Decision Exonerating Antonovich Is Upheld : Suit: State Supreme Court declines to hear the case in which he was spared $1.2-million judgment despite ‘reprehensible’ action.

The California Supreme Court has let stand a lower court ruling that spared Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich from having to pay $1.2 million in damages for phoning a judge in a financial dispute involving two campaign donors.

But by refusing to consider the case, the high court left intact a portion of the ruling declaring that Antonovich acted in a “reprehensible” manner.

In a decision issued Thursday, the Supreme Court denied a hearing sought by Glendale businessman Avedis Kasparian.

Kasparian contended that Antonovich ruined an out-of-court settlement with Kasparian’s business partners by phoning Superior Court Judge Eric E. Younger--a childhood friend--on their behalf. Younger then removed himself from the case.

The high court’s refusal to grant Kasparian a hearing lets stand a September appeals court decision that overturned $1.2 million in damages against Antonovich. At the same time, it preserved sharply worded criticism of the supervisor.

The three judges of the 2nd District Court of Appeal declared that the jury in the Los Angeles trial had more than enough evidence to conclude that “Antonovich had allowed his political supporters to induce him to attempt to influence a Superior Court judge in a pending case.”

“This is unacceptable behavior,” the opinion continued. “That it was done in the context of the contemporaneous receipt of substantial political contributions from the individuals in whose favor the influence was sought makes it all the more reprehensible.”

Despite its criticism of Antonovich, the appeals court concluded that no damages were warranted because there was no evidence that Antonovich knew about Kasparian’s out-of-court discussions when he called Younger, and because the businessmen negotiating with Kasparian had the right to back out of any deal they made.

In a footnote to the decision, the appeals court also criticized Younger for letting the conversation with Antonovich go on too long, and for failing to immediately disclose it to the lawyers in the case.

Stung by the criticism--especially after he had removed himself from the case--the recently retired Younger wrote the state Supreme Court asking it to strike the footnote from the published decision.

But the High Court also left the footnote intact, over dissents by Justices Armand Arabian and Kathryn Mickle Werdegar.

“It was a long shot, but I gave it the old college try,” Younger said Friday, adding that he would have needed the support of at least four out of seven justices to succeed. “It doesn’t appear of late to have hurt me in any professional sense, and I was worried about that, but actually, things seem to be going very well.”

The extraordinary case stemmed from a business dispute between Kasparian and two of his partners in the Los Angeles Jewelry Mart--Kirkor Suri and Jak Sukyas. Kasparian was seeking a $3-million buyout from his partners, who offered only $2 million.

While the case was pending before Younger in the fall of 1988, Kasparian’s adversaries went to lunch with Antonovich, who was then running for reelection. They talked about the upcoming trial and Antonovich mentioned he knew the judge, prompting discussion about a possible character reference, according to the appeals court summary.

Immediately afterward, Antonovich phoned Younger, who returned the call four days later. During the 30-second conversation, Antonovich brought up the name of Suri and started to describe him as a hard-working, honest immigrant.

Younger says that, rather than hang up on an old friend, he abruptly changed the subject and tried to end the conversation as quickly but diplomatically as possible. About six weeks later--after the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays had passed--Younger disclosed the phone call to both sides of the dispute, and then removed himself from the case.

Later, it was disclosed that Kasparian’s partners had contributed $10,000 to Antonovich’s reelection campaign shortly before his phone call to Younger, and gave him another $3,000 afterward.

Antonovich maintains that he never meant any harm by the call, which he viewed as a character reference for a constituent, and realized only later that his action was a mistake.

But Kasparian sued Antonovich, the county, his former business partners and their company over the phone call.

In October, 1993, a Superior Court jury in Los Angeles awarded Kasparian $1.2 million in damages against Antonovich, agreeing with Kasparian that the supervisor had inappropriately interfered with his “prospective economic interests.” The award reflected the difference between the partners’ original $2-million buyout offer to Kasparian, and the $800,000 sum they ultimately paid him after Antonovich’s call.

Later, however, the appeals court ruled that Kasparian’s business partners were not obliged to negotiate with him and could not be required to pay damages for allegedly conspiring to undercut their prices. There was also no evidence that Antonovich knew of the out-of-court negotiations when he phoned Younger, or that he was trying to sabotage the talks, the appeals court wrote.

In seeking state Supreme Court review of the matter, Kasparian’s lawyer, Bruce Altschuld, wrote that the appeals court had misstated the businessmen’s legal obligations and hurt public confidence in the justice system by letting Antonovich off the hook.

“What litigant will now lose without wondering, ‘Did someone get to my judge?’ ” Altschuld wrote.