
relief.

Finally, there can be no dispute that the
public interest will be served by this
Court's entry of a Temporary
Restraining Order. For example, the two
players scheduled to be suspended this
evening, Mr. Ewing and Mr. Houston,
were merely trying to serve as
peacemakers when they left the bench,
and they did nothing belligerent or
otherwise contrary to the best interests of
the NBA. Indeed, Mr. Ewing did not
even leave the bench until he believed
the altercation to be over. It would be a
great injustice not only to these players,
but to their team and fans, to permit the
NBA to suspend them from a crucial
playoff game without first providing
them the opportunity to have  their
claims  ruled upon by the two CBA
arbitrators who have been designated for
this task.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. Plaintiffs are Patrick Ewing, Allan
Houston, Larry Johnson, and John
Starks, who are four members of the
New York Knickerbockers (the
"Knicks"), a member team of the
National Basketball Association
("NBA"), and the NBA Players
Association (the "NBPA"), the exclusive
collective bargaining representative of
all NBA players. Defendants are the
NBA, David Stern, the Commissioner of
the NBA, and Rod Thorn, the Senior
Vice President of Basketball Operations
at the NBA.

2. The 1996-97 NBA season is presently
at its climax. Twenty-four of the twenty-
nine NBA teams have been eliminated
from contention, and the remaining
teams are deep in the playoffs vigorously
seeking a championship. During a
playoff game on May 14 in the Eastern
Conference semi-finals between the
Knicks and the Miami Heat, an
altercation occurred between two
opposing players, P.J. Brown of the Heat
and Charlie Ward of the Knicks, not far
from the Knicks bench. Several players
who were in the game at the time
quickly rushed to the scene, most
interested in keeping apart Brown and
Ward. Instinctively, with all this activity
going on, a few players left the Knicks
bench, with the sole  intention of
maintaining peace on the court. The
altercation ended moments after it
began, without any belligerent actions
taken by the players who left the Knicks
bench. See Affidavit of G. William
Hunter, Executive Director of the
NBPA, dated May 16, 1997 (hereafter
referred to as the "Hunter Aff."), Para. 2.

3. Yesterday evening, May 15, at
approximately 5:00 p.m., the NBA
announced that four members of the
Knicks basketball team - plaintiffs
Ewing, Houston, Johnson, and Starks -
were to be fined and suspended for one
game for conduct that took place during
the May 14 game. Messrs. Ewing and
Houston have been directed not to play
in tonight's crucial sixth game of the
seven-game playoff series between the
two teams, and Messrs. Johnson and
Starks are to miss the following game,
which will either be the deciding seventh
game of this series, or the first game of
the next series, which would be the
conference finals against the reigning
NBA champion Chicago Bulls. Id.,
Para.3.

4. According to the press release issued
yesterday by the NBA and attached as
Exhibit A to the Hunter Aff., the players
were suspended "for violating the rule
that requires automatic suspension for
leaving the bench area during an
altercation." There is no indication that
the NBA found that any of the players
engaged in any belligerent activity. Id.

5. Though the NBA and the NBPA have
engaged in collective bargaining for
more than 25 years, and have agreed on
countless rules involving issues that
range from minimum and maximum
salary amounts to the availability of
game tickets for retired players, never
have the parties discussed or agreed on
an automatic suspension - or any other
rule - for players leaving the bench area
during an altercation. The rule that the
NBA seeks to enforce is not collectively
bargained for, but instead was developed
and imposed by the NBA and its Teams
without the participation of the NBPA. It
allegedly is contained in the "NBA
Operations Manual," a full copy of
which never has been provided to the
NBPA. Id., Para. 4.

6. Plaintiffs have filed two separate
arbitrations challenging the NBA's
Blanket Bench Rule. First, a proceeding
has been filed under Article XIV of the
CBA, contending that the Blanket Bench
Rule is a violation of the CBA's anti-
collusion provisions. The determination
of whether collusion under the CBA has
occurred is to be made exclusively by the
"System Arbitrator," as set forth in
Article XIV of the CBA. Hunter Aff.,
Exhibit C. The System Arbitrator is
Professor Kenneth Dam of the
University of  Chicago Law School, and
it will likely be necessary for the parties
to have a hearing in Chicago next week
to determine these issues. Id., Para. 5.

7. In addition to the anti-collusion
proceeding, the plaintiffs have also filed
a separate arbitration before Dean John
Feerick of Fordham Law School, the
"Grievance Arbitrator" appointed under
Article XXXI of the CBA. Hunter Aff.,
Exhibit D. In that proceeding, the
plaintiffs contend that the CBA only
permits the Commissioner to impose on
court discipline on a case-by-case basis
against a player whose specific conduct
is found to be "prejudicial to or against
the best interests of the [NBA] or the
game of basketball." (NBA Constitution
Article 35(d), a copy of which is
attached and incorporated into each
player's contract, Hunter Aff., Exhibit
E). It does not permit a blanket rule that
mandates suspension for merely leaving
the bench area, leaving no room for
consideration of the underlying facts and
circumstances to determine whether the
player's actions are sufficiently
belligerent to warrant a suspension. Id.,
Para. 6.

8. There is no dispute that the only
reason the NBA suspended the four
Knicks plaintiffs was for violating the
Blanket Bench Rule. Indeed, plaintiffs
Ewing and Houston have both affirmed
that, while they did leave the  bench area
after the altercation began, they never
joined in the altercation. See Affidavit of
Patrick Ewing, dated May 16, 1997
(hereinafter "Ewing Aff."), Paras. 4, 5;
Affidavit of Allan Houston, dated May
16, 1997 (hereinafter "Houston Aff."),
Paras., 4, 8.

9. Indeed, plaintiff Ewing waited by the
bench area until he believed that the
altercation had concluded, and when he
finally did leave the bench area, it was
only to do what he could to encourage
his teammates to return to the sidelines,
keep the peace, and ensure that no
further altercations took place. Ewing
Aff., Para. 4. Plaintiff Houston only left
the bench area because he was
concerned for the safety of his teammate,
Charlie Ward, believing that Mr. Ward
could have been seriously injured from
being thrown down so hard by the much
larger Brown. Houston Aff., Paras. 6, 7.

10. The harm that the plaintiffs will
suffer if a Temporary Restraining Order
is not granted is clearly severe and
irreparable. Mr. Ewing's background is
very well-known by New Yorkers and
basketball fans across the world: since
coming into the NBA as the first pick in
the 1985 Draft, Mr. Ewing has been an
NBA All-Star in all but one of his 12
seasons, recently being named as one of
the NBA's all time 50 best players.
Having achieved great fame and wealth,
Mr.  Ewing seeks only one professional
goal that has thus far eluded him: an
NBA championship. If this star player is
not permitted to play in such a crucial
post-season game, his team's chances of
winning the championship will
significantly decrease. For Mr. Ewing
and the other three plaintiffs - the top
four scorers for the Knicks in the 1996-
97 season - enormous emotional and
indeterminable financial harm will be
suffered if they are wrongly suspended
and prevented from pursuing continued
success in the playoffs. There simply can
be no making the Knicks Players whole
if their suspension -- later found to be
unjustified under the CBA -- causes their
team to fail.

Id. Para. 9.

11. If Mr. Ewing and Mr. Houston are
suspended from participation in tonight's
game, the Knicks chances for victory
will be seriously diminished. Ewing
Aff., Para. 7; Houston Aff., Para. 9.
Further, the suspension of Ewing would
be a particularly damaging blow to his
career, since he believes the Knicks have
an excellent chance this year to win the
NBA Championship that has heretofore
eluded him. Ewing Aff., Para. 7. There
is no way to compensate the Knicks
Players for these losses.

12. By contrast, no lasting harm can
result to the non-moving party by virtue
of granting the TRO. To the  contrary,
the NBA has an interest in making sure
that its games are decided fairly and on
their merits. The integrity and credibility
of the league and its players would suffer
if it was later found that the results of
crucial playoff games were compromised
by the League's improper suspension of
players in violation of the terms of the
CBA. Moreover, even if the arbitrators
rule against the players, they can serve
their suspensions at that time, allowing
the defendants to receive their complete
remedy. By contrast, there is no way to
make the players whole if they are
wrongly made to serve their suspensions
prior to having their claims fully
arbitrated. Hunter Aff., Para. 11.

13. Finally, there is an enormous public
interest at stake. Almost 20,000
members of the public have paid up to
$1,000 a seat to see tonight's game, and
tens of millions of others across the
world will be watching on television.
Countless fans will be irreparably
harmed if these important games are
tainted by what turns out to be improper
suspensions. The public interest will
thus clearly be served by maintaining the
status quo. Id., Para. 12.

ARGUMENT

I. THIS COURT SHOULD COMPEL
ARBITRATION, AND ISSUE A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION IN ORDER TO
PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO

Pursuant to Section 4 of the Federal
Arbitration Act, "tad party aggrieved by
the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of
another to arbitrate under a written
agreement for arbitration may petition
any United States district court which
[otherwise has jurisdiction] for an order
directing that such arbitration proceed in
the manner provided for in such
agreement." 9 U.S.C. Section  4.

Furthermore, it is settled law in this
Circuit that a federal district court has
the authority to issue an injunction in
aid of arbitration. See Borden. Inc. v.
Meiji Milk Prods. Co., 919 F.2d 822 (2d
Cir. 1990) (holding that "entertaining an
application for a preliminary injunction
in aid of arbitration is consistent with
the court's powers" under 9 U.S.C.
Section  206, a substantially similar
provision for compelling arbitration
under the Convention on Recognition
and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
Awards). Nor can it be disputed that the
Court has authority to grant injunctive
relief to preserve the status quo in aid of
a labor arbitration. See, e.g., Boys
Markets. Inc. v. Retail Clerks Local 770,
398 U.S. 235, 90 S. CT. 1583, 26 L. Ed.
2d 199  restraining

(1970); Local Lodge No. 1266 v.
Panoramic Corp., 668 F.2d 276 (7th Cir.
1981) (citing cases).*1 To obtain a
preliminary injunction or temporary _
order, a party must demonstrate:

(a) irreparable harm and (b) either

(i) likelihood of success on the merits or

(ii) sufficiently serious questions going
to the merits to make a fair ground for
litigation and a balance of hardships
tipping decidedly toward the party
requesting the preliminary relief.

See, e.g., Laureyssens v. Idea Group.
Inc., 964 F.2d  131, 135-36 (2d Cir.
1992); Jackson Dairy Inc. v. H.P. Hood
& Sons. Inc., 596 F.2d 70, 72 (2d Cir.
1979). *2

However, it is not necessary that a party
seeking injunctive relief to aid a labor
arbitration demonstrate a likelihood of
success on the merits of its underlying
claim. Rather, the party seeking such
relief must only show that its arbitrable
claims are "sufficiently sound to prevent
arbitration from being a futile
endeavor." See, e.g., International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Bali
Co.,  649 F. Supp. 1083, 1088 (D.P.R.
1986) (citing Transit Union Division
1384 v. Greyhound Lines. Inc., 529 F.2d
1073, 107778 (9th Cir. 1976)). In other
words,

"if the other elements are present (i.e.,
the balance of hardships tips decidedly
toward plaintiff), it will ordinarily be
enough that the plaintiff has raised
questions going to the merits so serious,
substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to
make them a fair ground for litigation
and thus for more deliberate
investigation." Communications
Workers, 430 F. Supp. at 978 (quoting
Judge Frank's "liberal formulation" in
Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch
Co., 206 F.2d 738, 740 (2d Cir. 1953)).
These standards for granting injunctive
relief are plainly satisfied in this case.

II. PLAINTIFFS ARE THREATENED
WITH IRREPARABLE HARM, HAVE
RAISED SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS
GOING TO THE MERITS, AND THE
BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS TIPS
DECIDEDLY IN THEIR  FAVOR

A. Plaintiffs Will Be Irreparably Harmed
In the Absence of a Temporary
Restraining Order There could hardly be
a stronger case for substantial and
irreparable harm in the absence of
interim relief. Tonight the Knicks will
play in the crucial sixth game of the
best-of-seven playoff series with the
Miami Heat. If a Temporary Restraining
Order is not entered, the Knicks will
play this game without two of their very
best players -- Mr. Ewing and Mr.
Houston -- and will play without two
other premier players -- Mr. Johnson
and Mr.  Starks -- in the playoff game
scheduled for Sunday. It is self-evident
that the Knicks' prospects in these games
will be significantly harmed by the
suspensions. There simply is no way to
restore the status quo or make the
Knicks Players, the Knicks, or the
Knicks fans whole if these players are
later found to have been wrongfully
suspended. See Hunter Aff. Para.  9-11;
Ewing Aff. Paras.  6, 7; Houston Aff.
Paras. 9, 10. Plaintiffs have filed this
morning two CBA arbitrations
challenging the players' pending
suspensions. For these arbitrations to
have any meaning, and to prevent severe
irreparable harm in the meantime, a
Temporary Restraining Order must be
entered.

B. A Temporary Restraining Order is
Necessary To Preserve the Players' Right
to Arbitration Of Whether the
Commissioner's Issuance of the Blanket
Bench Rule Violates the Anti-Collusion
Provisions of the CBA _

The CBA expressly prohibits collusion
concerning, inter alia, the terms or
conditions of a player's employment.
Specifically, Article XIV, Section 1 of
the CBA (Hunter Aff., Exhibit B)
provides as follows:

No Collusion. Subject to Section 2
below, no NBA Team, its employees or
agents, will enter into any contracts,
combinations or conspiracies, express or
implied, with the NBA or any other
NBA Team, their employees or agents:
(a) to negotiate or not to negotiate with
any Veteran or Rookie, (b) to offer or not
offer a Player Contract to any Free
Agent, or (c) concerning the terms or
conditions of employment offered to any
Veteran or Rookie. (Emphasis added.)

An agreement between the NBA and its
teams causing a "rule" to issue providing
for an automatic suspension for any
player leaving the bench during an
altercation clearly constitutes a team's
"contract . . . with the NBA . . .
concerning the terms or conditions of
employment offered to any Veteran or
Rookie [player]." The Blanket Bench
Rule was agreed to by the NBA and its
teams, outside of the collective
bargaining process and without the
involvement of the Players Association.
On its face, then, the Blanket Bench
Rule meets the criteria for prohibited
collusive conduct.

Moreover, the few narrowly
circumscribed types of conduct expressly
exempted from anti-collusion in Article
XIV, Section 2 of the CBA confirms that
the Blanket Bench Rule is, in fact, a
violation of the CBA's prohibition
against collusive conduct. Specifically,
Section 2(e) of the anti-collusion
provision excludes from Section 1 "any
action taken by the NBA League Office
to exclude from the League, suspend or
discipline any player for reasons
involving gambling, drugs, or the
commission of a crime." CBA Art. XIV,
Section  2(e). Tellingly, the grounds for
disciplinary actions exempted from the
anti-collusion rule  do not include any
which could serve as a basis for the
Blanket Bench Rule. Nor does the
exemption provision include the
language of Article 35(d) of the NBA
Constitution, which provides that the
Commissioner may order player
suspensions for conduct "prejudicial to
or against the best interests of the
Association or the game of basketball."
There is thus a strong argument for
finding the Blanket Bench Rule to be
collusive conduct unless agreed to by the
Players Association. It is absolutely clear
that, under the CBA, the issue of
collusion is for the System Arbitrator to
decide. Article XXXII, Section 1 of the
CBA provides in relevant part as
follows:

Jurisdiction and Authority. The NBA
and the Players Association shall agree
upon a System Arbitrator, who shall
have exclusive jurisdiction to determine
any and all disputes arising under
Articles VII, VIII, X, XI, XII, XIII,
XIV, XV, XVI, XXXVI, XXXVIII, and
XXXIX of this Agreement . . . .
(Emphasis added.) Such an arbitration
will be meaningless for the Knicks
Players, however, in the absence of a
temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction, because no final
determination will issue in time for them
to participate in the playoff games from
which they have been suspended.

C. A Temporary Restraining Order is
Also Necessary to Preserve the Players'
Right to Arbitrate Whether The Blanket
Bench Rule Deprives the Knicks  Players
Of Their CBA Right to Not Be Subject
to an Automatic Suspension Rule That Is
Inconsistent With Case-by-Case
Adjudication

In addition to the collusion proceeding
pending before the Systems Arbitrator,
plaintiffs have commenced an expedited
arbitration, under the CBA, before the
Grievance Arbitrator, Dean John
Feerick, seeking a declaration that the
Blanket Bench Rule deprives the players
of their right to a meaningful, individual
determination that they engaged in on
court conduct against the best interests
of basketball before any suspension can
be imposed on this ground. It is
indisputable that the Blanket Bench Rule
is not part of the CBA, that it provides
automatic penalties without regard to
individual circumstances, and that it
reflects no involvement of the Players
Association or any representatives of the
players. It is, allegedly, a part of the
NBA Operations Manual developed
solely by the NBA and its teams, with no
input from the players. In short,
plaintiffs never agreed to disciplinary
procedures whereby the League could
issue and impose strict liability
suspensions merely for leaving the bench
area without any determination as to
whether the player was at all  belligerent
or otherwise acting in a manner against
the interests of the game. Such a rule is
clearly offensive to the CBA and
Uniform Player Contract, which
provides only for individual
determination by the Commissioner that
a players on-court behavior against the
best interests of basketball. As set forth
in Article 35(d):

If in the opinion of the Commissioner
any other act or conduct of a Player at or
during an Exhibition, Regular Season,
or Playoff Game has been prejudicial to
or against the best interests of the
Association or the game of basketball,
the Commissioner shall impose upon
such Player a fine not exceeding
S25,000, or may order for a time the
suspension of any such Player from any
connection or duties with Exhibition,
Regular Season, or Playoff, or he may
order both such fine and suspension.
(Emphasis added.) The Uniform Player
Contract and Article 35(d) plainly
contemplates case-by-case adjudications
regarding the circumstances of
individual players' conduct. The same is
true of the grievance procedures under
Article XXXI of the CBA. Otherwise --
under a strict liability provision such as
the Blanket Bench Rule -- there would
be no reason for a determination
concerning whether the "conduct of a
Player" is "prejudicial to or against the
best interests of the Association or the
game of basketball." The
Commissioner's authority to promulgate
the Blanket Bench Rule is whether the
jurisdiction of the  Grievance Arbitrator,
pursuant to Article XXXI, Section 1 of
the CBA. This section provides as
follows:

Scope.

(a) Any dispute t such dispute
hereinafter being referred to as a
"Grievance") involving the
interpretation or application of, or
compliance with. the provisions of this
Agreement or the provisions of a Player
Contract (except as provided in
paragraph 9 of a Uniform Player
Contract), including a dispute
concerning the valididty of a Player
Contract, shall be resolved exclusively
by the Grievance Arbitrator in
accordance with the procedures set forth
in this Article; provided, however, that
disputes arising under Articles VII, VIII,
X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI,
XXXVI, XXXVIII, and XXXIX shall be
determined by the System Arbitrator
provided for in Article XXXII.

(b) The Grievance Arbitrator shall also
have jurisdiction over disputes involving
player discipline. to the extent set forth
in Section 8 below. (Emphasis added.)

Section 8 of Article XXXI provides that
the Commissioner shall hear appeals of
any suspension for conduct on the
playing court. This appeals procedure,
however, clearly envisions a case-by-
case determination of whether a
particular player's conduct on the court
was contrary to the best interests of the
NBA or the game of basketball, pursuant
to paragraph 5 of the Uniform Player
Contract and Article 35(d) of the NBA
Constitution (Hunter Aff., q E). The
Blanket Bench Rule clearly does not
provide for such a case-by-case
determination, and only the  Grievance
Arbitrator can decide whether its
promulgation is in accord with the
governing provisions of the Uniform
Player Contract and the CBA. Cf. Riko
Enterprises. Inc. v. Seattle Supersonics
Corp., 357 F. Supp. 521 (S.D.N.Y.
1973) (vacating NBA Commissioner's
arbitration award where it failed to
provide due process).

While a hearing before Dean Feerick has
been scheduled for later today, it is
uncertain whether there will be a final
determination before tonight's game.
Moreover, even if Dean Feerick were to
rule against the Knicks Players this
afternoon, a Temporary Restraining
Order would still be necessary to
preserve the status quo, as Dean Feerick
has no jurisdiction over the collusion
claim before Professor Dam.

IV. THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS
TIPS DECIDEDLY IN PLAINTIFFS'
FAVOR

In contrast to the severe and irreparable
injury which plaintiffs will suffer if the
Temporary Restraining Order is not
entered, there is virtually no lasting
hardship that defendants will suffer by
the entry of such an injunction. The
reason is that even if plaintiffs were
ultimately to lose both of their
arbitrations, they could be suspended at
that time, and the League's interest in
discipline would be fully vindicated. By
contrast, there is no way to make the
Knicks Players whole if their
suspensions  are not enjoined and they
are later found to be  improper under the
CBA.

Finally, the public interest also weighs
heavily in favor of the entry of the
Temporary  Restraining Order and the
Preliminary Injunction. Tens of  millions
of NBA fans deserve to see the playoffs
decided  on the merits without distorting
effects of suspensions  which violate the
CBA. There is no public interest in
requiring that the suspensions be served
now, before the  CBA arbitrations can
properly determine the validity of  the
suspensions.

CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons,
plaintiffs' motion should be granted in
its  entirety.

Dated: May 16, 1997

Jeffrey L. Kessler (JK-7891)
Scott Martin (SM-7373)
Jonathan S. Shapiro (JS-3068)
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10153
(212) 310-8000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

[Endnotes]

*1. The Norris-LaGuardia Act's anti-
injunction provisions do not preclude the
issuance of injunctive relief against an
employer in aid of arbitration. See
Communication Workers of America.
AFL-CIO v. Western Elec. Co., 430 F.
Supp. 969 (S.D.N.Y. 1977).

*2. The standards that govern the
consideration of an application for a
temporary restraining order are the same
as those which govern a preliminary
injunction motion. See Century Time
Ltd. v. Intercron Ltd., 729 F. Supp. 366,
368 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (Lanham Act
case).

============================
==

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK

PATRICK EWING, ALLAN
HOUSTON, LARRY JOHNSON, JOHN
STARKS, and NATIONAL
BASKETBALL PLAYERS
ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DAVID STERN, ROD THORN, and
NATIONAL BASKETBALL
ASSOCIATION,

Defendants.

AFFIDAVIT OF ALLAN HOUSTON

97 Civ.

ALLAN HOUSTON, under penalty of
perjury, deposes and says:

1. I am a professional basketball player
employed by the New York
Knickerbockers basketball team (the
"Knicks").

2. Yesterday evening, I learned that I
had been suspended by the Office of the
Commissioner of the National
Basketball Association ("NBA") from
playing in tonight's NBA basketball
playoff game between the Knicks and
the Miami Heat (the "Heat").

3. I understand from an NBA press
release issued on May 15, 1997 (the
"NBA Press Release") that I was
suspended from tonight's playoff game
"for leaving the bench area during an
altercation."

4. While I did leave the bench area after
an altercation began in last night's game,
I never had any intention of joining in
the altercation, but instead was merely
concerned for the safety of my
teammates and sought to separate those
involved.

5. Before I left the bench area, I
observed P.J. Brown, a Heat player pick
up my teammate Charlie Ward, who is
much smaller that Brown, and throw
him head first into an area at the end of
the court where photographers and fans
were sitting.

6. I immediately became concerned for
the safety of my teammate, and I
believed that Ward could have been
seriously injured from being thrown
down so hard by the much larger Brown.
From my vantage point, it also appeared
that many Heat players were on top of
Ward and perhaps even some members
of the crowd had gotten involved and
might have been on top of him.

7. Concerned for the safety of Ward and
my other teammates, I instinctively left
the bench area and headed towards
Ward.

8. I never threw a punch, nor did I even
push anyone, but simply pulled people
off Ward and tried to calm down players
from both teams.

9. The NBA has suspended me from
participating in tonight's game in New
York, which is the critical sixth game of
the best-of-seven Eastern Conference
Semi-Finals. Currently, the Knicks hold
a three games to two lead over the Heat.
If the Knicks win tonight's game, they
advance to the Eastern Conference
Finals against the Chicago Bulls and
potentially to the NBA Championship
Series.

10. If I am suspended from participation
in tonight's game, my team's chances for
victory in tonight's game and in the
series are seriously hurt.

11. I believe the NBA's decision to
suspend me simply for leaving the bench
area is a violation of the collective
bargaining agreement between the NBA
and its players. I have joined with my
union in filing arbitrations to assert this
claim. Unless the court grants me relief,
however, I will never get my arbitrations
heard before the suspension takes place.

12. The statements made herein are
made upon my personal knowledge and
are known by me to be true unless made
upon personal belief, which statements
are believed to be true.

Dated: May 16, 1997

Allan Houston

============================
==

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK

PATRICK EWING, ALLAN
HOUSTON, LARRY JOHNSON, JOHN
STARKS, and NATIONAL
BASKETBALL PLAYERS
ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DAVID STERN, ROD THORN, and
NATIONAL BASKETBALL
ASSOCIATION,

Defendants.

AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICK EWING

97 Civ.

PATRICK EWING, under penalty of
perjury, deposes and says:

1. I am a professional basketball player
employed by the New York
Knickerbockers basketball team (the
"Knicks").

2. Yesterday evening, I learned that I
had been suspended by the Office of the
Commissioner of the National
Basketball Association ("NBA") from
playing in tonight's NBA basketball
playoff game between the Knicks and
the Miami Heat (the "Heat").

3. I understand from an NBA press
release issued on May 15, 1997 (the
"NBA Press Release") that I was
suspended from tonight's playoff game
"for leaving the bench area during an
altercation."

4. While I did leave the bench area after
an altercation began in last night's game,
I never had any intentions of joining in
the altercation. To the contrary, I waited
by the bench area until I believed that
the altercation had concluded. When I
finally did leave the bench area, it was
only to do what I could to encourage my
teammates to return to the sidelines,
keep the peace, and ensure that no
further altercations took place.

5. I never intended to, and to the best of
my knowledge did not, make any
physical contact whatsoever with anyone
during the time that I was away from the
bench area.

6. The NBA has suspended me from
participating in tonight's game in New
York, which is the critical sixth game of
the best-of-seven Eastern Conference
Semi-Finals. Currently, the Knicks hold
a three games to two lead over the Heat.
If the Knicks win tonight's game, we
advance to the Eastern Conference
Finals against the Chicago Bulls and
potentially to the NBA Championship
Series.

7. If I am suspended from participation
in tonight's game, my team's chances for
victory in tonight's game and in the
series are seriously hurt. This would be
terrible blow to my career, since I
believe we have an  excellent chance to
win the NBA Championship this year.
The one professional accomplishment
that I most want to achieve is winning
the NBA Championship.

8. I believe the NBA's decision to
suspend me simply for leaving the bench
area is a violation of the collective
bargaining agreement between the NBA
and its players. I have joined with my
union in filing arbitrations to assert this
claim. Unless the court grants me relief,
however, I will never get my arbitrations
heard before the suspension takes place.

9. The statements made herein are made
upon my personal knowledge and are
known by me to be true unless made
upon personal belief, which statements
are believed to be true.

Dated:

May 16, 1997

Patrick Ewing

============================
=

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK

PATRICK EWING, ALLAN

HOUSTON, LARRY JOHNSON, JOHN
STARKS, and THE NATIONAL
BASKETBALL PLAYERS
ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DAVID STERN, ROD THORN, and
THE NATIONAL BASKETBALL
ASSOCIATION,

Defendants.

AFFIDAVIT OF G. WILLIAM
HUNTER

97 Civ.

G. WILLIAM HUNTER, under penalty
of perjury, hereby deposes and says:

1. I am the Executive Director of the
National Basketball Players Association
(the "Players Association"), one of the
plaintiffs in this matter, and an attorney
admitted to practice in the courts of the
state of California. I submit this affidavit
in support of the plaintiffs' application
for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction preventing the
defendant National Basketball
Association ("NBA") from imposing
immediate suspensions on four members
of the Players Association until the
plaintiffs have had an opportunity to
challenge this discipline before the
impartial arbitrators designated under
the  Collective Bargaining Agreement
between the NBA and the Players
Association (the "CBA").

2. The 1996-97 NBA season is presently
at its climax. Twenty-four of the 29
NBA teams have been eliminated from
contention, and the remaining teams are
deep into the playoffs vigorously seeking
a championship. During a playoff game
on May 14 in the Eastern Conference
semi-finals between the New York
Knicks and the Miami Heat, an
altercation occurred between two
opposing players, P.J. Brown of the Heat
and Charlie Ward of the Knicks, not far
from the Knicks bench. Several players
who were in the game at the time
quickly rushed to the scene, most
interested in keeping apart Brown and
Ward. Instinctively, with all this activity
going on, a few players left the Knicks
bench, with the sole intention of
bringing and maintaining peace on the
court. The altercation ended moments
after it began, without any belligerent
actions taken by the players who left the
Knicks bench.

3. Yesterday evening, May 15, at
approximately 5:00 p.m., the NBA
announced that four members of the
Knicks basketball team - plaintiffs
Patrick Ewing, Allan Houston, Larry
Johnson and John Starks - were to be
fined and suspended for one game for
conduct that took place during the May
14 game. Messrs. Ewing and Houston
have been directed not to play in
tonight's crucial sixth game of the seven-
game playoff series between the two
teams, and Messrs. Johnson and Starks
are to miss the following game, which
will either be the deciding seventh game
of this series, or the first game of the
next series, which would be the
conference finals against the reigning
NBA champion Chicago Bulls.
According to the press release issued
yesterday by the NBA and attached
hereto as Exhibit A, the players were
suspended "for violating the rule that
requires automatic suspension for
leaving the bench area during an
altercation." There is no indication that
the NBA found that any of the players
engaged in any belligerent activity.

4. Though the NBA and the Players
Association have engaged in collective
bargaining for more than 25 years, and
have agreed on countless rules involving
issues that range from minimum and
maximum salary amounts to the
availability of game tickets for retired
players, never have the parties discussed
or agreed on an automatic suspension -
or any other rule - for players leaving the
bench area during an altercation. The
rule that the NBA seeks to enforce here
is not collectively bargained for, but
instead developed and imposed by the
NBA and its Teams without the
participation of the Players Association.
It allegedly is contained in the UNBA
Operations Manual," a full copy of
which never has been provided to the
Players Association.

5. The Players Association believes that
such a blanket, across-the-board rule
violates two separate portions of the
CBA. First, such a term and condition of
employment agreed to by the NBA and
its Teams outside of the collective
bargaining process is a clear violation of
the anti-collusion provisions of the CBA.

Those provisions, codified in Article
XIV of the CBA, are attached as Exhibit
B hereto. Indeed, while the CBA
expressly exempts from the collusion
proceedings a suspension for gambling,
drugs or criminal  misconduct (Article
XIV, Section 2(e)), no such exemption is
provided for rules governing suspensions
of players who leave the bench during an
altercation. The determination of
whether collusion under the CBA has
occurred is to be made exclusively by the
"System Arbitrator" set forth under
Article X)OCII of the CBA (attached
hereto as Exhibit C). Today, such a
proceeding was commenced on behalf of
the four player plaintiffs. A TRO is
necessary in aid of that proceeding,
which cannot be scheduled for a hearing
prior to tonight's playoff game. The
System Arbitrator is Professor Kenneth
Dam of the University of Chicago Law
School, and it will likely be necessary
for the parties to have a hearing in
Chicago next week to determine these
issues.

6. In addition to the anti-collusion
proceeding, the Players Association has
also filed a separate arbitration before
Dean John Feerick of Fordham Law
School, the "Grievance Arbitrator"
appointed under Article XXXI of the
CBA (Exhibit D hereto). In that
proceeding, the Players Association
contends that the CBA only permits the
Commissioner to impose on-court
discipline on a case-by-case basis against
a player whose specific conduct is found
to b (NBA Constitution Article
35(d), a copy of which is attached and
incorporated into each player's contract
(Exhibit E hereto)). It does not permit a
blanket rule that mandates suspension
for merely leaving the bench area,
leaving no room for consideration of the
underlying facts and  circumstances to
determine whether the player's actions
are sufficiently belligerent to warrant a
suspension.

7. In this case, even a cursory
consideration of the facts and
circumstances would lead to a
conclusion that some or all of these
players did not engage in any conduct
that warrants a suspension. Certainly,
the NBA did not make any
determination as to whether the players
took any action that is prejudicial to or
against the best interests of the NBA or
the game of basketball. Instead, it simply
has determined that they left the bench
area in violation of a purported League
rule which is not part of the CBA.
Although the CBA provides for an
appeal to the Commissioner of player
suspensions for on court conduct (Article
XXXI, Section 8), where the
Commissioner is applying a blanket rule
that itself violates the CBA, only the
Grievance Arbitrator can determine
whether the Commissioner's proceeding
in this manner is consistent with the
terms of the CBA.

8. As one example of the arbitrary and
unfair application of the blanket rule,
consider that the NBA Operations
Manual allows a coach or assistant
coach to leave the vicinity of the bench
to act as a peacemaker. Thus, coaches
may leave the bench to act as
peacemakers, but players will
automatically be suspended if they do
the same. A player is entitled to show
that he was acting in precisely the same
manner as his coach, and that his
conduct was not proper grounds, under
the CBA, for suspension. This is the
precise issue in the arbitration before
Dean Feerick, which may be scheduled
for a hearing later today. While there is
some chance that the grievance before
Dean  Feerick will be determined prior
to tonight's game, a TRO would still be
necessary as Dean Feerick has no
jurisdiction to determine the collusion
claim pending before Professor Dam.

9. Without an injunction, the plaintiffs
will suffer irreparable injury, not
compensable by money damages. Mr.
Ewing's background is very well known
by New Yorkers and basketball fans
across the world: since coming into the
NBA as the first pick in the 1985 Draft,
Mr. Ewing has been an NBA All-Star in
all but one of his 12 seasons, recently
being named as one of the NBA's all
time 50 best players. Having achieved
great fame and wealth, Mr. Ewing seeks
only one professional goal that has thus
far eluded him: an NBA championship.
If this star player is not permitted to play
in such a crucial post-season game, his
team's chances of winning the
championship must decrease. For Mr.
Ewing and the other three plaintiffs - the
top four scorers for the Knicks in the
1996-97 season - enormous emotional
and indeterminable financial rewards
await them with continued success in the
playoffs. There simply can be no making
it up to them if their absence from the
next two games - later found to be
unjustified under the CBA-- causes their
team to fail.

10. In addition, no harm will result to
the non-moving party with the granting
of an injunction. To the contrary, the
NBA has an interest in making sure that
its games are decided fairly and on their
merits. The integrity and credibility of
the league and its players would suffer
greatly if it was later found that the
results of crucial playoff games were
compromised by the League's improper
actions. Moreover, if the arbitrators rule
against the players, they can serve their
suspensions at that time, allowing the
defendants to receive their complete
remedy. By contrast, there is no way to
make the players fully whole if they are
wrongly made to serve their suspensions.

11. Finally, there is enormous public
interest at stake. Almost 20,000
members of the public have paid up to
$1,000 a seat to see tonight's game, and
millions of others across the world will
be watching on television. Countless
fans have devoted much of their time
over the past seven months following
their team, expecting their devotion to
be rewarded by having these important
games determined on their true merits.
The public interest will undoubtedly be
served by maintaining the status quo.

12. Last night, after reaming of the
NBA's actions in this matter, plaintiffs'
counsel Jeffrey Kessler telephoned and
spoke with Howard Ganz, counsel for
the NBA, and advised him that we
would be seeking this injunctive relief
today.

13. Accordingly, for the foregoing
reasons, I respectfully request that this
Court grant the plaintiffs' order
temporarily enjoining the suspensions in
aid of arbitration, and that the Court
order whatever relief it deems just and
proper.

G. William Hunter

Sworn to before me this 16th day of
May, 1997

Ramona  K. Van Ness

Notary Public
RAMONA K. VAN NESS
NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York
No. 24 4931738