Former Huntington Town Councilwoman Susan Scarpati-Reilly alleged that Mr. Perks, the Town Harbormaster harassed, assaulted and threatened her on February 28, 1999 but that she did not want him arrested...Mr. Perks contends that she hit him--and he tried to get away from her and that she did try to have him arrested, but the Police Officer refused to arrest him because there was no assault or injury at all. There was a Fact-Finder appointed by Town resolution for about $100,000 dollars and he determined Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was not credible and sent his report to the Town Ethics Board. The Ethics Board said her behavior was unethical. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly started several lawsuits and several investigations, some based on the incident with Mr. Perks, others involving various other Councilpersons, Town Employees, Editors, Ethics Board Members, Town Attorneys and more...
The Town has paid for all the lawyers to the tune of millions of dollars, except they balked at paying for Mr. Perks' attorney that an Arbitrator said was clearly covered by the Union contract as Mr. Perks was falsely accused of an assault when there was no assault, even by the words of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly in her deposition you are about to read.
The Town Board Resolution to hire the Fact-Finder was supposedly based on media reports, but to date this reporter challenges anyone with a media report with the word assault in it prior to the resolution or the Town Press Release to come forward. There are none. There were none attached to the resolution. There were hundreds of stories after the resolution using the word assault, but it appears the non-existent "media reports"statement using the word "assault" was constantly used by every Town Board member as the reason they had to hire the Fact-Finder. (See all depositions in prior stories) The problem is there never was an assault and the police report says the complaint was for harassment. From earlier testimony from the Fact-Finder report, Mr. Petrone allegedly told Ms. Scarpati-Reilly before the vote on the resolution for the Fact-Finder, "You asked for it...you got it.".
Now fifteen years later Mr. Perks says it was all smoke and mirrors. He was a whistle blower trying to let people know radiated waste was being burned in the Town's Waste-To-Energy Facility, then Ogden Martin, (now Covanta) on Town Line Road in East Northport and the radiated fly ash was used to cap the unlined landfills on Long Island. He was there when the radiation detector was finally installed after over ten years of burning the radiated waste...and it was going off on a regular basis. The employees had no protective gear. He alleges they were burning truckloads of radiated scrap metal returned from Gershow Recycling in Medford and he provided documents to Freelance Investigations including truck manifests to prove his allegations. The Town was forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars after that each month to dispose of the radiated waste.
This is why the Town let Susan Scarpati-Reilly spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, then millions in attorney's fees aimed at destroying Mr. Perks' credibility, according to him. To read more about these issues go to the following links:
Three Courageous Affidavits: http://freelance-documentdrivennews.blogspot.com/2012_10_01_archive.html
State Orders Islip Landfill Capped: http://freelance-documentdrivennews.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html
So Mr. Perks alleged that he and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had an affair, she sued him for defamation, denying there ever was an affair...When ordered to provide DNA by the court, she objected and refused several times to give her DNA to compare to DNA Mr. Perks said he had from their relationship and the case was dropped.
Then she sued the Ethics Board and all it's members. That went nowhere, except for all the attorneys fees paid by the taxpayers for their defense...
Then Mr. Perks went to Arbitration and the Arbitrator awarded attorney's fees to Mr. Perks' attorney Edward Yule and the Town appealed and a Judge upheld the Arbitrator's decision and so they have appealed that. Millions of dollars and fifteen years later as you read this testimony the investigation goes on...attorneys are still being hired and paid for by the taxpayers.
Questions: If Ms. Scarpati-Reilly not only admitted in public to lying and wrote a letter to the press and admitted lying to them and you compare her version to all the others shown to date...would you believe her and spend over five million in attorney's fees to support these apparently false allegations?
Why would the Town Board do that? What is a strong enough motivation?
Then there was the case in District Court where the jury found that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly sexually harassed Mr. Perks, but awarded no monetary compensation. The Town was not found to be liable, but they paid her attorney's fees despite the fact that what she was found guilty of, sexual harassment-- was outside her duties as a Councilperson.
So now enters the leading lady in this multi-million dollar municipal legal extravaganza and drama. The following is an account of her many days of depositions. Read her side of this story very carefully. Give her a chance to tell you her version. Then compare it to other statements she makes within the deposition itself and what others testify to and make up your own mind who is credible. You paid millions of dollars for this information, you should see what your hard earned tax dollars are spent on. That said...back to the story...
In the matter of William T. Perks against the Town of Huntington and Susan Scarpati-Reilly as Councilwoman for the Town of Huntington and individually heard in United States District Court of the Eastern District
Present were:
Rains & Pogrebin Lawfirm:
Ernie Stolzer, attorney for Marlene Budd and the Town of Huntington
James (Jim) Clark, attorney for the Town of Huntington
Jason Abelove, attorney for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Edward Yule, attorney for William Perks
Lisa Baisley
William Perks
The deposition of Susan Scarpati-Reilly took place over several days and generated over a thousand pages of testimony.
March 12, 2001
April 5, 2001
April 19, 2001
April 20, 2001
April 23, 2001
May 7, 2001
The following is account of testimony of the first three days of testimony.
THE DEPOSITION OF TOWN COUNCILWOMAN SUSAN SCARPATI-REILLY
March 12, 2001
Examination by Edward Yule, Attorney for William Perks
Examination by Edward Yule, Attorney for William Perks
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly worked in private practice doing criminal and matrimonial work, according to her testimony. Her first job out of law school was for the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office (August 11, 1980-Spring of 1987). Her experience at the DA's office included: District Court Bureau, Screening Bureau, Grand Jury Bureau, Felony Trial Bureau and the Homicide Bureau. In the Felonies Bureau she handled all Felonies E through A and in the Homicide Division and the Major Offense Bureau she handled rape cases, robberies, burglaries and homicides.
Mr. Yule asked if as a function of her duties she ever prosecuted assault cases. She said yes, but orders of protection were not regularly issued until after 1987, according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly when Patrick Halpern became the County Executive. In 1987 for a time period, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly worked for both the District Attorney's Office and the County Attorney's Office assigned to the Federal Tort Bureau.
In that position she defended the Suffolk County Police Department, the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department and CPS workers in civil rights actions and 1983 Federal cases.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly lives at 30 Fresh Pond Road in a house her father built in 1954. She lived with her husband Steven Reilly, sons Timothy and Richard and her step-daughter Mary Elizabeth at the time. Married to Steve Reilly since 1982, she was formerly married to Ralph Gumpert from 1976-1980.
In 1987 Arlene Lindsay, then Deputy County Attorney asked her to leave the DA's Office and work for the County Attorney exclusively, according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. During her time in District Court she had at least 100 verdicts. At least 60 misdemeanor cases a day out of 100 that she handled were assault cases, according to her testimony.
In 1987 Arlene Lindsay, then Deputy County Attorney asked her to leave the DA's Office and work for the County Attorney exclusively, according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. During her time in District Court she had at least 100 verdicts. At least 60 misdemeanor cases a day out of 100 that she handled were assault cases, according to her testimony.
Asked about the difference between harassment and assault she answered, "Assault there is physical injury, with harassment there is only an intent to push, shove. It's a petty slap type of situation, it doesn't rise to the definition of physical injury under the definition.".
Asked the difference between misdemeanor assault and felony assault she acknowledged that they differ, one is serious physical injury. "There is all different types of assault in the second degree, vehicular assault." She admitted though she was practicing criminal law at the time, she did not know if she would consider herself an expert in it.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified she worked for a little over a year under Arlene Lindsay at the County Attorney's office with Paul Baisley. She also worked with James Catterson Jr. while there and had no personality disputes with him at the time. She took about three verdicts while there and left to work for Lynn Adire Kramer practicing family court, matrimonial trial law. Because she did no motion work, according to her, she never obtained orders of protection for her clients.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was assigned as a Law Guardian in Family Court over 300 times according to her and over 200 of those cases involved an order of protection. Law guardians are appointed from a list the judges use according to their own discretion and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was also appointed to the Law Guardian Panel, after she applied to be included, according to her.
Obtaining an order of protection is relatively easy, according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and she had only seen them denied a handful of times in her career.
Steven Reilly became the subject of the deposition at that point and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she had a difficult time saying what her husband did for a living as "his title keeps changing", according to her.
"Sometimes he is a vice president, sometimes he is a senior field examiner. I don't know. They keep changing his title, same job, different titles. For lack of a better term she called him an auditor for Sovereign Bank since 1990-1991. He worked in the Security Department for them according to her and prior to that he was a New York State trooper.
Due to a car accident, Mr. Reilly only had 19 years in when he retired with a 3/4 disability pension due to a neck injury that involved bulging and herniated discs. Attorney, Chris Olson represented him in that matter and the case was settled. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she represented her husband in 1984 in a Workman's Compensation hearing, but she could not recall what the injury was or if he got an award in that case.
In 1988 Ms. Scarpati-Reilly again represented her husband, Steven, this time in a custody case involving his 12 year old daughter. She wanted to come live with them because she was having trouble with her mother, according to her testimony. Originally, the mother agreed, but then changed her mind and that is why Ms. Scarpati-Reilly filed the petition on her husband's behalf. Mary Elizabeth stayed with the father and step-mom Susan and was still living there at the time of the deposition. There was no law guardian appointed at that time because there was no need according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, there was a stipulation and Mary Elizabeth lived with Mr. Reilly and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly since that time.
The questions shifted to whether or not her husband had ever been arrested...not to her knowledge she answered. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she represented the beneficiaries of her father's will as the executrix of the estate and also she was the attorney for her stepson when he was arrested after being involved in a stolen car accident, according to her testimony.
After marriage the moves from the Fresh Pond childhood home of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to Hauppauge (4 months) to Islip ('82-'87) and back to the Fresh Pond home after obtaining a mortgage were discussed ad-infinitum to no specific end.
From 1987 to that present time (2001) Ms. Scarpati-Reilly described her marital relationship as "good".
In her law practice she had made amendments to applications for orders of protection for her clients and it had been determined earlier that the process for amending is the same as to apply for an original order of protection. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she helped and advised Mr. Perks regarding obtaining an order of protection against his wife because they were having a contentious divorce and she may have made corrections on some of his documents, but she never formally represented him.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly met Mr. Perks in 1988 when he ran day trips on the "Little Jennie" sailboat to raise money for her restoration. Attending a Republican Club outing on the boat she toured Huntington Harbor while food was served, then Ms. Scarpati-Reilly met Mr. Perks again in '89 or '90 at another GOP meeting. First elected to the Town Board in 1993, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she had known then Town Attorney Robert DeGregorio since they were twelve and they both went to Northport High School together. Though they both attended College in Europe, she went to the University of Uppsala, Sweden and he went to school in Switzerland.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly graduated from the University of California at Berkely and graduated in 1974. She got her law degree from the New England School of Law, graduated in 1980 and got her license in 1981. Mr. DeGregorio started out as a legal aid attorney and a law guardian. Then a stint in the Babylon Town Attorney's office and then he "flip-flopped back and forth" between those two jobs, according to her testimony.
PERKS DISCIPLINARY ISSUES.....?
In 1993, right before she and Kim Townsend (Mr. Perks' cousin) left the County Attorney's office. Mr. Townsend "was lobbying Arlene Lindsay, on behalf of Bill" according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. The Town was allegedly "prosecuting him" but she didn't know the specifics at the time. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified Kim and Arlene, then the Deputy County Attorney "were involved" and Mr. Perks was accused of using Town equipment to restore the "Little Jennie". Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she believed he was demoted and lost time from work as a result.
According to Mr. Perks Arlene Lindsay was not able to help him.
There were no complaints about Mr. Perks' performance from Mr. DeGregorio and when Ms. Scarpati-Reilly took office in 1993 she was given a copy of "New York State Town Law", according to her.
In 1994 she was unofficially appointed as liaison to Human Services, the Department of General Services and the Town Attorney's Office.
Q: (by Mr. Yule) Who assigned you to those areas?
A: (by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly) It was basically decided amongst us who had an interest in various areas and we kind of assumed unofficial oversight if complaints came in or something happened in the department, we looked into whatever it was.
This did not involve disciplinary problems Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified, but she felt that it was not outside her purview to speak to a foreman or a laborer in the field if something "was going on."
She made no specific reference to what that might involve, but stated she never personally brought anyone up on charges.
POLITICS DETERMINES APPOINTMENTS...
HOW SHOCKING!
Prior to working for the Town as an elected official and after she left the employ of Ms. Kramer, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly worked for the Town of Huntington as a member of the Board of Assessment Review. There the Board heard tax grievances and they were paid per Diem per session, according to her. She was referred for that position by Robert Lifson (then a judge) who used to work as a Republican Town leader and then was appointed for that job by the Town Board. At first hemming and hawing, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly eventually admitted that a recommendation from a leader from either side of the political fence would hold some weight as to who was selected to fill a particular position. That is because
"Town government is an animal of the political system...The policy makers, legislators of the Town are elected through the political process." she testified.
Q: Right and so the national extension would be that those persons who are helpful to officials that get re-elected would then go back to the same officials to help them get jobs appointed?
Mr. Abelove objected...but Ms. Scarpati-Reilly eventually answered that in some cases it does happen and "Whether it's here, IBM, the telephone company, I think anybody that you meet, you know, wants to somehow benefit depending upon what the positions are.".
Mr. Yule then asked what judges had appointed her as a law guardian and provided her the Suffolk County Bar Association 2001 Book to help her recall. Judge Prudenti and Henry came to mind then,
A: Emerson, Floyd, Dunn, Leis, Molia, Costello, Berler best I can recall at this point from the Supreme Court. Family Court has been Berler, Freundlich, Dounias, Lehman, McElligott, McNulty, Pach, Simeone, Trainor, Zuckerman, Kent, Dounias, I think I said Dounias. Prudenti and Weber.
Her most recent appointment had been from Judge Bivona, the husband of Huntington's Town Tax Receiver, Esther Bivona.
Roger Bura originally nominated Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to run for Town Board in 1994 and Rick Hans, a former Town Board member seconded it. It was not until 1998 that the liaison positions became official, according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and that happened when Frank Petrone asked the members what they were interested in and then he sent a memo assigning Town Board members to be liaison to specific departments. Mrs. Hurley was involved in Parks, Don Musgnug was involved with the Youth Bureau and Steve Israel took over Waterways and Harbors to her best recollection.
Asked about an alleged dispute between her husband and Donald Musgnug at a pancake breakfast at the American Legion Hall, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly evoked marital privilege, but when asked what she had read about the incident she said she couldn't recall anything except a conversation with John Powell (former GOP Leader who went to prison for running an illegal truck chop shop died in 2012 at 51 years old) who told her, "Way to go Irish." He told her anytime your name gets in the paper it is a good thing regardless of what is being said. Asked if she agreed that was true, she answered, "To a degree...it just gets your name out there."
The altercation between her husband and Town Board member Musgnug was provoked by Mr. Musgnug, according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and Mr. Israel got involved in the middle of it "and took Don away". The reason for the dispute was connected to the fact that Mr. Reilly had been banned from
the Legion Hall because he misrepresented himself as having been in Vietnam when he was in the military, but it had been found out to be not true and he was admonished. The fact that he was trying to get involved with the Veterans supposedly upset Mr. Musgnug, according to the deposition.
Planes, Train Stations and Automobiles...
The next few questions all revolved around a 12 hour business trip Mr. Reilly took to Florida in August of 1998. When asked for detail Ms. Scarpati-Reilly invoked privilege for what was told to her about the trip by her husband. The children went to a day camp back then and both parents took turns driving them to and from on a daily basis. Her husband travelled at least twice a month for one to several days on each trip and flew to Syracuse and often went through Delta's Cincinnati hub to Atlanta, according to the deposition.
In 1996 Ms. Scarpati-Reilly owned a greenish-grayish Mercedes Benz, then a red Thunderbird and she was currently driving a blue Impala. Her husband had purchased a Taurus according to her and several questions about an EZ Pass account for her husband were answered, but Ms. Scarpati-Reilly didn't know if the account were in her husband's name or from the bank he worked for.
Mr. Perks did some work on her '97 campaign, like putting up signs in the local bagel shops, supermarkets and railroad stations, but she said he promised her the endorsement of Dave Ambro, the Editor of The Observer, a local weekly paper in Huntington, something that never happened.
Mr. Ambro had once told her she didn't deserve to be on the Town Board and she felt he was critical because he was a Democrat and she was a Republican. Mr. Ambro was also the Editor of the Huntington and the Smithtown News and had endorsed Republicans in the past. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly never gave Mr. Ambro any confidential documents, according to her testimony.
Over the course of a year Ms. Scarpati-Reilly would attend approximately 25-30 fundraisers in 1997-98 according to her, and she would often see Mr. Perks there and sometimes sat next to him. Between fundraisers, meetings, ceremonies and workshops, she spent four to five nights a week attending these various meetings. Once or twice she sent complimentary tickets to Mr. Perks to attend a fundraiser for her in 1997 or 1998 and several Town employees would also work on her political campaign. Bob Butts, Brian Tuohey, Bob DeGregorio, Jim Handy, Bobby Rosen, Kathy Rumpelein, Peter Matowski, Bonnie Vires, Tony Rettaliata, Phil Teep, Brenda Rosenberg, Rober Bura, Ira Kurtzberg, Jerry Acker, Gil Packard were some of those she mentioned.
Kathy Rumpelein, the Director of Human Services helped her with some mailings, she said but Ms. Scarpati-Reilly insisted it was never on "Town time". On page 117 of the deposition she said her confidential legislative secretary, Joyce Conklin also worked on her campaign...
Q: Joyce Conklin, did she ever work on your campaign?
A: Yes.
On the next page when asked "Joyce Conklin, she worked on your campaign in 1997?"
she said, "I saw her at headquarters, but I didn't know what she was doing there."
Q: You don't know if she worked on your campaign or not?
A: No
Ms. Conklin also worked for Mr. Musgnug, but Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said they did not get along very well. At one point Ms. Conklin, who was a Republican Committee person was working for Steve Israel, a Democrat. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she felt betrayed when she saw records from the Board of Elections showing Ms. Conklin had donated to Mr. Israel, who she believed had financed a campaign against her and Mr. Musgnug. She complained to Dan Martin, the Republican leader, who later would become a judge, about Joyce Conklin. Then, according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, Ms. Conklin unilaterally decided to move her desk to the far end of the suite and began working for Mr. Israel instead of her and Mr. Musgnug. Patty Caruso then replaced Joyce but that was done by a resolution, though Ms. Scarpati-Reilly could not recall if she sponsored it or not.
Q: Under what town authority was she able to just unilaterally move her desk to a different spot and work for a different councilperson?
MR. ABELOVE: Objection
A: I don't understand.
Q: Well, maybe it's me who doesn't understand. Joyce Conklin, you are unhappy with her performance and you and her have a falling out; would that be fair to say?
A: Yes.
Q: As a result of that falling out--I don't want to put words in your mouth--as a result of that falling out, Joyce Conklin just picked up and moved to a different desk in that same room and worked for Steve Israel?
A: No.
Q: I want to get how did the change from her working for you to her working for Steve, how was that done?
A: In an Executive Session, Town Board members talked about different things, and I had requested that I have someone else appointed and Steve said fine.
Q: Joyce then worked for Steve?
A: Yes
Before Joyce Conklin worked for Steve Israel, Karen Stanley worked for Steve and she continued to work there, they just added a position for Joyce, according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's testimony.
Then Ms. Scarpati-Reilly admitted to taping conversations, but said it was only one time...
Q: When was that?
A: It was the time that Joyce barged into my office.
Q: Let's talk about that. When did she barge into your office; do you remember that?
A: It was the latter part of '98.
Q: While she was working for Steve?
A: Yes.
Q: The latter part of '98 she barged into your office. Then what happened that caused you to start to tape?
A: (No response.)
Q: She barged into your office and then what happened?
A: I asked her to leave.
Q: Then what happened?
A: Resumed the interview.
Q: Did she leave?
A: Yes.
Apparently at that time Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was being interviewed by John Leo and Julie Berler.
She believed Julie Berler was a Republican, but said she didn't trust John Leo, a Democrat, so she taped the interview, putting the mini cassette tape recorder in plain sight, according to her.
Q: Why did you tape that session?
A: Because I didn't trust John Leo.
Q: Why didn't you trust him?
A: Because what we were talking about is something that he didn't really want to do.
Q: Which was what?
A: Do an investigation.
Q: That was at your request, right?
A: No.
Q: Who requested the investigation?
A: I believe it was Jim Matthews.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she taped the conversation with Mr. Leo because she didn't trust that what she said would be accurately reported back to the Town Board.
Q: Why did you find the need to tape the conversation with Mr. Leo?
A: When he came to investigate and to talk to me...to take a statement, I felt it was prudent to have it down on tape as well as what they were recording.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly twice denied giving a confidential report made by Mr. Leo regarding an investigation of Kim Carpenter to Editor, Dave Ambro personally at his Smithtown News office.
She also denied showing that report to Mr. Perks who she said she knew had been represented by Mr. Leo at one time.
Mr. Perks contends that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly often gave him documents to pass along to Dave Ambro and he wrote a number of stories as a result.
The questions then shifted to a series of letters the first written by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to Ms. Conklin, then a response written by Ms. Conklin to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and then Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, a letter Ms. Scarpati-Reilly wrote in response to the letter from Ms. Conklin. The letters referred to Ms. Conklin allegedly continuing to barge into Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's office when the door was closed. Referring to the second letter written by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to Ms. Conklin she wrote, "I am hard pressed to believe you lack the intelligence to know that quite obviously, by the attendants present, the matters under discussion involved sensitive personal issues requiring the highest regard for confidentiality." Mr. Yule asked if she ever told Ms. Conklin what was going on behind the closed doors.
A: Did I tell her?
Q: Yes.
A: No.
Q: (Mr. Yule reading from the letter Plaintiff's 1) You then went on to say "Perhaps my frustration with your conduct is magnified because you continually ignore my refusal to be interrupted during important phone calls and meetings and repeatedly buzz me and knock on my door even after I have acknowledged you." Is it fair to say that you had a constant problem with her barging in on you?
A: Yes, she wasn't supposed to be dealing with me, but she always wanted to know who was in my office. She kept on coming in my office all the time.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said at some point she found out that Ms. Conklin had contributed to Steve Israel and that made her very upset. She found out by going to the Board of Elections she said at first, but then backtracked and said maybe Dan Martin had requested the donation list from the Board of Elections, she couldn't be sure.
In her letter to Ms. Conklin she defined the difference between urgency and emergency as taken from the dictionary, according to her. She said she believed Ms. Conklin was opening her mail because she saw her opening the mail and because she wasn't receiving things sent to her, according to her testimony. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she never put the allegation about her opening the mail in writing, but she did testify that she believed Ms. Conklin was spreading rumors about her.
Q: Do you think she spread rumors about you?
A: I know she did.
Q: What did she spread about you?
A: Right after I was elected she said I was having a nervous breakdown. She said I couldn't handle the job. I believe people came to me and told me that she had said that my husband and I were separated. That's the best I can recall at the moment.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said the spreading of rumors about her by Ms. Conklin started in 1998 and she said Kathy Rumpelein and Bob DeGregorio told her Ms. Conklin had come to them about her. Mr. DeGregorio told Ms. Scarpati-Reilly that Ms. Conklin told him she believed Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was unstable and that she couldn't handle the job and was having a breakdown. She never sought medical treatment for emotional distress regarding panic attacks and denied ever seeing a psychiatrist, going to counseling, doctors or social workers at any time according to the deposition.
Later in the deposition Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she felt threatened by multitudes of similar actions by Ms. Conklin over the past four years. "Well, she has a tendency to talk a lot and exaggerate, be overly dramatic and she would interpret things incorrectly." she testified about Ms. Conklin.
Ms. Conklin was asked in her a deposition about what she had written in her letter to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. Mr. Yule read portions of the letter onto the record...and asked questions...
Asked about any documents she may have reviewed prior to the deposition she replied, "I reviewed my
Website, I reviewed the town code. I reviewed, I think it was resolutions 478 and 500 of 1996." Her website was first put up around March 2000 and her son helped her to do it. The text she wrote was reviewed by Perini & Hoerger. Bob DeGregorio reviewed her affidavit and she reviewed her advertisement and the articles from The New York Times and Newsday.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she also reviewed Mr. Perks' transcript from his arbitration that she received from Clifford Bart after discussions with him and Assistant Town Attorney, Thelma Neira. She also reviewed the deposition of Mr. Perks by The Fact-Finder but not in the last six months she said.
Investigations Galore!!!
After a brief recess the attention was again brought by Mr. Yule to the issue of other investigations by the Town of Huntington. Asked about the Carpenter investigation mentioned earlier, she replied,
A: The supervisor was aware that there were some problems and I think they were trying to straighten it out, but at one point I had been approached by two people and they alleged something, so at that point in time I notified Jim Matthews and the rest of the Town Board members.
Q: That's when you had the meeting with Leo?
A: That was part of it.
Q: Did that issue involve the theft of some money?
A: I believe that is what it was.
Q: Were you also involved in the instituting an investigation of the Blake Agency?
A: Well I didn't initiate the investigation. I think the Nassau County District Attorney's Office initiated the investigation.
Q: Were you privy to that investigation? Were you involved in it on behalf of the town?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you aware of another investigation regarding David McGovern?
A: Yes.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she had heard from several people that there was a problem down at the dog warden's office at the Town shelter involving alleged sexual harassment and hostile work environment.
She also heard that from Mr. Perks subsequently, according to her. She never spoke to Nancy Bond who had made the complaint, but couldn't remember if she spoke to the Union representative Harry Hennessey.
Reports were made about the allegations of improprieties at the animal shelter and were investigated by the DA's Office, but were kept confidential, according to the deposition. Then Mr. Yule tried to ascertain if Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had given a copy of any reports to Dave Ambro, the Editor of the Huntington Observer, The Smithtown News and the Huntington News, personally. She said she never gave the reports to Mr. Ambro and never had her secretary give them to him at a diner or his office in Smithtown.
Q: Have you ever turned over reports that were not confidential to the Smithtown News or the Observer?
A: I don't know about reports.
Q: You have turned over material to them right?
A: Yes, documents.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she did believe it was important to get your name "out there" but did not believe it is important to get your name in the paper if you are a politician, because it does cost, according to her.
Plaintiff's Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 were then shown to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and number 2 was a copy of a federal lawsuit captioned Jerrold Mosca, Vincent Bolger Jr. and Nancy Bond vs the Town of Huntington. It was a complaint about a problem with Mr. McGovern in the department. (CV99-4943) Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said when shown Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 she was unaware there was a written complaint by Ms. Bond about the shelter that was under the jurisdiction of Bruce Richards the head of the Department of Public Safety at the time. She only became aware it involved sexual harassment when the lawsuit was filed and the Town Board was told there would be a 50-H Hearing regarding it.
She could not recall if the 50H Hearing ever took place and Mr. Yule requested a copy of the transcript of the hearing if it took place.
Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 was a complaint by Jerrold Mosca against David McGovern at the dog pound that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she only became aware of in 1998 when it was discussed in Executive session. As a result Mr. McGovern was forced to take a leave of absence, but she was not sure if an Article 75 was ever brought against him. She did receive written reports from Mr. Leo who was the labor counsel for the Town at the time. The only thing she learned from reading the Plaintiff's Exhibit 4, was that alcohol use on Town time was part of the allegation.
Asked if employees that went to fundraisers are allowed to drink on their lunch hour she said "It depends on what position they hold in the Town. If it's on their lunch hour it depends."
Q: Did you make any complaint against Marlene Budd to the Bar Association?
A: No.
Marlene Budd made a complaint about Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to the Grievance Committee alleging defamation and comments made "that had ruined her reputation.", according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's deposition testimony. She provided a written response, but had not heard back at that point from the Committee. Marlene Budd filed the same claim about the same day three times according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. The reason they did that according to her was that "The Grievance Committee threw it back at her and told her she had a defamation action, it wasn't a grievable offense."
Asked about Thelma Neira next, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she never filed a criminal complaint against her, but the Nassau DA had questioned her, Ms. Neira, Marlene Budd and Donald Musgnug about an alleged obstruction of governmental administration. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly knew nothing more about it, according to her and the DA had told her she could very well be the target of the investigation as well.
The Town of Huntington paid for Thelma Neira's attorney to defend her in that accusation, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said, but she said she was forced to pay for her own in that case. Asked why they would pay for Ms. Neira and not her, she said, "I believe it was a political decision." "Basically they do whatever they want." she said with regard to reimbursing for legal fees of a criminal matter and she said she received no answer when she submitted the $2,500 dollar bill from her attorney, Steven Scaring. She was not sure if the Town reimbursed Ms., Budd for her attorney's fees or Mr. Musgnug. She said she submitted a resolution to be paid and Mr. Yule asked for that resolution to be produced.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she did not know why the resolution was never put on the agenda and was never voted on by the Board.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she abstained from the vote on the resolution on whether or not to pay for Ms. Neira's attorney. She didn't know who submitted it or seconded it for Thelma to get attorney's fees paid, but she admitted she expressed resentful feelings during the closed Executive session. Mr. Musgnug had an attorney from Perini & Hoerger that was paid for by the Town.
Mr. Abelove was chosen by her and she said she did not have to submit three names to Mr. Matthews prior to the resolution accepting Mr. Abelove and agreeing to pay him. (The resolution did not mention paying Mr. Feather, another attorney hired by Mr. Abelove).
Then Mr. Yule asked Ms. Scarpati-Reilly if she made an accusation against Marlene Budd for stalking her son. She denied having done so, but said her son had seen Marlene Budd turn her car around when he got off the bus and he wrote her license number down. Ms. Budd denied being there and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she checked the license plate was hers when she went to work and saw her car.
According to the Marlene Budd deposition, Ms. Budd was very upset at the accusation made in Town Hall and when she spoke to a colleague about it, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly sent a note in saying she was just kidding. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly fails to mention here that it was all a big joke.
Harry Acker.........
Harry Acker was the Senior Harbormaster who "had good days and bad days" according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's deposition. She said she had complaints from constituents that didn't like him and called his whole division "unprofessional". She said he was coaching her son in soccer while getting paid by the Town to be on the job. She said she asked him about it and he said he took his lunch hour from four or 4:30 and she never pressed him after that.
In 1996 she said she had gotten complaints about Harry Acker from Bill Perks for a myriad of alleged violations by Mr. Acker. She believed there was merit to some of the complaints against Mr. Acker by Mr. Perks, but could not recall any complaints about Mr. Perks' job performance. when he was Harbormaster, except from Mr. Acker himself. His only complaint was that Mr. Perks was only trying to cause trouble for him and that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly should stay away from him he warned. Mr. Acker said Mr. Perks wasn't necessarily representing what was really happening in the harbormaster's office.
Mr. Perks said there was no emergency response plan, no haz-mat training and no training to handle blood-born pathogens...that was what was going on in the office at the time when Harry Acker was in charge. These were requirements of the job according to state law.
Guns were required....
The full time Bay Constables were required at some point to be certified and carry weapons and that was at the behest of Mr. Israel, Don Musgnug and Susan Scarpati-Reilly, according to her. It was after that when they got the complaints about Harry, she said. She said at some point she met Harry Acker at Oheka Castle and told him he was right that she should have stayed away from Bill Perks and apologized to him.
The Texas Barge Incident...
As a result of an investigation both Mr. Rick Rollins and Mr. Acker were disciplined when a Texas Barge went unsupervised and broke free severing seven electric cables in Long Island Sound and costing tens of millions of dollars in damage. Dialectic fluid spilled out into the Sound and Harry Acker was in charge at the time. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she could not recall what discipline was ordered at the Town Board's request.
The Town Board never had a written policy regarding the responsibilities of liaisons according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, but her duties were to ensure that the public is served well by its employees she testified. She said Pat Del Col, then the Director of Environmental Control would come to her exasperated at times with the Department of Public Safety. There was a conflict between Public Safety and the newly formed Oil Spill Response Management Team that Bill Perks headed. The Public Safety Department sent several men out to the boats who ended up getting overtime to sit and watch Mr. Perks work. There were problems getting equipment and inventory according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's testimony.
Pat Del Col, then Peter Waznys, then Phil Nolan were Mr. Perks' supervisors and she insisted she had no control over giving out overtime at anytime. She did admit to asking Mr. Perks to cover meetings for her or to attend meetings with her in '97 and '98. She said he attended "as a friend" meaning he wasn't getting paid by the Town to attend.
Mr. Yule then showed her documents marked as Plaintiff's Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 and a brief recess was taken. When they returned Mr. Yule showed her Exhibit 5 and asked her to read from a handwritten memo from her to Mr. Perks.
"Bill do you think you could cover this meeting for me since it involves the Coast Guard vis-a-vis the marina. I will get Director Nolan to compensate you for your time." She says that never actually happened as Mr. Perks never got back to her to say if he could attend. In 1997 she said she spoke to Mr. Perks about the Oil Spill Response Team hundreds of times. She also discussed things with Pat Del Col at least 50 times in 1997 and spoke to Mr. Perks on a daily basis in 1998. The discussions included: problems he was having with the Marine Division, oil spills he had responded to, reports, memos, conversations with Pat Del Col and Bob DeGregorio and any problems he felt he was having.
She said at some point she told him not to bother her with petty stuff, but never put that in writing, because according to her, "My training as a District Attorney: don't put anything in writing otherwise you will be reading it back at another litigation."
In 1997 she gave Mr. Perks her phone number, beeper number and cell phone number and said there were at least 40 or 50 other blue collar workers that had her phone number. Most of them were members of the Republican Party according to her. Mr. Perks called her every morning at 7 AM to talk about what he read in the newspaper, his kids, the latest oil spill, when he had a fight with his wife, or Acker, an inspection or any number of issues. "It ran the gamut".
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly at some point after 1998, said she had a problem with Mr. Perks not issuing enough summonses and because he issued a summons in December for an infraction that occurred in July. "I had a problem with that."
Q: What did you do about it?
A: Nothing.
Q: But you went to see him on the job on February 28, 1999, on a rainy Sunday night to talk to him about that didn't you?
A: (No Response.)
MR. ABELOVE: You are yelling at my client. We are going to try to keep this civil, if that's ok Ed.
MR. YULE: As long as everybody is telling the truth.
MR. ABELOVE: Don't badger her.
After several more questions it was determined there was no specific time for summonses to be issued in and despite thinking it was a problem she never discussed this with Pat Del Col or Peter Wazny's or Jody Anastasia. She might have mentioned it to Mr. Nolan she said sometime in January of '99, but again never put it in writing because she spoke to the Director personally.
In April of 1998, Pat Del Col left and was replaced by Josephine Jahier who used to be a reporter for Suffolk Life, according to Ms. Susan Scarpati-Reilly. Then Peter Waznys took over as Town Engineer and Director of Environmental Control and held meetings about once a week.
Shown Plaintiff's Exhibit 6, she was asked if the handwriting on the document was hers or her secretaries...she said no. The document was never identified and she did not recognize it. She did hand out a copy of criminal procedure law to the oil spill response team, according to her but did not believe there was any time limit for an oil spill response team to investigate an incident before they issue a summons. She found out when the year end report was issued, that summonses issued in December occurred in July, according to her.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly kept no diaries but had a calendar she was asked to produce. Mr. Abelove said she had already given all the documents she had available, even those from her computer.
Mr. Perks said she did have a diary that he saw that she never turned over during discovery.
Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 was shown to her, it was the Resolution adopting the Town of Huntington's Sexual Harassment Policy and Regulations. It was written by Lisa Smith, Frank Petrone's Secretary, according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. Ms. Smith regularly wrote the resolutions as part of her job, she said. Mr. Perks said it was Ms. Scarpati-Reilly who drafted the sexual harassment policy and he knew that was so, because she commented to him at one point how ironic it was that she was writing it while having an affair with him.
Although there was a policy regarding sexual harassment prior to that, according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly there were no regulations accompanying it until then. Each department handled it in their own way, according to her. There was something in writing in '94 '95 and '96 regarding the sexual harassment policy, but she could not say if it had been distributed to all the employees of the Town.
A $750,000 dollar payment to Nancy Bond was voided because she didn't make the statute of limitations, something Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she was not aware of, nor did she know who Phyllis Casterino was, another employee who made a complaint of sexual harassment.
Plaintiff's Exhibits 8, 9, 10 and 11 were marked and entered for identification. Exhibit number 8 was shown to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and she said a handwritten phrase was Bill Perks' handwriting, not hers. Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 was shown to her, it was a draft copy of John Leo's memorandum in support of the grievance hearing he represented Bill Perks in. She denied helping him with that grievance. On page 4 she said she had written something and on page 13 both Mr. Perks and her handwriting were present.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly did admit she helped Mr. Perks in reviewing a memorandum in support of grievances of William Perks that was faxed to him by John Leo for his review. She did that --not in her capacity as a councilwoman, but as a friend, she testified.
Editor's note: Further along in her testimony Ms. Scarpati-Reilly makes a very big deal of the fact that she is a councilwoman 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, she is a councilwoman when she is tucking in her kids to bed, when she is home, or even during this deposition, she is always acting in her position as a councilwoman...here she says she was not, she was just acting as a friend.
Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 was almost the same as 9 except for minor changes made by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly on pages 6 and 7. Plaintiff's 13 and 14 were marked for identification and shown to the witness. Exhibit 11 was shown to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and she identified it as 16 pages of various memos sent out to employees. Page 1 was a memo to Bruce Richard, the Director of Public Safety requesting Bruce Gentile be paid comp time for helping her with a Cablevision taping project.
Comp time is when the employee gets time off rather than actual money. It is not the same as sick time, the Town pays employees when their time pushes into the employees private time, then they are allowed to take time from their regular work day and get paid for it, they don't actually have to report to work for that period of time.
White collar workers can get comp time, but blue collar workers are usually supposed to get cash, unless there is an understanding between the employee and the director, according to the Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. "It's between the employee--if the employee signs off on whatever it is, then they can move outside of the contract and agree to do whatever they want to do between themselves and the director."
The contractual agreement with the Union would never allow for this, according to Mr. Perks. If it happened it wasn't legal, he said.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly asked the director for permission to approve overtime for Dave Timber and Bruce Gentile for help with videotaping a public forum for Cablevision, but didn't ask for permission in writing. She said she always asked in advance for permission and denied there were times when she didn't get permission first. When showed a page dated January 26, 1999 where she was asking for Mr. Gentile to be compensated for being her representative at a meeting on January 21st, she still said she did not make a misstatement when she said she always asked for permission in advance.
Shown Plaintiff's Exhibit 12, a complaint filed with the Division of Human Rights against the Town of Huntington and Dave McGovern of the animal shelter, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she had not seen the complaint but was aware of the case. It had recently been tried before Magistrate Wall in Federal Court and settled just prior to summations. Once again the Town paid for sexual harassment and still didn't distribute a written policy or required training.
Shown Plaintiff's Exhibit 13, the regulations regarding the Town's Sexual Harassment Policy adopted pursuant to Town Resolution of 1999-92, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly could not be sure if it was the correct version that was adopted since there had been so many versions. She had submitted her own policy (the one Mr. Perks said she made the comment about her writing it while having an affair with him) to John Matthews in September of 1998, but Mr. Abelove objected when she was asked why she did that.
Eventually she testified Mr. Perks was the impetus for her working on her own version of a sexual harassment policy. Both he and Bob DeGregorio told her it was a necessary project and that it would get her good press. A formal policy was not adopted until February 9, 1999 and was not distributed until March, after the February 28, 1999 incident at the Mobil Oil Response Unit.
The friendship between Mr. Perks and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly developed in 1997 and eventually they spoke on a daily basis. He expressed to her he was having marital troubles early on in the relationship as friends according to her and he spoke to both her and Mr. DeGregorio about needing to spend more time with his children as his wife was running off with her boss. Her own children would constantly complain she didn't spend enough time at home, according to her. Mr. Perks and she developed a close personal relationship and they saw each other outside of work, according to her and Mr. Perks often had lunch either with her or also with Bob DeGregorio.
Mr. Perks insists the relationship became sexual. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly has consistently denied this, but when court ordered to provide DNA to compare to DNA Mr. Perks said would prove there had been a physical relationship, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly failed to show up and give a court ordered DNA sample on several occasions and her lawsuit against Mr. Perks for defamation was dismissed as a result.
In the summer of 1996 Bill Perks called Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to say that Harry Acker was not doing his job. Mr. Perks told her there was oil in the water and cables were leaking. "Harry was disagreeing with him. And so there was a lot of discussion back and forth as to whether there was a cable leak or it wasn't a leak." she told Mr. Yule.
Q: You recall you walked the shoreline yourself and found oil?
A: Kirshbaum property, yes I did.
Q: Perks was right in that instance?
A: I believe he was right. We had gotten reports from the lifeguards that they are pulling kids out of Crab Meadow Beach and swimming lessons the harbormaster's office was reporting back there was no sheen on the water.
Ultimately it turned out that there was a pipeline leak of over 3000 gallons of number 6 residual oil called Bunker C; a black gooey substance that solidifies at room temperature. It has to be heated to 120 degrees in order to flow in the pipes...if not it hardens and the pipe can no longer function.
Questions turned to how often Mr. Perks and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly saw and spoke to each other.
Q: Beginning of 1997 January, February, March and April, how often would you talk to Mr. Perks on the phone during non-working hours.
A: I can't answer that.
Q: Approximately once a week, twice a week?
A: I would say more than that, but I can't answer that.
Q: Under ten?
A: I can't answer that.
Q: You know it's my job to try and get sort of pinning down. Was it between five and ten.
A: I can't answer.
Q: Many times?
A: I have no idea.
Q: Did you meet him outside of work to discuss work related projects?
A: Yes.
Q: May, June, July and August 1997, how often would you talk to Perks on the telephone during non-working hours?
A: I can't tell you.
Q: How often would you talk to him during working hours regarding his job?
A: I can't tell you.
Q: Was it four or five times a day?
A: During that time period, it was frequent. I can't tell you.
Q: What about after work, did you ever socialize with Perks after work in May, June, July August in '97?
A: I was in the middle of a campaign. There was times we socialized.
Q: I thought the campaigns don't start until July.
A: I thought you said August.
Q: I will narrow it a little bit. May, June, July?
A: Yes, he helped me get signatures on independent petitions.
Q: Did you ever go out sailing with him?
A: At that point, no.
Q: Did you ever go to Asharoken Beach with him?
A: Not in 1997.
Continuing to try to get a straight answer from Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, Mr. Yule pressed her to say how many weekends she saw Mr. Perks in May, June or July of 1997. Again she answered, "I can't tell you. I have no idea."
Q: August, September, October how often did you speak to Perks on the phone in 1997?
A: I can't tell you. I don't know.
Q: Frequently or infrequently?
A: Frequently.
Eventually, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she met with Mr. Perks on weekends during November and December of 1997, but had no idea how many.
Q: You did spend time with him on the weekends in November and December of 1997?
A: Yes, I think at some point I hooked up.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she discussed her personal problems with Mr. Perks, but only day to day interactions with her husband, nothing more than that. She did not believe she spent more time either talking to or being with Mr. Perks.
Finally, Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 was presented to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, it was a memo from her to Mr. Perks dated November 23, 1998.
With that the deposition ended for the day...
On April 5, 2001 Mr. Yule continued his examination of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly.
Q: Have you ever had a sexual relationship with Mr. Perks?
A: No.
Q: Have you ever gone to a hotel or motel with Mr. Perks?
A: No.
Q: Have you ever been to the East Norwich Inn?
A: Yes.
Q: Have you ever been there with Mr. Perks?
A: No.
Q: Have you ever left Long Island with Mr. Perks?
A: No.
A quick series of questions about such places as Fire Island, Montauk, Atlantic City, Robert Moses Field 2 or Hobart Beach had Ms. Scarpati-Reilly denying ever frequenting those places with Mr. Perks.
She did admit to having coffee or a drink with him numerous times and going once to the Vanderbilt Museum and to Asharoken at Skudder Beach or Goldstar Battalion Beach.
From January to February 28, 1999, the night of the incident at the Mobil Oil Transfer Station, she testified she saw Mr. Perks about four times. She was not a heavy drinker according to her and Mr. Perks averaged three beers when they went out for a drink.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly described Mr. DeGregorio's home as pretty rundown. She denied ever telling Mr. Perks she was pregnant or going with him to a medical clinic in Smithtown. She said she had been sailing with him several times in the summer of 1998 and she was on his houseboat only twice to use the bathroom, according to her testimony. She said she never accused Mr. Perks of being homosexual and said Mr. Perks had been to her home when she was alone, to drop off papers, but couldn't recall what kind of papers they were.
They went to Manhattan together to see a boat at the Enterprise Museum that the municipality might have been interested in acquiring, she said, but that didn't happen.
Asked if she had been to Mr. Perks' home with him alone she said yes, but could not say how many times.
Q: More than twenty?
A: I can't tell you.
Q: More than 50?
A: That's really stretching it, but I can't tell you.
Q: Have you ever been behind closed doors with Mr. Perks in Town Hall?
A: Sure.
Q: Can you tell me in 1997 and '98 approximately how many times?
A: I can't even guess.
Q: You can't guess because it's too numerous or you can't remember?
MR ABELOVE:
She can't guess because it is a deposition.
They exchanged numerous gifts according to her:
She gave him: A magnifying glass, a ship wheel, a book, a pen with a little whale on it and a pewter dolphin. She brought him back a little wooden box from her trip to Sorrento and an Irish laminated prayer from her visit to Ireland.
She testified Mr. Perks gave her: A portion of a cable from Keyspan to Connecticut and a stanchion from when the Texas Barge broke up from the platform as gifts. According to Mr. Perks, these were not gifts but evidence he gave to her to show the damage and devastation that occurred when Harry Acker failed to properly inspect and oversee the transfer during the Texas Barge incident. Mr. Rollins called and couldn't work that morning and Mr. Acker should have called Mr. Perks to fill in because Mr. Acker said he wasn't feeling well. He didn't call anyone, at the time the barge was connecting...the barge broke free and severed seven electrical cables under the water costing tens of millions of dollars in damage to the ratepayers. This was not a gift.
Mr. Perks said she failed to mention other gifts she gave him including a gold bracelet, a cashmere sweater from Ireland and a crystal globe.
As for gifts he said he did give her there was some brain coral, and giant barnacles too.
He also gave her a gold pin of sailboats, a little gold shell bracelet and a matching pin, a sailboat pendant, a mirror and a life raft thing. He may have given her a book, she could not be sure.
MOHONK MOUNTAIN HOUSE
Mr. Perks alleges he and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly spent a weekend at the Mohonk Moutain House in August of 1998. Ms. Scapati-Reilly testified she was there with her husband celebrating his 51st birthday. She made the reservation with her credit card and handed the receipt to her husband on the way out while she juggled the luggage. He put it in the glove compartment, according to her and she accused Mr. Perks of stealing it out of the car, a charge he denies. She never called the police to file a formal charge of theft after she learned Mr. Perks was in possession of the receipt from reading the Fact Finder's Report. Mr. Perks claims she gave it to him after they spent the weekend together, so her husband wouldn't find it. Mr. Perks claims her husband was in Florida when they were at the Mountain hideaway and frequent flier miles proved that he was in Florida at the time. Mr. Perks said Judge Joanna Seybert suppressed that evidence claiming the subpoena to obtain it had been improperly obtained.
THE HOUSEBOAT
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly admitted to being on the houseboat twice to use the bathroom both times in the evening. She said she was never in the bedroom of the houseboat. She did park in the lot of Our Lady Queen of Martyrs in 1997 or '98 and walked from the church to Mr. Perks' home but couldn't say how many times. Asked if it were more or less than twenty, she responded, "I would say less than twenty."
She could not recall how many times she had been to his home, admitted it was several but again could not say exactly how many times. She picked him up or dropped him off there, according to her, or dropped off documents for him to give to Mr. Ambro, the Editor of The Huntington Observer.
Mr. Abelove had sent a picture of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly from the front page of The Observer along with a picture of Allison Sanchez at the top corner. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she was not aware her attorney had sent it, but admitted she had given him the picture. Mr. Yule was trying to understand why Ms. Sanchez was on their witness list. Citing attorney client privilege she refused to answer. She went on to describe the relationship between Mr. Perks and Allison Sanchez as "Very, very close." She denied she had any more than a "social relationship" with Mr. Perks, but stated that Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Perks had been seen at the Vanderbilt Museum and on numerous occasions giving her the impression they were very very close.
Ms. Sanchez told Ms. Scarpati-Reilly Mr. Perks was very kind and helpful to her, but she never told her she was having a sexual relationship with him. Mr. Perks said there was never any sexual relationship with Allison Sanchez ever.
Mr. Naughton, was also put on the witness list and Mr. Yule was trying to ascertain why he would be called to testify. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said he would say that her colleagues were conspiring against her "to bring all this stuff."
Q: "Bring all this stuff." When you say that what do you mean?
A: Well, he had informed me there was a meeting in the Supervisor's office, that they were all together, that they were talking about how they were going to bring a Fact-Finder that is going to destroy my reputation, that this was going to bring me down, that they wanted to get rid of me off the Town Board
and that I should be very careful. He warned me that my phone, to the best of his thoughts, was being tapped, that I should be concerned about--that I should be concerned about who I speak with in Town Hall, that they were going to go forward with this Fact-Finder, that they were going to set me up.
He told all of this to her on March 2, 1999 according to her. She responded that she knew that they had been trying for a long time to set her up and that they had systematically fired everyone she was close to in Town Hall, so that the only two people she trusted were Bob DeGregorio and Bill Perks.
Her close relationship with Pat Del Col was ended when Steve Israel told her "The Town wasn't big enough for her." so she should start looking for another job.
Mr. Naughton was suing the Town and had asked them to pay his attorney's fees, something she didn't know if she was going to vote to approve or not. Asked about the Mohonk receipt again, she testified that she never confronted Mr. Perks about taking the receipt from the glove compartment. She then claimed attorney client privilege when asked if she went to the Town attorney to complain.
Mr. Acker had taken a picture of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's car in front of Mr. Perks' home something she only learned about when she attended his deposition, according to her. She met Arthur Simpson one day at Mr. Perks' home when Mr. Perks was not on the clock. She had brought sandwiches and they sat on the deck with Mr. Simpson and Mr. Perks' tenant, Pam.
Then Mr. Yule shifted the questions to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's refusal to give DNA samples and she invoked attorney client privilege when asked to explain why she refused. At that point Mr. Yule pointed to the front page picture of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly along with a picture of Ms. Sanchez sent by Mr. Abelove to Mr. Yule with a letter saying he intended to call Mr. Simpson as a witness. Mr. Yule assumed that Mr. Abelove was trying to infer that the person Mr. Simpson testified he saw leaving Mr. Perks' house boat was Ms. Sanchez, not Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. Mr. Yule said if that were going to be the defense, then he would again demand DNA samples from her to compare to blood and pubic hair Mr. Perks said belonged to her that were taken directly from the boat.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly then volunteered the statement, "I would like to state for the record that I'm not making any allegation that Mr. Perks was having a sexual relationship with Allison Sanchez."
At some point in 1996, an anonymous caller told her husband she was having an affair with Mr. Perks.
Her conversation with her husband was marked as privileged and she refused to answer. Then she said there were numerous phone calls and hang ups weekly, so eventually she confided in Bob DeGregorio and Bill Perks about them. The phone calls stopped as soon as she got caller ID and told that to Mr. Perks, according to her, but she could not say he was the one making the calls. She never told Mr. Perks not to call her house and her husband was not upset about the calls, she testified.
She could not recall if Mr. Perks ever rubbed her back, "I don't think so, I don't recall." Mr. Perks had described her back as "bumpy", something she said she couldn't confirm or deny since she couldn't feel her own back.
After a brief recess, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said Mr. Perks called her every morning and they discussed various things. Patty Caruso also called her every morning, she was her legislative secretary and took over for Joyce Conklin, when she moved her desk to Steve Israel's side of the suite.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she had been told by several people that she resembled Mrs. Perks when asked if she thought she resembled Allison Sanchez.
Then Mr. Abelove and Mr. Yule started a verbal scrum about whether Mr. Yule had been making faces and gestures and yelling and banging on the table at times. Mr. Yule denied that was the case and the questioning continued.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly then testified she went to Mr. Perks' home on March 3rd after the February 28th incident at the Mobil Oil Transfer Station "Because it was a frantic situation and I was hoping to resolve the situation."
Mr. Perks asked why would someone claiming to have been assaulted by him just days earlier, claiming to be fearful for her life, come to his home all alone at night? He did not answer the door to her and refused all her phone calls after the incident.
She denied ever directing Mr. Nolan to provide her with a daily schedule of Mr. Perks' whereabouts, something he testified to under oath. She said she had only told him to "Keep an eye on him." because he was under a lot of strain and stress and wasn't very organized at the time.
Finding the truck that was never really lost.....
The topic shifted to one that was covered significantly in the Fact Finder's Report, the Town pickup truck that Mr. Perks drove. In November of 1998, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said Mr. Perks "challenged her to find the truck" when she asked him where it was. "Go look for it." he told her, she testified.
She just coincidentally had driven past Mr. Perks' home on Prospect Road in Centerport that day to make sure the roadwork done by Mr. Naughton during the prior summer was done properly. When she saw the truck was not there at about three in the afternoon, she said she called Mr. Perks. Earlier she had spoken to Jody Anastasia and asked if he knew where Mr. Perks was. Then she demanded to know where the truck was from Mr. Perks and he told her it was at an address in Lloyd Harbor to go check it out. When she arrived at the address that was about a half hour away the truck wasn't there, according to her and so she believed Mr. Perks had lied to her. Mr. Perks said it was on a 16 acre property and parked near the barn in the back, unable to be viewed from the road.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly felt compelled to check it out because he had challenged her, she testified and she did so to make sure that an item that belonged to the town was safe. The Fact-Finder found her testimony disingenuous and after a full investigation determined she only was interested in finding out where Mr. Perks was, not the truck.
Her salary was approximately $50,000/year plus health and retirement benefits and she was required to work full time, but there was no requirement for her to punch in or sign in to verify the hours worked.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she was a councilwoman 24 hours a day, so she was always working and with evening and weekends she probably put in at least 60 hours a week.
Next Mr. Yule asked if she knew Mr. Perks' new girlfriend. (Name redacted) She said "No." She had heard the name and then admitted to speaking to her the night of the incident at The Mobil Oil Transfer Station. She called his girlfriend and was looking for Mr. Perks and the woman told her he wasn't there. She asked again if she was sure and the lady again said he wasn't there. Then Ms. Scarpati-Reilly gave her beeper number to the woman and asked her to give Mr. Perks a message, "I would like to see a letter of resignation on my desk in the morning."
When asked why she asked for his resignation after she admitted she knew she had no power to discipline him she responded:
She said she did not call from her cellphone because it was a dead spot and so before she went to the Police Station, she went to Town Hall and got the unlisted number from a cell phone bill. She didn't recall whether it was unlisted or not.
Just prior to her showing up at the Mobil Oil Transfer Station she had been on the phone with Mr. Perks and asked him to meet her after he finished work to discuss NOV's (Notices of Violations).
She did not notice if the barge was there and sat in her car for a while in the parking lot before Mr. Perks came out of the building. She said he walked swiftly to the truck and said something she didn't understand. Then she got out of her car and he had opened the cab to his truck and was ranting according to her, "I've had it with you, I have had it with George Hoffman, I have had it with everybody."
When asked why Mr. Perks had mentioned George Hoffman to her, she guessed it had something to do with Mr. Hoffman and the Centerport sewer district tax schedule. Mr. Hoffman had changed the schedule without a necessary public hearing, a scandal she had brought to Mr. Perks' attention.
Mr. Perks said he never mentioned George Hoffman to her that evening..that her testimony is false.
Brought back to the Mobil Oil Transfer Station action--she said was dazed and that is why she got into Mr. Perks' truck and sat instead of getting back into her own car. She couldn't really say why. The door was open and it was raining, was her only reason. She said she felt afraid of him because his eyes were "Mansonized real dark pools and they were in my face." She noticed he was out of uniform at that point according to her and mentioned it to him. He responded that she should bring him up on charges and "investigate the truck while you are at it" while swinging his arms all over the place and hit her on her upper right arm, just below the shoulder, according to her testimony. Then when she said "Bill, you hit me." he said, "Listen lady, you hit me ." Then he just stared at her and then said, "You did it." "You were the one who damaged the vehicle." she testified he then left and she got in his truck.
After sitting in his car for a few moments she said she tried to approach him and talk things over when he heard her behind him, he told her "Get out of here, lady." Then she said he went off with his arms flying and the heels of his feet digging in with what she called a "certain gait."
Mr. Perks has always maintained that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly pulled up in her car and started screaming at him. He said he told her "I'm done." She got out of the car and went up to him and again he said "I'm done." She took her hand and hit him on the side of his head by his ear and temple he said. He backed off and she chased him around the car and he ran and locked himself in the office. Two employees said they witnessed her chasing him around the car and they told that to the private investigator working for the Fact-Finder.
The next series of questions focused on Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's statement that Mr. Perks didn't even have the truck with him. Eventually it was revealed that the truck was not necessary in order for Mr. Perks to do his job properly, because the equipment needed to fight an oil spill is already at the facility.
"God forbid on his way home he ran into an oil spill", was her response.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly then said she tried to call the police and dialed 911 but there was a dead spot and she couldn't. She wanted to document the incident because she had been told Mr. Perks had a propensity to go after people by filing grievances, lawsuits and charges when crossed. She was warned by Mr. Acker, Bob Hallogen's daughters and a lot of other people at town hall according to her. Then she admitted Mr. Acker himself had threatened to sue her over statements she made about the Texas Barge accident.
Only the Division of Harbors and Waterways was empowered to give summonses, according to the Town Code until December of 1998, when the Board amended the Code to include persons who were not members of the Maritime Services to issue summonses on an oil transfer.
Legal Actions Suit Her...
After the February 28, 1999 incident, there were three lawsuits filed by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. The first was the case this deposition was being taken for in United States District Court with Judge Joanna Seybert, then there was a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Perks (that was dismissed when she failed to produce court ordered DNA samples) and an Article 78 lawsuit against the Town's Ethics Board that received a copy of the Fact-Finder's Report and admonished Ms. Scarpati-Reilly for her behavior as a result. She refused to discuss that lawsuit citing confidentiality and ongoing litigation as the reason.
She also had a motion against Ernie Stolzer, an attorney hired by the Town that she claimed was an agent of the Ethics Board.
Discussing the lawsuits, she said there had been three decisions by Justice Gerard and she believed her name was supposed to be kept confidential, but it wasn't. Dave Ambro had called her regarding the decision and the fact that she had asked the court for "clarification". Mr. Ambro told her that Mr. Abelove and she deserved each other and said speaking to her was like "practicing dentistry", but she didn't know what he meant by that.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had no idea how many press releases, if any, she had released since the Judge released his decisions but she did put a Website up about the case. She had spoken to Bob DeGregorio just the day before about her re-election campaign and called him the night of the incident of February 28, 1999. She called him around 10:30 or 11 PM.
Earlier she had driven to Town Hall and called Mr. Perks' new girlfriend, but despite the fact that the Town Public Safety Office is located on the side of Town Hall and has someone on duty 24 hours and often there is a police car there, she chose to drive to the Police Station to make her complaint, she said.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was at Town Hall for only about ten minutes and she left and drove to the 2nd Precinct.
Her reason for calling Mr. Perks' girlfriend was to try to resolve things, she testified.
Q: Your way of resolving it was by giving a message that Perks should resign?
A: Yes.
That was in her capacity as a councilwoman because as she testified, when she took her oath she is like a cop or a lawyer and is a councilwoman 24/7 even when she is tucking her children into bed, she is always acting as a councilwoman and attorney.
The 2nd Precinct...
"YOU DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE DEALING WITH"
Testifying she was upset when she got to the Police Station, but was not crying she said Officer Louis Molinari took her statement. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly stated in her deposition that she purposely checked the incident report to make sure the officer didn't use the word assault and had only charged Mr. Perks with harassment. Officer Molinari said he had written harassment and showed her the statement, she testified.
At first Ms. Scarpati-Reilly insisted that she never said Mr. Perks should be arrested according to her testimony. She was told a plain clothes officer would contact her and Officer Molinari put his number on the back of the form. Then she said she asked about the "pro-arrest" policy because she felt it was a "domestic incident dispute." So Mr. Yule asked her again, "To get into this conversation is it fair to say you wanted him arrested?" She answered again, "No."
According to the transcript of the Arbitration trial (NYS Public Employees Relation Board Case No: A200-280) Officer Molinari testified Ms. Scarpati-Reilly appeared angry when she came to the Police Station on February 28th, 1999. In direct examination by Mr. Yule, Officer Molinari said she wanted to make out a complaint for harassment against someone and "wanted him arrested".
Q: (by Mr. Yule) What did she say specifically?
A: (by Officer Molinari) That she wanted this person arrested, and she said the person's name...William Perks.
She told the Officer at first that she was slapped in the face by Mr. Perks. She stated, "I wanted someone locked up for hitting me in the face." according to Officer Molinari's testimony at the Arbitration hearing.
Q: That is the best of your recollection, that those were her words?
A: Yes.
Shown the police report he filed of the Scarpati-Reilly complaint that had been marked as evidence, Officer Molinari continued to answer questions.
Q: After you spoke to her initially and she told you what you stated earlier about when she said she had been slapped in the face by William Perks, what was your response to that?
A: I asked her if she had any injury, at that time she said she had been slapped in her right arm.
Q: When she was relaying this to you what was her demeanor?
A: She was--she gradually became very argumentative and belligerent because she wanted the arrest to occur right then and there. I had told her it was not possible, there had to be a full workup done by the plainclothes unit for the harassment. If she wanted him arrested she could have had him arrested at the scene if she wanted it done immediately.
Then the Officer testified that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly told him she didn't call him from the scene because she had lost her cell phone.
Q: After she said she lost her phone did she say anything else?
A: Yes. She stated that there were no phones--excuse me she stated she came into the precinct , she lost the cell phone. I asked her if she had used one of the pay phones that are between Cold Spring Harbor and the precinct and she didn't--she became belligerent after I said that to her.
Q: When you say belligerent can you describe what you mean?
A: That she was--you know, she kept repeating that she wanted this person arrested. And you know, I had to repeat over and over that it was not going to occur at this time.
Prior to heading over to the Mobil Oil Transfer Station, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified she was home baking a cake for her son's birthday and her husband was out picking him up. While she waited for the cake to cool, she decided to go to the store for candles at King Kullen, but passed the store and went clear across town straight to the Mobil Oil Transfer Station to speak to Bill Perks instead. She hadn't called Mr. Perks before she left the house and she left without her purse, but with money on her. She called the operator for the phone number to the Mobil Station and when she called it just rang so she headed there and paged him on the way. He called her back and she was only a quarter mile away when they finished their conversation, so she just continued to drive to the Mobil Oil Transfer Station she testified.
Editor's note: It would appear by her testimony here that she had her phone. But she told the Officer she had lost it and that is why she didn't call from the scene. She testified earlier her cell phone didn't work because she was in a dead zone and said that is why she went to Town Hall to use their phone. Hmmmmm......The Fact-Finder missed this?
Ms. Scarpati Reilly testified her demeanor was just upset and she said she never raised her voice and thanked the Officer and left as she needed to get home as people were waiting for her. She denied ever saying "Do you know who I am?' and never said "You don't know who you are dealing with." according to her testimony under oath.
Mr. Labush the Fact-Finder told Ms. Scarpati-Reilly the police officer was "tuned up" according to her sworn testimony, meaning someone had agitated him and he just had an attitude, "Which is sometimes the case when you give someone a badge and a gun and they are forced to work a desk." she stated. "Some are nice, some have attitudes...There is a reason why they are sitting on the desk." she testified.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified here that she told the police officer that she definitely did not want him arrested, she called the District Attorney the next day and went out to the DA's office with Bob DeGregorio the following Monday to try to get them to prosecute him. The Town had not authorized Mr. DeGregorio or her to contact the DA.
It was an impromptu decision to visit Mr. Perks as she was only going to buy candles when she left the house. She had a trial the next day so had to speak to him that night, according to her deposition. She left company at her home for about an hour and a half on her son's 16th birthday, according to her. Her husband had gone to pick up her son, so she left them there alone, apparently. Her son Tim called her when she was leaving the precinct and asked where she was that they were waiting for the cake.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified Officer Molinari asked her for identification and she had none on her, not even her license. She said he made no issue about the fact she was driving without her license at all.
Officer Molinari testified in the Arbitration hearing "I told her that--I asked her if she was driving and she said she was. And I said "Well, you are supposed to have your license with you if you are driving a motor vehicle."" He said he could have given her a summons, but gave her a warning instead.
Mr. Yule asked Officer Molinari if Ms. Scarpati-Reilly ever told him she felt threatened. Clifford Bart, (Bart & Schwartz, LLP) the attorney for the Town of Huntington in the Arbitration Case, objected to Mr. Yule--"leading the witness" and there was a lengthy legal discussion. Eventually the Arbitrator, David Gregory ruled "quasi-leading questions" were not a problem.
Officer Molinari testified Ms. Scarpati-Reilly did not tell him she felt threatened or that her life was in danger. She did use the word assault, according to him and when she had no ID, she told him that she was the Councilwoman.
Q: Did she want Mr. Perks arrested for assault?
A: Yes she did.
Officer Molinari said he never spoke to her again and didn't know if any investigation took place.
He said was interviewed by The Fact-Finder but when asked if he spoke to the Town Ethics Board, Mr. Bart objected saying that was not relevant to the Arbitration. Another lengthy discussion between the attorneys and the arbitrator took place. Mr. Bart said,
Mr. Yule argued that since the Ethics report was based almost entirely on the Fact-Finder's interviews and documents and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly bombarded the Ethics Board with documents and information those are the only things we used as a basis of the report which includes Union 1.
With that arbitrator said he would allow it since Mr. Bart had verbatim reads of testimony, questions and answers from that same video transcript proceeding earlier and allowing Mr. Yule to question now "I would see as broadly symmetrical, I'm going to allow it.
Mr. Yule continued to question Officer Molinari...
Officer Molinari said he told the Fact-Finder many of the same things he had already testified to here, including that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly wanted Mr. Perks arrested for assault, but he told her since there was no injury and with the facts she had given him it did not rise to the level of an assault charge, but warranted a harassment charge. At that point she became argumentative, he said "She wanted him arrested for assault." Officer Molinari said he did not notice any marks on her face, no injuries, she did not appear to need medical attention and no one from plainclothes ever contacted him.
Editor's Questions: If the Town Attorney, Mr. Bart testifies here that they do not dispute Mr. Perks' version of the facts and he also says the Ethics Board found her actions "unethical" why would the Town go one more step forward and pay one more penny in legal fees to continue the investigation of an alleged assault that she clearly testifies on the one hand she made sure it was not labelled an assault and did not want him arrested, but the Officer testified to the exact opposite? She admitted lying to the press in writing and so if it is the credibility of the Officer versus the Councilwoman's you need to decide who you think is more believable.
Susan Scarpati-Reilly told Officer Molinari Mr. Perks slapped her because she pointed out that he was out of uniform. He described her demeanor when she left the station as "upset and angry. She did not tell Officer Molinari she stopped off at Town Hall to call Mr. Perks' girlfriend but the Officer did say he never asked her if she came straight the the precinct.
Susan Scarpati-Reilly apologized in writing for telling reporters that it was not her that made the complaint to the police and Mr. Yule asked the Officer if he read that she admitted lying to the press.
An objection by Mr. Bart and again a rather lengthy back and forth on whether or not the Officer could speak to the issue. The arbitrator wanted to know what the Officer had read, an editorial, a straight news investigative story or a letter to the editor and gave Mr. Yule a little wiggle room.
Q: Did you ever come to learn after February 28, 1999 that the complainant Susan Scarpati-Reilly stated publicly that she did not file this police report, that it was an impostor?
A: Yes, I did. I was called into the commanding officer's office which is an Inspector Thomas Hammond. He is not a Chief of the Suffolk County Police Department. He showed me the article from the newspaper with the picture and asked me if that was the woman who came into the precinct to report the incident.
Q: What was your response?
A: Yes, it was.
Later the police report Officer Molinari brought was entered into evidence and Mr. Bart requested a "Voir Dire" of the report and it was granted.
Mr. Bart asked about a number (2400) on the report and some handwritten markings and Officer Molinari said he did not know what the number meant and he did not write those notes. The report had been faxed to the officer from the central records department in Yaphank at his request and was considered official police business and therefore it was accepted into evidence.
Mr. Yule rested his Direct Examination and Mr. Bart began his Cross Examination...
He learned Officer Molinari had never met nor spoken to Mr. Perks. He was never contacted by the District Attorney's Office and except for the Fact-Finder on the telephone, no one outside the Town ever contacted him...except for reporters he said.
Q: Did she (Scarpati-Reilly) characterize from a legal standpoint what she thought had occurred
A: That it was an assault.
A: And you told her, from what I understand, that it was not an assault; if anything, if it was proven, it was harassment; is that correct?
A: Correct.
Asked the difference between assault and harassment as he understood it from his training, the Officer said "Harassment does not involve physical injury.
Q: So if somebody engages in as this case you have told us was the case, engages in slapping someone, that is not an assault based on your training?
A: Correct.
Q: Is it harassment?
A: Yes.
Q: And despite the fact that she wanted you to file an assault complaint you felt based on your training it could be filed?
A: On harassment.
Harassment is a violation, not a felony and assault can be either a misdemeanor or felony Officer Molinari testified and with violations the officer has discretion to either arrest or issue a summons.
The difference between a Peace Officer (Mr. Perks was a Peace Officer) and a Police Officer was discussed for a while and though both can make arrests on misdemeanors and violations, the Peace Officer needs a greater level of proof than a Police Officer, according to Officer Molinari.
When Mr. Bart rested the Arbitrator asked a few questions of Officer Molinari.
Q: (by Mr. Gregory--the Arbitrator) Your testimony has been very straightforward and I appreciate that. You used adjectives and one of them was the Councilwoman was argumentative. And you explained that by talking about the various demands or requests she made that this grievant be arrested etcetera. You testified as to her physical condition, you saw no cuts, bruises, swelling, discoloration. I'm interested in the first instance now, without reference to this woman Susan Scarpati-Reilly, just based on your 14 years of experience as a police officer, if you say someone is angry, what are the normal indicators that would draw you to that conclusion?
A: They so not like being questioned. Usually that elicits some sort of anger or they become argumentative if they don't like the answers they are being given after they are questioned.
Q: When someone is belligerent, without reference to this woman, what are the indicators of belligerence?
A: Do not want to take no for an answer, continue to say something over and over.
Officer Molinari said Susan Scarpati-Reilly raised her voice and was shouting.
Q: She wasn't just speaking in an elevated voice, she was shouting?
A: Yes.
Q: Did she shout in an isolated instance or was it periodic outbursts?
A: Periodic outbursts.
The meeting between Ms. Scarpati-Reilly at the precinct lasted about 15 minutes and Officer Molinari
said he never raised his voice but she was yelling most of the time and began yelling when she realized he wasn't going to arrest this person immediately.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's final words to the Officer as she walked out of the precinct were according to Officer Molinari "You don't know who you are dealing with."
Q: Not have a nice day?
A: Right.
Q: She didn't have sort of---there were no pleasantries; thank you very much, have a good weekend?
A: No.
Mr. Gregory asked once more what her last words were and the Officer repeated, "You don't know who you are dealing with." He ended his questioning and Mr. Yule asked for a short Re-Direct...
He asked Officer Molinari what he thought she meant by "You don't know who you are dealing with." and he said "Because she stated she was a Councilwoman prior, I thought she believed there was some sort of threat in that, but I don't feel threatened by her."
Q: (by Mr. Yule) What tone of voice did she say that in?
A: Loud.
Finally, Mr. Yule ascertained that normally investigations are done by the Police and the DA prosecutes and has the final say on what the charges would be. No one from the DA's Office ever called him and he said he believed the investigation was still open because no one had told him it was closed, but he could not say for sure if it were still open.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly Goes Home...HOPEFULLY THE CAKE HAS COOLED...
When Ms. Scarpati-Reilly arrived home she said she did not speak to her husband about the incident and the first person she discussed it with was Bob DeGregorio, later that evening. ***
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said that Mr. DeGregorio had gotten several messages from Mr. Perks and each one sounded more frantic. She characterized her statement to Bob DeGregorio saying she told him Bill Perks was crazed and that he had hit her. When pressed by Mr. Yule she admitted she never used those words that night to Mr. DeGregorio and never told him or the Police that she felt physically threatened by Mr. Perks that night. "I don't think I ever used the word threatened." she said.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she was not hurt when Mr. Perks allegedly hit her shoulder with his right arm or hand and she insisted, "Never, it wasn't an assault."
When Mr. Perks accused her of damaging the vehicle, she said she didn't know what he was talking about, but again when pressed by Mr. Yule she said she had spoken to Mr. Perks earlier that day and he had told her someone had caused damage to his girlfriend's vehicle and he spent all day trying to fix it. Later she said she realized she thought he was accusing her of damaging the vehicle. Paint remover had been thrown onto her brand new Lincoln Navigator and it did $15,000 dollars worth of damage.
Eventually Ms. Scarpati-Reilly admitted that prior to February 28, 1999 Mr. Perks had never been issued a uniform as Oil Spill Response Manager. Before that she had been insisting it was necessary for him to be in uniform, so that men on foreign ships that came in would know that Mr. Perks was an American, because he had no other form of identification without a uniform.
One time when they were in a restaurant a police detective came up to Mr. Perks as he noticed he was wearing a gun. Mr. Perks showed him his credentials and badge and the officer told him he should be in a uniform, according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. The police officer was not in uniform and she could not say if he had been drinking before approaching them.
The issue of the uniform prevailed in the next series of questions. Mr. Perks had won a grievance because he was never issued a uniform in his capacity as oil spill response manager. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly supplied her attorney with box loads of documents she removed from Town Hall according to her because they came out of her own personal files. Asked if she had shredded any documents in Town Hall, she said yes. She added that she shreds documents every day at Town Hall and she had shredded some just the day before as well.
Editor's Note: She did not say why as a 24/7 Councilwoman she would have had any personal documents in Town Hall let alone "boxes" of them.
When they decided to break for lunch, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she would not be back that afternoon as she had to pick up her son. Mr. Yule expressed dismay that she waited until then to inform him of that and when he asked for an explanation as to why she didn't notify them sooner, Mr. Abelove refused to let her answer the question. Mr. Yule said he found that to be both against the rules and a surprise and he decided to let the court deal with it because he planned to make an application to the court.
The next deposition day was April 19, 2001
Continued Examination by Mr. Yule...
On her way home from the precinct at about 9 PM Ms. Scarpati-Reilly stopped at Edwards and bought candles and when she arrived home her sons, Tim and Rich, her husband Steve and her step daughter Liz were there. She said she did not mention what had happened earlier except to her husband but that conversation was considered privileged. Later she called Mr. DeGregorio at about 10 PM and left a message and called him again at 11 PM and spoke with him.
Editor's note: Does this contradict what she testified to earlier that she didn't tell her husband and the first person she spoke to about it was Mr. DeGregorio? (see bolded transcript above) ***
Now Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was saying that she told no one at her home about the circumstances, except her husband. When she called Mr. DeGregorio, she was only calling to see how he felt, according to her, not to discuss the incident with Perks. He was on the phone at the time with Mr. Perks so he didn't speak with her for very long and she didn't speak to him again until the next day at around noon she testified.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was in court handling a divorce case in Islip Supreme Court the day after the incident at the Mobil Oil Transfer Station, according to her, but she couldn't remember which case it was and when asked if she went to the DA's office located in the Central Islip complex, she said she neither called them nor visited them about the incident. When she left court that day she went to Mr. DeGregorio's home in Fort Salonga. She said Mr. DeGregorio had seen Mr. Perks and wanted to speak to her. She did not ask him what Mr. Perks said to Mr. DeGregorio according to her, not that afternoon and not the night before either--she testified.
According to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly Mr. DeGregorio said the sum and substance of the conversation was that Bill Perks was very upset and that he wanted him to write a resignation letter from him so he could leave the Oil Spill Response Management position and go back to the Harbors and Waterways Division. He told her he refused to write the letter. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she had many conversations over the next few days with Mr. DeGregorio, but couldn't recall what was said without refreshing her memory by reading her transcript from the Fact-Finder.
Let's Go To The Videotape.....
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's depositions were both taped and transcribed. According to her there were mistakes on the transcripts that did not reflect what she actually said, but she did not recall what the alleged mistakes were and she testified she did nothing about it. She told her attorneys Perini & Hoerger about it she said and she paid the bill they sent her, because "there was no provision in the code" to seek reimbursement for their legal fees.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's recollection of the first time she discussed the incident with Mr. DeGregorio
was very limited.
Q: (by Mr. Yule) Just so it's clear, your testimony is, as you sit here today, you have no independent recollection of what you said to Bob and what Bob said to you on March 1st other than what you've already said?
A: (by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly) Right.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she reviewed no documents prior to the deposition that might refresh her memory and when Mr. Yule asked if she knew he was going to ask her about these things, Mr. Abelove objected and told Mr. Yule to stop badgering his client. Mr. Yule said he was not badgering and the questioning continued.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly began reading her previous testimony and Mr. Yule objected...
A: Don't remember.
Q: More than two?
A: Don't remember.
Q: Less than five?
A: Don't remember.
Q: More than ten?
A: Maybe.
Q: At any of these conversations that day, did you tell Bob DeGregorio that you felt in fear of your life?
A: On March 1st, I believe I told him that Bill had scared me.
She said he scared her because he was in her face and he was "wild-eyed, according to her. She then said she did not feel threatened, but scared he might do something to her, but she couldn't say what she thought he might do. The only other person she told that she was scared was her husband, according to her, but when asked what his reaction was, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly invoked marital privilege and Mr. Yule objected for the record.
Then when asked to describe how Mr. DeGregorio described Mr. Perks' demeanor to her, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said, "He described Bill as the way I had described him the night before; that he was pacing back and forth, his arm was flying, he was hyper, he was yelling."
Q: So Mr. DeGregorio told you that he was wild, he was pacing and he was hyper?
A: In so many words, , I don't know if he used the word exactly, "wild" to me or if he said "pacing".
When he was talking he strode back and forth. In sum and substance, he described to me what I had seen the night before in Mr. Perks' behavior.
The resignation and his behavior was all she could recall about Mr. DeGregorio's conversation on March 1st. When pressed if it was true that Mr. Perks wanted to resign and go back to the Harbors and Waterways she replied:
A: If I can refresh my recollection.
Q: You stated before that you recall DeGregorio saying that to you.
A: I take that back then. I'm not quite sure. I need to refresh my recollection.
Q: So what you said before was inaccurate?
A: I don't know. I need to refresh my recollection.
Another verbal scrum broke out between the attorneys over the witnesses memory about whether Mr. DeGregorio told her Mr. Perks wanted to resign or not. Mr. Yule pointed out that she wanted to retract her statement after making it, but Mr. Abelove said her memory was just confused about the date, not the information.
The examination continued...
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified she was speaking to Mr. DeGregorio as both a friend and an attorney, in contemplation of litigation at that point. His advice from his position as Town Attorney was for her to contact the District Attorney's office and she decided to follow his advice according to her and she called the DA that day sometime after lunch.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly (a Republican) had also spoken to William Naughton, (a Democrat) about the case she said because he had Greg Butler, one of his employees call her the morning of March 2nd and he told her Mr. Naughton needed to meet with her outside of Huntington and it was very serious. They met at lunchtime in a Smithtown restaurant and that is when he told her he had walked in on a meeting where the Supervisor, (Petrone), George Hoffman, Scott Firestone and Steve Israel were talking about how they were going to destroy her political career. He warned that her phones might be tapped and she should be careful what she said at the office, in their hour long meeting.
Mr. Naughton she said had his own problems with the Town Board, he believed they were trying to get his job and he told her she was the only one who kept her word to him. She said she told them there was an incident with Mr. Perks, but didn't go into it and she said he never asked her for details.
She told him Bob DeGregorio told her to call the DA, but even after that he never asked her for more detail of the incident.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified Mr. Naughton wanted to meet outside the Town of Huntington, because she was so well known and so was he and "he had been told numerous times" by Marlene Budd and Steve Israel "that he is not allowed to talk to me in public in my presence."
After the lunch she called the DA from her office and specifically asked for Mark Cohen, someone she knew and trusted, according to her statement. They had a three minute conversation and she asked if she could meet with him. They made an appointment, but she did not tell him she was scared. She refused to say whether she had told Mr. Cohen that Mr. Perks had threatened her and when Mr. Yule asked her again she said, "I'm not answering that."
Q: You stated in about a half dozen affidavits that Mr. Perks threatened your life. Did you ever tell the DA's office on March 2nd that you felt threatened by Mr. Perks?
A: Mr. Yule, you think you know what the facts are in this case. You've got them all screwed up and I can't answer your questions the way you're posing them, in the order in which you're asking them.
Q: Sorry, you don't like the way I'm posing my questions.
A: Sorry, you don't like my answers then sir.
Q: This is going to be a problem.
A: It will be.
Several more attempts to get her to answer the question were unsuccessful and eventually Mr. Yule asked for the record to be marked at that point and he said he intended to seek rulings from the judge after the deposition ended "or we will read it to the jury, whichever comes first."
Between March 2nd and March 8, when she finally went to the Suffolk DA's and spoke to Chris Williams and Maureen McCormick, there was a series of conversations with Mr. Cohen about setting up a meeting, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified they had appointments and cancelled them until she finally went to the office on Monday the 8th with Mr. DeGregorio for an appointment with Mr. Cohen, but he was in Riverhead, and so she spoke with Mr. Williams and Ms. McCormick instead.
Mr. Degregorio was not there as her counsel on behalf of the Town of Huntington, she said, "He was there to report, I believe to the District Attorney's office, he felt threatened , that his life had been threatened."
The first thing she said to Ms. McCormick, according to her was "That I had been threatened."
Q: Anything else?
A: That's why I was there, that I was being blackmailed and my life was being threatened. At least that is the way I interpreted as to what Mr. DeGregorio said.
Q: I don't want to know what Bob DeGregorio said. You used three terms: Threatened, blackmailed and life being threatened. You said those words to Maureen McCormick?
A: Yes.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said Ms. McCormick thought it was a pretty serious matter. Then she said that she told her about the Sunday night incident and that over the next three days Mr. DeGregorio became concerned about her well being and that is why she called Mark Cohen.
Editor's note: She had already testified just prior that Mr. Degregorio told her the very next day after the incident to call the DA and she did. She also testified several times that she had never been threatened. (See above bolded transcript).
When pressed she admitted Mr. Perks had never threatened her to her face and she was only going by what Mr. DeGregorio had told her. Asked if he had ever threatened her on the phone she then testified for the record:
A: It was filing of the police incident report.
Q: Do you know when he found out you went to the police?
A: To the best of my recollection is probably, that Wednesday.
This conversation with Mr. Perks took place on March 3rd on the phone, according to her. She said she had spoken to him one other time at his home, between February 28, 1999 and March 3rd when she went there alone at night to try to talk to him, according to her. She said she went there because
she had never seen Mr. DeGregorio so upset. Asked why she couldn't believe he was so upset, she said, "I guess I just didn't want to believe what he was telling me...no one wants to believe that they are going to be killed."
At that point a break was taken as Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was crying and needed to compose herself. After a short recess, it was decided to end for the day at about 3:10.
Editor's questions: If Mr. Perks only found out on Wednesday, March 3rd that she had gone to the Police, why would he have threatened her from Monday to Wednesday as she said he did through Mr. DeGregorio?
Her first attempt to make the appointment with Mr. Cohen at the Suffolk DA's office was Monday afternoon, the day after the incident...according to her testimony. At that point she said she did not feel threatened and remember she testified she had asked Officer Molinari to be sure he didn't charge Mr. Perks with assault, the night before-and she testified she definitely did not want him arrested. Officer Molinari testified she was insisting Mr. Perks be arrested and she became belligerent when he couldn't arrest him right away.
If Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was telling the truth and Officer Molinari was not, then why did she contact the DA on Monday...to tell them what? To ask them to do what?
Intermission on the Susan Scarpati-Reilly depositions for the District Court case...This was the first three days. Next...the last three days...
If you missed any of the story and want to follow it from the beginning here are the links to the previous Acts...
Frank Petrone's Taxpayer Funded Political Theater Act 1 Frank Petrone's Taxpayer Funded Political Theater Act 2
Frank Petrone's Taxpayer Funded Political Theater Act 3
Frank Petrone's Taxpayer Funded Political Theater Act 4 Scene 1
Frank Petrone's Taxpayer Funded Political Thaeter Act 4 Scenes 2 and 3
Frank Petrone's Taxpayer Funded Political Theater Act 4 Scene 4 Formal Request for Investigation of the Burning of Radiated Waste
ACT ONE: THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND THE TOWN COUNCILWOMAN
Saw a Town employee blowing the whistle about the Town of Huntington burning radiated garbage at the Ogden Martin (now Covanta) Waste-to-Energy Incinerator at 99 Town Line Road and burying the ash in the Town's several landfills. Other State Labor Laws regarding employee safety and Right-to-Know Laws were being violated with former FEMA Director, Frank Petrone at the helm as Huntington Town Supervisor.
The employee (William Perks) admitted having an affair with then Town Councilwoman (Susan Scapati-Reilly) though she still denies the affair.
Feb 28, 1999 The "Incident at The Mobil Oil Station" took place...a true He said-She said with no other witnesses to the "event". The Town Councilwoman tried unsuccessfully that evening to have Mr. Perks arrested for assault, but that never happened. In fact though the police took a harassment complaint, they never even spoke to Mr. Perks as it was determined there was no assault and the case was not pursued. Then Ms. Scarpati-Reilly went to the Town Attorney and the District Attorney hoping to have Mr. Perks charged, but to no avail. Nevertheless, in March of 1999, Mr. Petrone, seconded by Steve Israel, presented Resolution No. 1999-184 and hired a Park Avenue $250 dollar an hour attorney as a "Fact-Finder" to determine the facts and events of the night of February 28, because as "based on media reports there was an assault" of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly by Mr. Perks, the resolution stated. There were no media reports of an assault at the time, however.
ACT TWO: THE REPORTS
THE FACT-FINDER'S AND BOARD OF ETHICS AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORTS
So ninety days later the Fact-Finder (Gerald Labush) finished his job (despite the Resolution saying it should be completed in thirty days) and presented his report to the Town Board and it concluded just what the police and district attorney found, that there was not enough evidence to charge Mr. Perks with any wrongdoing, however there was evidence both direct and indirect to determine Ms. Scapati-Reilly was less than credible and was admittedly lying on more than one occasion when it suited her. This may have been what happened that night of February 28th, 1999 and when she was allegedly looking for a Town truck that she said she was concerned had been stolen. The Fact-Finder saw through that excuse and said it was obvious Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was looking for Mr. Perks' whereabouts...not those of the truck as she declined to report it missing to the police when advised to do so by Josephine Jahier, the Deputy Commissioner of Waste Management.
The Huntington Town Board then voted for Resolution No. 1999-380 submitting the Fact-Finder's Report to the Huntington Board of Ethics and Financial Disclosure. (Ms. Scarpati-Reilly abstained from both Resolution votes)
The Board of Ethics found Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's behavior was so problematic, they recommended their report and that of the Fact-Finder be sent to the District Attorney and the State's Attorneys General.
Mr. Perks was never even contacted by the Ethics Board, but he cooperated entirely with the Fact-Finder with the assistance of his attorney Edward Yule of Northport. Those attorney's fees should have been covered by the Town, according to the union contract and had the Town paid them at that time they would have only been about $70,000 dollars (about what they paid the Fact-Finder). The Town refused to pay and Mr. Perks was forced to file a grievance in 2000. The fees are now over 4 million and accruing interest as the Town fights their payment in Appellate Court.
For her part Ms. Scarpati-Reilly called the Fact Finder's report "A cheap, five-and-dime trashy novel.", according to an article in The New York Times (Civic Affairs, Indeed: Huntington Tunes in to Report on Scandal by Stuart Ain, published October 3, 1999.) She said Mr. Labush declined to pursue evidence that would have exonerated her and that he got facts wrong. Mr. Perks told the reporter that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly came on to him and they first had sex in the office, then after a while on a daily basis for over a year and according to the Times article, "I'd be in her office for five hours. There were secretaries outside knocking on the door and she would go crazy that they dared to knock on the door. And I was sitting there and it was a command performance. "I want more", was her phrase...She wanted me for one thing and one thing only, her sexual gratification." Mr. Yule offered testimony of a neighbor who twice allegedly found the two involved in a physical tryst on one of Mr. Perks' boats, something Ms. Scarpati-Reilly also "vehemently denied".
According to the Ains' article, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly believed the rest of the Board "was gloating over the scandal" including Frank Petrone, then a Republican and Steve Israel, a Democrat. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly would not toe the party line according to her and stayed independent, that is why they wanted her out, but she refused to resign as they wanted even though according to her, she was being sold out by the Board.
ACT THREE THE LAWFIRMS...THE LAWYERS...
The Players: (Time period; 1999 to the Present)
Frank Petrone: Huntington Town Board Supervisor, Democrat. In 2001 he was a Republican...(Joined the GOP in 1976)
William Townsend Perks: Then Harbormaster for the Town of Huntington, now retired. Worked under Susan Scarpati-Reilly on the Mobil Oil Spill Response Unit.
Susan Scarpati-Reilly: Then a Town Councilwoman for Huntington Town. An attorney, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was Town Board liaison for the Town’s Mobil Oil Spill Response Unit in 1999.
Steve Israel: Currently a Congressman, Mr. Israel was a Town Councilman for Huntington Town at the time. Dated, married and divorced Marlene Budd.
Marlene Budd: Now a Suffolk County Family Court Judge (term 2006-2016) former Huntington Town Councilwoman, former wife of Steve Israel.
Joseph Anastasia: Director of Maritime Services; Mr. Perks' Supervisor, signed the payroll along with co-signer Phil Nolan, who was Director of Environmental Control and the Landfill and the Ogden Martin (Covanta) Town Incinerator.
Phil Nolan: Director of the Town of Huntington Environmental Waste Management, in charge of the incinerator and the landfill.
Josephine Jahier: Deputy Director of the Town of Huntington Environmental Waste Management, working directly under Mr. Nolan
Lawyers and Law Firms:
Attorneys were paid for by The Town of Huntington for various lawsuits, defenses and appeals for the Town of Huntington, Susan Scarpati-Reilly and those she accused of various things and had filed a myriad of lawsuits against. These included but were not limited to: Thelma Neira, and Marlene Budd and The Town of Huntington Board of Ethics and Financial Disclosure, the Chairman Howard Glickstein and all the board members collectively and individually and several Town Attorneys.
Thelma Neira: Assistant Town Attorney for Huntington
James (Jim) Matthews: Town Attorney for Huntington
Robert DiGregorio: Assistant Town Attorney for Huntington
Clifford Bart: Attorney for the Town in the Arbitration case
Maureen Hoerger: from Perini & Hoerger, For Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Ernest Stolzer: with Rains and Pogrebin, then with Bond, Schoeneck and King, LLP for the Town
James P. Clark: with Rains and Pogrebin, then with Bond, Schoeneck and King, LLP, Cullen and Dykman and James P. Clark Law Offices, for the Town
Jason Abelove: attorney for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Gerald LaBush and Robert Vespoli: For the Independent Fact-Finder
Edward Yule: Northport resident, the only attorney the Town refused to pay for. Attorney for Mr. Perks for the entire fourteen years, has yet to be paid by the Town despite two court rulings that support Mr. Perks', union contractual right to counsel, when accused of an assault.
THE LAWYERS SETTLE IN FOR THE LONG RIDE
January 14, 2000 The report of the Town Board of Ethics and Financial Disclosure based on Res. No. 1999-380 was released and by May of 2000, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had filed an Article 78 against the Board of Ethics and the members both as members and individually.
The list of lawsuits and attorneys is difficult to follow as they overlap in time and some of the attorneys move from law firm to law firm, yet remain on the case throughout the fourteen years and into the present. This is a quick overview of the lawsuits by year and the attorneys who worked on the cases.
2000
SUPREME COURT of the State of New York/Suffolk County
Susan Scarpati-Reilly vs Town of Huntington Board of Ethics and Financial Disclosure, Howard A. Glickstein as Chairman, Beth Graham, Stanley M. Heller, Karen Joy Miller and Laurie C. Nolan as Members, Town of Huntington's Town Attorney's Office, Lawrence W. Cregan as Ex-Oficio Member
of the Board and Special Assistant Town Attorney and James Matthews as Town Attorney.
Susan Scarpati-Reilly as a pro-se petitioner, was her own attorney in the matter. The Town Board members however, had to be represented. (See Act One for detail on this lawsuit)
In The Matter of Step II Grievance
William T. Perks vs Town of Huntington
On December 7, 1999 Mr. Perks filed three grievances, violation of Article 19, Section C and Article 19, Section D. For the record Article 19 Section C states: "The employer shall provide legal counsel to defend any employee as a result of an assault while acting on behalf of the employer within the scope of their employment." Mr. Perks alleged sometime in February of 1999, Mr. Perks was at the Mobil Oil Dock and was assaulted by Councilwoman Scarpati-Reilly. Certain legal action took place after that, various lawsuits and as a result of that Mr. Perks claims the Town must pay the legal fees for Edward Yule, his attorney. Mr. Perks also went to doctors for certain stress ailments and he saw various psychologists, as a result of going through this turmoil he had to take extensive sick leave and eventually used his vacation time. Mr. Perks was asking the Town to pay his attorney, Mr. Yule and also to not deduct any sick or vacation time Mr. Perks had to use as a result of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's assault. The Town was paying Jason Abelove for Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, but wouldn't pay for Mr. Perks' counsel. Mr. Perks did not see a therapist until May or June, but was taking sick time and time to cooperate with the Fact-Finder in the meantime, he said.
Non-discrimination, Article 22:
The grievance with the Town of Huntington is that they discriminated against Mr. Perks when they provided legal counsel to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and to other Town employees falsely accused by her, but then refused to pay for Mr. Perks' attorney, Edward Yule. Mr. Nolan tried to insist no assault against Mr. Perks was documented, Mr. Perks pointed directly to the resolution that said Ms. Scarpati-Reilly accused him of assault, when the complaint was for harassment, not assault. Cooperating with the Fact-Finder, Mr. Perks showed he was the victim of assault by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and although she admitted to lying on several occasions including to the press, Mr. Perks' information has remained consistent with the facts and he has never changed his story.
The legal appearances for this hearing:
Gerald M. Labush, Esq., Fact Finder, 475 Park Avenue South, New York, New York 10016
Robert Vespoli, Esq., Assistant to the Fact Finder, 475 Park Avenue South, New York 10016
Perini & Hoerger., Maureen Hoerger; 1770 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge, appearing on behalf of Susan Scarpati-Reilly. Also present: Kenneth M. Kelly
2001
United States District Court (USDC)
Judge Joanna Seybert
William Perks vs The Town of Huntington and Susan Scarpati-Reilly as Councilwoman and
Individually
March 12, 2001
Susan Scarpati-Reilly Deposition
March 19, 2001
Joe Anastasia Deposition
April 5, 2001
Susan Scarpati-Reilly...continued deposition
April 12, 2001
Marlene Budd Deposition
Kathleen Rumplelein Deposition
April 16, 2001
Gerald Labush (Fact Finder) and Maureen Hoerger for Susan Scarpati-Reilly Re: Res. No. 1999-184
Kenneth Kelly present
April 19, 2001
Susan Scarpati-Reilly...continued deposition
April 19, 2001
Town Councilman Mark Cuthbertson's Deposition
April 23, 2001
Susan Scarpati-Reilly continued deposition
April 25, 2001
Frank Petrone Deposition
May 7, 2001 Susan Scarpati-Reilly continued deposition.
May 11, 2001
Town Clerk, Joan Raia Deposition
Legal:
Ernest Stolz and James Clark with Rains and Pogrebin: for Town of Huntington (TOH)
Jason Abelove: for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Edward Yule: for William Perks
Supreme Court Suffolk County
Judge James Catterson
Susan Scarpati Reilly vs William Perks (Lawsuit for Defamation)
July 18, 2001 through September 6, 2001 Dropped when Susan Scarpati-Reilly failed to appear for a scheduled court case without any explanation and failed to submit to court ordered scheduled DNA testing. Here Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was using a Town appointed attorney for her own personal case aginst Mr. Perks. No Resolution allowing Mr. Abelove to represent her in this private action has been found, raising the question as to who paid for this., the taxpayers or Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. This question needs to be answered.
Legal:
Jason Abelove: for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Ahmuty, Demers & Mcmanus: Christopher Kendric as Mr. Perks' attorney
ARBITRATION LAWSUIT
State of New York Public Employment Relations Board (PERB)
Local 342 and William Perks vs The Town of Huntington
Arbitrator: David Gregory
Legal:
Bart & Schwartz LLP, by Clifford S. Bart for Town of Huntington
Edward Yule: for Mr. Perks
Jason Abelove: for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
2003
USDC Perks vs Town of Huntington and Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Judge Joanna Seybert
Legal:
Edward Yule: for William Perks
Ernest R. Stolzer (Rains and Pogrebin): for the Town of Huntington
Jason Abelove: for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
2005
USDC Perks vs Town of Huntington and Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Judge Joanna Seybert
Transcripts of Trial produced on Daily Basis
October 24, 2005
October 26, 2005
November 2, 2005
November 3, 2005
November 7, 2005
November 8, 2005
November 9, 2005
November 10, 2005
Legal:
Edward Yule: for William Perks
Eric Stolzer and James P. Clark: (now from Bond, Schoeneck & King LLP in New York City for the Town of Huntington
Jason Abelove and Raymond Baierlein: for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
2006
USDC Perks vs Town of Huntington and Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Judge Joanna Seybert
Transcripts
February 23, 2006
May 18, 2006 Memorandum and Order
Legal:
Edward Yule: for William Perks
Eric Stolzer and James P. Clark: (now from Bond, Schoeneck & King) for the Town of Huntington
Jason Abelove and Raymond Baierlein: for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
2007
United States Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Affirms Judge Seybert's Opinion
May 10, 2007
Legal:
Edward Yule: for William Perks
Eric Stolzer and James P. Clark: (from Bond, Schoeneck & King) for the Town of Huntington
Jason Abelove and Raymond Baierlein: for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
2008
USDC Perks vs Town of Huntington and Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Judge Joanna Seybert
March 31, 2008
Memorandum and Order
Re: Daily Transcript Costs
Legal:
Bond, Schoeneck & King: Eric Stolzer for Town of Huntington
Cullen and Dykman: James P. Clark for Town of Huntington
Edward Yule: for William Perks
PERB Arbitration Case
September 11, 2008
Legal:
Bond, Schoeneck & King: Eric Stolzer and Amy Culver for Town of Huntington
Cullen and Dykman: James P. Clark for Town of Huntington
Edward Yule: for William Perks
November 5, 2008
Letter from Stolzer to Yule, cc Thelma Neira
Bond, Schoeneck & King: Eric Stolzer
2009
Arbitration Case No A200-280
February 16, 2009
Decision by David Gregory
That Perks' grievance was timely and arbitrable and the Town breached Article 19, Section C of the collective bargaining agreement. Ordered that the arbitration be commenced forthwith to determine the monetary liability of the Town with regard to Article 19 Section C legal counsel fees and any other unresolved matters of the PERB case. The Town had asked to bifurcate (or separate) the issue of legal fees back then and so this decision would restart the arbitration temporarily paused while the legal fee issue was handled.
For the Town:
Clifford Bart from Dec 14, 2000 to May 8, 2001
then Mr. Ernest Stolzer (Bond, Schoeneck & King) May 19 to the present with
Amy Culver
Mr. James Clark with Bond, Scheoenck & King, for the May 19th hearing, then he went to work with Cullen and Dykman
For Mr. Perks:
Mr. Edward Yule
Court of Appeals
May 27, 2009
USDC Perks vs Town of Huntington and Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Appeal of the decision of March 31, 2008 Memorandum and Order Re: Daily Transcript Costs
Judge Joanna Seybert
Mr. Perks lost his appeal.
2010
Supreme Court Suffolk County
March 30, 2010
Petition to Confirm Arbitrator's Award and
Notice of Cross Motion to vacate the award of the arbitrator David Gregory in the matter of:
Local 342, Long Island Public Service Employees, United Marine Division, International Longshoreman's Association AFL-CIO (Grievant William T. Perks) vs The Town of Huntington
2012
Acting Justice Supreme Court
Honorable Judge Joseph Farneti
May 9, 2012
Decision upholding the award of fees to Edward Yule, attorney for Mr. Perks, based on
the decision by Arbitrator, David Gregory.
Legal:
For the Town:
Mr. Ernest Stolzer (Bond, Schoeneck & King) May 19 to the present with
Amy Culver
Mr. James Clark with Bond, Scheoenck & King, for the May 19th hearing,
then he went to work with Cullen and Dykman
For Mr. Perks:
Mr. Edward Yule
2013
Supreme Court of The State of New York
Appellate Division 2nd Department
March 14, 2013
Appeal of Judge Farneti's Order by The Town of Huntington
Statement pursuant to CPLR 5531
Eric Stolzer (Bond, Schoeneck & King)
of counsel James P. Clark and Hilary L. Moreira
for Town of Huntington
Edward Yule: for William Perks
"Sometimes he is a vice president, sometimes he is a senior field examiner. I don't know. They keep changing his title, same job, different titles. For lack of a better term she called him an auditor for Sovereign Bank since 1990-1991. He worked in the Security Department for them according to her and prior to that he was a New York State trooper.
Due to a car accident, Mr. Reilly only had 19 years in when he retired with a 3/4 disability pension due to a neck injury that involved bulging and herniated discs. Attorney, Chris Olson represented him in that matter and the case was settled. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she represented her husband in 1984 in a Workman's Compensation hearing, but she could not recall what the injury was or if he got an award in that case.
In 1988 Ms. Scarpati-Reilly again represented her husband, Steven, this time in a custody case involving his 12 year old daughter. She wanted to come live with them because she was having trouble with her mother, according to her testimony. Originally, the mother agreed, but then changed her mind and that is why Ms. Scarpati-Reilly filed the petition on her husband's behalf. Mary Elizabeth stayed with the father and step-mom Susan and was still living there at the time of the deposition. There was no law guardian appointed at that time because there was no need according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, there was a stipulation and Mary Elizabeth lived with Mr. Reilly and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly since that time.
The questions shifted to whether or not her husband had ever been arrested...not to her knowledge she answered. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she represented the beneficiaries of her father's will as the executrix of the estate and also she was the attorney for her stepson when he was arrested after being involved in a stolen car accident, according to her testimony.
After marriage the moves from the Fresh Pond childhood home of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to Hauppauge (4 months) to Islip ('82-'87) and back to the Fresh Pond home after obtaining a mortgage were discussed ad-infinitum to no specific end.
From 1987 to that present time (2001) Ms. Scarpati-Reilly described her marital relationship as "good".
In her law practice she had made amendments to applications for orders of protection for her clients and it had been determined earlier that the process for amending is the same as to apply for an original order of protection. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she helped and advised Mr. Perks regarding obtaining an order of protection against his wife because they were having a contentious divorce and she may have made corrections on some of his documents, but she never formally represented him.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly met Mr. Perks in 1988 when he ran day trips on the "Little Jennie" sailboat to raise money for her restoration. Attending a Republican Club outing on the boat she toured Huntington Harbor while food was served, then Ms. Scarpati-Reilly met Mr. Perks again in '89 or '90 at another GOP meeting. First elected to the Town Board in 1993, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she had known then Town Attorney Robert DeGregorio since they were twelve and they both went to Northport High School together. Though they both attended College in Europe, she went to the University of Uppsala, Sweden and he went to school in Switzerland.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly graduated from the University of California at Berkely and graduated in 1974. She got her law degree from the New England School of Law, graduated in 1980 and got her license in 1981. Mr. DeGregorio started out as a legal aid attorney and a law guardian. Then a stint in the Babylon Town Attorney's office and then he "flip-flopped back and forth" between those two jobs, according to her testimony.
PERKS DISCIPLINARY ISSUES.....?
In 1993, right before she and Kim Townsend (Mr. Perks' cousin) left the County Attorney's office. Mr. Townsend "was lobbying Arlene Lindsay, on behalf of Bill" according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. The Town was allegedly "prosecuting him" but she didn't know the specifics at the time. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified Kim and Arlene, then the Deputy County Attorney "were involved" and Mr. Perks was accused of using Town equipment to restore the "Little Jennie". Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she believed he was demoted and lost time from work as a result.
According to Mr. Perks Arlene Lindsay was not able to help him.
There were no complaints about Mr. Perks' performance from Mr. DeGregorio and when Ms. Scarpati-Reilly took office in 1993 she was given a copy of "New York State Town Law", according to her.
In 1994 she was unofficially appointed as liaison to Human Services, the Department of General Services and the Town Attorney's Office.
Q: (by Mr. Yule) Who assigned you to those areas?
A: (by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly) It was basically decided amongst us who had an interest in various areas and we kind of assumed unofficial oversight if complaints came in or something happened in the department, we looked into whatever it was.
This did not involve disciplinary problems Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified, but she felt that it was not outside her purview to speak to a foreman or a laborer in the field if something "was going on."
She made no specific reference to what that might involve, but stated she never personally brought anyone up on charges.
POLITICS DETERMINES APPOINTMENTS...
HOW SHOCKING!
Prior to working for the Town as an elected official and after she left the employ of Ms. Kramer, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly worked for the Town of Huntington as a member of the Board of Assessment Review. There the Board heard tax grievances and they were paid per Diem per session, according to her. She was referred for that position by Robert Lifson (then a judge) who used to work as a Republican Town leader and then was appointed for that job by the Town Board. At first hemming and hawing, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly eventually admitted that a recommendation from a leader from either side of the political fence would hold some weight as to who was selected to fill a particular position. That is because
"Town government is an animal of the political system...The policy makers, legislators of the Town are elected through the political process." she testified.
Q: Right and so the national extension would be that those persons who are helpful to officials that get re-elected would then go back to the same officials to help them get jobs appointed?
Mr. Abelove objected...but Ms. Scarpati-Reilly eventually answered that in some cases it does happen and "Whether it's here, IBM, the telephone company, I think anybody that you meet, you know, wants to somehow benefit depending upon what the positions are.".
Mr. Yule then asked what judges had appointed her as a law guardian and provided her the Suffolk County Bar Association 2001 Book to help her recall. Judge Prudenti and Henry came to mind then,
A: Emerson, Floyd, Dunn, Leis, Molia, Costello, Berler best I can recall at this point from the Supreme Court. Family Court has been Berler, Freundlich, Dounias, Lehman, McElligott, McNulty, Pach, Simeone, Trainor, Zuckerman, Kent, Dounias, I think I said Dounias. Prudenti and Weber.
Her most recent appointment had been from Judge Bivona, the husband of Huntington's Town Tax Receiver, Esther Bivona.
Roger Bura originally nominated Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to run for Town Board in 1994 and Rick Hans, a former Town Board member seconded it. It was not until 1998 that the liaison positions became official, according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and that happened when Frank Petrone asked the members what they were interested in and then he sent a memo assigning Town Board members to be liaison to specific departments. Mrs. Hurley was involved in Parks, Don Musgnug was involved with the Youth Bureau and Steve Israel took over Waterways and Harbors to her best recollection.
Asked about an alleged dispute between her husband and Donald Musgnug at a pancake breakfast at the American Legion Hall, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly evoked marital privilege, but when asked what she had read about the incident she said she couldn't recall anything except a conversation with John Powell (former GOP Leader who went to prison for running an illegal truck chop shop died in 2012 at 51 years old) who told her, "Way to go Irish." He told her anytime your name gets in the paper it is a good thing regardless of what is being said. Asked if she agreed that was true, she answered, "To a degree...it just gets your name out there."
The altercation between her husband and Town Board member Musgnug was provoked by Mr. Musgnug, according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and Mr. Israel got involved in the middle of it "and took Don away". The reason for the dispute was connected to the fact that Mr. Reilly had been banned from
the Legion Hall because he misrepresented himself as having been in Vietnam when he was in the military, but it had been found out to be not true and he was admonished. The fact that he was trying to get involved with the Veterans supposedly upset Mr. Musgnug, according to the deposition.
Planes, Train Stations and Automobiles...
The next few questions all revolved around a 12 hour business trip Mr. Reilly took to Florida in August of 1998. When asked for detail Ms. Scarpati-Reilly invoked privilege for what was told to her about the trip by her husband. The children went to a day camp back then and both parents took turns driving them to and from on a daily basis. Her husband travelled at least twice a month for one to several days on each trip and flew to Syracuse and often went through Delta's Cincinnati hub to Atlanta, according to the deposition.
In 1996 Ms. Scarpati-Reilly owned a greenish-grayish Mercedes Benz, then a red Thunderbird and she was currently driving a blue Impala. Her husband had purchased a Taurus according to her and several questions about an EZ Pass account for her husband were answered, but Ms. Scarpati-Reilly didn't know if the account were in her husband's name or from the bank he worked for.
Mr. Perks did some work on her '97 campaign, like putting up signs in the local bagel shops, supermarkets and railroad stations, but she said he promised her the endorsement of Dave Ambro, the Editor of The Observer, a local weekly paper in Huntington, something that never happened.
Mr. Ambro had once told her she didn't deserve to be on the Town Board and she felt he was critical because he was a Democrat and she was a Republican. Mr. Ambro was also the Editor of the Huntington and the Smithtown News and had endorsed Republicans in the past. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly never gave Mr. Ambro any confidential documents, according to her testimony.
Over the course of a year Ms. Scarpati-Reilly would attend approximately 25-30 fundraisers in 1997-98 according to her, and she would often see Mr. Perks there and sometimes sat next to him. Between fundraisers, meetings, ceremonies and workshops, she spent four to five nights a week attending these various meetings. Once or twice she sent complimentary tickets to Mr. Perks to attend a fundraiser for her in 1997 or 1998 and several Town employees would also work on her political campaign. Bob Butts, Brian Tuohey, Bob DeGregorio, Jim Handy, Bobby Rosen, Kathy Rumpelein, Peter Matowski, Bonnie Vires, Tony Rettaliata, Phil Teep, Brenda Rosenberg, Rober Bura, Ira Kurtzberg, Jerry Acker, Gil Packard were some of those she mentioned.
Kathy Rumpelein, the Director of Human Services helped her with some mailings, she said but Ms. Scarpati-Reilly insisted it was never on "Town time". On page 117 of the deposition she said her confidential legislative secretary, Joyce Conklin also worked on her campaign...
Q: Joyce Conklin, did she ever work on your campaign?
A: Yes.
On the next page when asked "Joyce Conklin, she worked on your campaign in 1997?"
she said, "I saw her at headquarters, but I didn't know what she was doing there."
Q: You don't know if she worked on your campaign or not?
A: No
Ms. Conklin also worked for Mr. Musgnug, but Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said they did not get along very well. At one point Ms. Conklin, who was a Republican Committee person was working for Steve Israel, a Democrat. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she felt betrayed when she saw records from the Board of Elections showing Ms. Conklin had donated to Mr. Israel, who she believed had financed a campaign against her and Mr. Musgnug. She complained to Dan Martin, the Republican leader, who later would become a judge, about Joyce Conklin. Then, according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, Ms. Conklin unilaterally decided to move her desk to the far end of the suite and began working for Mr. Israel instead of her and Mr. Musgnug. Patty Caruso then replaced Joyce but that was done by a resolution, though Ms. Scarpati-Reilly could not recall if she sponsored it or not.
Q: Under what town authority was she able to just unilaterally move her desk to a different spot and work for a different councilperson?
MR. ABELOVE: Objection
A: I don't understand.
Q: Well, maybe it's me who doesn't understand. Joyce Conklin, you are unhappy with her performance and you and her have a falling out; would that be fair to say?
A: Yes.
Q: As a result of that falling out--I don't want to put words in your mouth--as a result of that falling out, Joyce Conklin just picked up and moved to a different desk in that same room and worked for Steve Israel?
A: No.
Q: I want to get how did the change from her working for you to her working for Steve, how was that done?
A: In an Executive Session, Town Board members talked about different things, and I had requested that I have someone else appointed and Steve said fine.
Q: Joyce then worked for Steve?
A: Yes
Before Joyce Conklin worked for Steve Israel, Karen Stanley worked for Steve and she continued to work there, they just added a position for Joyce, according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's testimony.
Then Ms. Scarpati-Reilly admitted to taping conversations, but said it was only one time...
Q: When was that?
A: It was the time that Joyce barged into my office.
Q: Let's talk about that. When did she barge into your office; do you remember that?
A: It was the latter part of '98.
Q: While she was working for Steve?
A: Yes.
Q: The latter part of '98 she barged into your office. Then what happened that caused you to start to tape?
A: (No response.)
Q: She barged into your office and then what happened?
A: I asked her to leave.
Q: Then what happened?
A: Resumed the interview.
Q: Did she leave?
A: Yes.
Apparently at that time Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was being interviewed by John Leo and Julie Berler.
She believed Julie Berler was a Republican, but said she didn't trust John Leo, a Democrat, so she taped the interview, putting the mini cassette tape recorder in plain sight, according to her.
Q: Why did you tape that session?
A: Because I didn't trust John Leo.
Q: Why didn't you trust him?
A: Because what we were talking about is something that he didn't really want to do.
Q: Which was what?
A: Do an investigation.
Q: That was at your request, right?
A: No.
Q: Who requested the investigation?
A: I believe it was Jim Matthews.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she taped the conversation with Mr. Leo because she didn't trust that what she said would be accurately reported back to the Town Board.
Q: Why did you find the need to tape the conversation with Mr. Leo?
A: When he came to investigate and to talk to me...to take a statement, I felt it was prudent to have it down on tape as well as what they were recording.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly twice denied giving a confidential report made by Mr. Leo regarding an investigation of Kim Carpenter to Editor, Dave Ambro personally at his Smithtown News office.
She also denied showing that report to Mr. Perks who she said she knew had been represented by Mr. Leo at one time.
Mr. Perks contends that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly often gave him documents to pass along to Dave Ambro and he wrote a number of stories as a result.
The questions then shifted to a series of letters the first written by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to Ms. Conklin, then a response written by Ms. Conklin to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and then Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, a letter Ms. Scarpati-Reilly wrote in response to the letter from Ms. Conklin. The letters referred to Ms. Conklin allegedly continuing to barge into Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's office when the door was closed. Referring to the second letter written by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to Ms. Conklin she wrote, "I am hard pressed to believe you lack the intelligence to know that quite obviously, by the attendants present, the matters under discussion involved sensitive personal issues requiring the highest regard for confidentiality." Mr. Yule asked if she ever told Ms. Conklin what was going on behind the closed doors.
A: Did I tell her?
Q: Yes.
A: No.
Q: (Mr. Yule reading from the letter Plaintiff's 1) You then went on to say "Perhaps my frustration with your conduct is magnified because you continually ignore my refusal to be interrupted during important phone calls and meetings and repeatedly buzz me and knock on my door even after I have acknowledged you." Is it fair to say that you had a constant problem with her barging in on you?
A: Yes, she wasn't supposed to be dealing with me, but she always wanted to know who was in my office. She kept on coming in my office all the time.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said at some point she found out that Ms. Conklin had contributed to Steve Israel and that made her very upset. She found out by going to the Board of Elections she said at first, but then backtracked and said maybe Dan Martin had requested the donation list from the Board of Elections, she couldn't be sure.
In her letter to Ms. Conklin she defined the difference between urgency and emergency as taken from the dictionary, according to her. She said she believed Ms. Conklin was opening her mail because she saw her opening the mail and because she wasn't receiving things sent to her, according to her testimony. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she never put the allegation about her opening the mail in writing, but she did testify that she believed Ms. Conklin was spreading rumors about her.
Q: Do you think she spread rumors about you?
A: I know she did.
Q: What did she spread about you?
A: Right after I was elected she said I was having a nervous breakdown. She said I couldn't handle the job. I believe people came to me and told me that she had said that my husband and I were separated. That's the best I can recall at the moment.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said the spreading of rumors about her by Ms. Conklin started in 1998 and she said Kathy Rumpelein and Bob DeGregorio told her Ms. Conklin had come to them about her. Mr. DeGregorio told Ms. Scarpati-Reilly that Ms. Conklin told him she believed Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was unstable and that she couldn't handle the job and was having a breakdown. She never sought medical treatment for emotional distress regarding panic attacks and denied ever seeing a psychiatrist, going to counseling, doctors or social workers at any time according to the deposition.
Later in the deposition Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she felt threatened by multitudes of similar actions by Ms. Conklin over the past four years. "Well, she has a tendency to talk a lot and exaggerate, be overly dramatic and she would interpret things incorrectly." she testified about Ms. Conklin.
Ms. Conklin was asked in her a deposition about what she had written in her letter to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. Mr. Yule read portions of the letter onto the record...and asked questions...
In addition to screaming at me, I felt physically threatened by you when you came at me and then violently slammed the door in my face...(asked to describe what happened)...It happened very quickly but it was the way she came, you know she just started--she pointed her finger at me and she said "I told you never to knock on my door. I said I don't remember you ever telling me not to knock on my door. I then proceeded to say I had an urgent call for John Leo , what should I do with it. And that's when she really got angry and sort of raised her hands in a fist and hit the desk, got up and came I thought at me. I really felt very threatened....my head was still there in the door. I didn't do anything. I thought that she was going to hit me for a minute, that's what I thought because it happened so quickly. Instead she took the door and slammed it. I guess I got my face out of the way though.Ms. Scarpati-Reilly wrote that she felt threatened by a myriad of things in the letter to Ms. Conklin dated December 4, 1998. First she called Ms. Conklin overly dramatic and then denied doing what Joyce Conklin said she had done writing:
Editor's Questions...Who is being overly dramatic here? Why was she surprised when Ms. Conklin moved her desk after she told her how threatened she felt by her proximity?
When you said that I "violently slammed the door" in your face in reality, once I backed you out of my office and you still didn't leave, I forcefully closed the door, but neither the force I used nor your proximity to the door were sufficient as to cause a reasonable person fear of physical threat. But I do have great sympathy for you and can appreciate your concept of feeling threatened. I felt threatened when I chose you to be the Counsel Office secretary at a substantial increase in salary, over the strenuous objections of others and offered to resign from the Town Board if I could not have a secretary I trusted. I felt threatened when you negotiated a second substantial increase in salary for you--only to find that you were questioning my mental stability throughout the offices of Town Hall. I felt threatened when I discovered that you as a Republican Committee member and a confidential appointee of the Town Board of the Republican majority were working against Councilman Musgnug and I in the last election. I felt threatened when Town employees brought to my attention that you, my confidential appointee, were spreading unfounded rumors about my personal life. I feel threatened every time a Town resident says they left a message for me with you, but got a call or letter from the Democratic majority instead, while my records don't even demonstrate the call was received. I feel threatened by a multitude of similar actions by you over the past four years, and as a result of all this, I feel threatened every day by your proximity to my office, because you have proved to be wantonly untrustworthy as an employee, confidential or otherwise.
Asked about any documents she may have reviewed prior to the deposition she replied, "I reviewed my
Website, I reviewed the town code. I reviewed, I think it was resolutions 478 and 500 of 1996." Her website was first put up around March 2000 and her son helped her to do it. The text she wrote was reviewed by Perini & Hoerger. Bob DeGregorio reviewed her affidavit and she reviewed her advertisement and the articles from The New York Times and Newsday.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she also reviewed Mr. Perks' transcript from his arbitration that she received from Clifford Bart after discussions with him and Assistant Town Attorney, Thelma Neira. She also reviewed the deposition of Mr. Perks by The Fact-Finder but not in the last six months she said.
Investigations Galore!!!
After a brief recess the attention was again brought by Mr. Yule to the issue of other investigations by the Town of Huntington. Asked about the Carpenter investigation mentioned earlier, she replied,
A: The supervisor was aware that there were some problems and I think they were trying to straighten it out, but at one point I had been approached by two people and they alleged something, so at that point in time I notified Jim Matthews and the rest of the Town Board members.
Q: That's when you had the meeting with Leo?
A: That was part of it.
Q: Did that issue involve the theft of some money?
A: I believe that is what it was.
Q: Were you also involved in the instituting an investigation of the Blake Agency?
A: Well I didn't initiate the investigation. I think the Nassau County District Attorney's Office initiated the investigation.
Q: Were you privy to that investigation? Were you involved in it on behalf of the town?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you aware of another investigation regarding David McGovern?
A: Yes.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she had heard from several people that there was a problem down at the dog warden's office at the Town shelter involving alleged sexual harassment and hostile work environment.
She also heard that from Mr. Perks subsequently, according to her. She never spoke to Nancy Bond who had made the complaint, but couldn't remember if she spoke to the Union representative Harry Hennessey.
Reports were made about the allegations of improprieties at the animal shelter and were investigated by the DA's Office, but were kept confidential, according to the deposition. Then Mr. Yule tried to ascertain if Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had given a copy of any reports to Dave Ambro, the Editor of the Huntington Observer, The Smithtown News and the Huntington News, personally. She said she never gave the reports to Mr. Ambro and never had her secretary give them to him at a diner or his office in Smithtown.
Q: Have you ever turned over reports that were not confidential to the Smithtown News or the Observer?
A: I don't know about reports.
Q: You have turned over material to them right?
A: Yes, documents.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she did believe it was important to get your name "out there" but did not believe it is important to get your name in the paper if you are a politician, because it does cost, according to her.
Plaintiff's Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 were then shown to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and number 2 was a copy of a federal lawsuit captioned Jerrold Mosca, Vincent Bolger Jr. and Nancy Bond vs the Town of Huntington. It was a complaint about a problem with Mr. McGovern in the department. (CV99-4943) Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said when shown Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 she was unaware there was a written complaint by Ms. Bond about the shelter that was under the jurisdiction of Bruce Richards the head of the Department of Public Safety at the time. She only became aware it involved sexual harassment when the lawsuit was filed and the Town Board was told there would be a 50-H Hearing regarding it.
She could not recall if the 50H Hearing ever took place and Mr. Yule requested a copy of the transcript of the hearing if it took place.
Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 was a complaint by Jerrold Mosca against David McGovern at the dog pound that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she only became aware of in 1998 when it was discussed in Executive session. As a result Mr. McGovern was forced to take a leave of absence, but she was not sure if an Article 75 was ever brought against him. She did receive written reports from Mr. Leo who was the labor counsel for the Town at the time. The only thing she learned from reading the Plaintiff's Exhibit 4, was that alcohol use on Town time was part of the allegation.
Asked if employees that went to fundraisers are allowed to drink on their lunch hour she said "It depends on what position they hold in the Town. If it's on their lunch hour it depends."
Q: Did you make any complaint against Marlene Budd to the Bar Association?
A: No.
Marlene Budd made a complaint about Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to the Grievance Committee alleging defamation and comments made "that had ruined her reputation.", according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's deposition testimony. She provided a written response, but had not heard back at that point from the Committee. Marlene Budd filed the same claim about the same day three times according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. The reason they did that according to her was that "The Grievance Committee threw it back at her and told her she had a defamation action, it wasn't a grievable offense."
Asked about Thelma Neira next, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she never filed a criminal complaint against her, but the Nassau DA had questioned her, Ms. Neira, Marlene Budd and Donald Musgnug about an alleged obstruction of governmental administration. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly knew nothing more about it, according to her and the DA had told her she could very well be the target of the investigation as well.
The Town of Huntington paid for Thelma Neira's attorney to defend her in that accusation, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said, but she said she was forced to pay for her own in that case. Asked why they would pay for Ms. Neira and not her, she said, "I believe it was a political decision." "Basically they do whatever they want." she said with regard to reimbursing for legal fees of a criminal matter and she said she received no answer when she submitted the $2,500 dollar bill from her attorney, Steven Scaring. She was not sure if the Town reimbursed Ms., Budd for her attorney's fees or Mr. Musgnug. She said she submitted a resolution to be paid and Mr. Yule asked for that resolution to be produced.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she did not know why the resolution was never put on the agenda and was never voted on by the Board.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she abstained from the vote on the resolution on whether or not to pay for Ms. Neira's attorney. She didn't know who submitted it or seconded it for Thelma to get attorney's fees paid, but she admitted she expressed resentful feelings during the closed Executive session. Mr. Musgnug had an attorney from Perini & Hoerger that was paid for by the Town.
Mr. Abelove was chosen by her and she said she did not have to submit three names to Mr. Matthews prior to the resolution accepting Mr. Abelove and agreeing to pay him. (The resolution did not mention paying Mr. Feather, another attorney hired by Mr. Abelove).
Then Mr. Yule asked Ms. Scarpati-Reilly if she made an accusation against Marlene Budd for stalking her son. She denied having done so, but said her son had seen Marlene Budd turn her car around when he got off the bus and he wrote her license number down. Ms. Budd denied being there and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she checked the license plate was hers when she went to work and saw her car.
According to the Marlene Budd deposition, Ms. Budd was very upset at the accusation made in Town Hall and when she spoke to a colleague about it, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly sent a note in saying she was just kidding. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly fails to mention here that it was all a big joke.
Harry Acker.........
Harry Acker was the Senior Harbormaster who "had good days and bad days" according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's deposition. She said she had complaints from constituents that didn't like him and called his whole division "unprofessional". She said he was coaching her son in soccer while getting paid by the Town to be on the job. She said she asked him about it and he said he took his lunch hour from four or 4:30 and she never pressed him after that.
In 1996 she said she had gotten complaints about Harry Acker from Bill Perks for a myriad of alleged violations by Mr. Acker. She believed there was merit to some of the complaints against Mr. Acker by Mr. Perks, but could not recall any complaints about Mr. Perks' job performance. when he was Harbormaster, except from Mr. Acker himself. His only complaint was that Mr. Perks was only trying to cause trouble for him and that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly should stay away from him he warned. Mr. Acker said Mr. Perks wasn't necessarily representing what was really happening in the harbormaster's office.
Mr. Perks said there was no emergency response plan, no haz-mat training and no training to handle blood-born pathogens...that was what was going on in the office at the time when Harry Acker was in charge. These were requirements of the job according to state law.
Guns were required....
The full time Bay Constables were required at some point to be certified and carry weapons and that was at the behest of Mr. Israel, Don Musgnug and Susan Scarpati-Reilly, according to her. It was after that when they got the complaints about Harry, she said. She said at some point she met Harry Acker at Oheka Castle and told him he was right that she should have stayed away from Bill Perks and apologized to him.
The Texas Barge Incident...
As a result of an investigation both Mr. Rick Rollins and Mr. Acker were disciplined when a Texas Barge went unsupervised and broke free severing seven electric cables in Long Island Sound and costing tens of millions of dollars in damage. Dialectic fluid spilled out into the Sound and Harry Acker was in charge at the time. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she could not recall what discipline was ordered at the Town Board's request.
The Town Board never had a written policy regarding the responsibilities of liaisons according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, but her duties were to ensure that the public is served well by its employees she testified. She said Pat Del Col, then the Director of Environmental Control would come to her exasperated at times with the Department of Public Safety. There was a conflict between Public Safety and the newly formed Oil Spill Response Management Team that Bill Perks headed. The Public Safety Department sent several men out to the boats who ended up getting overtime to sit and watch Mr. Perks work. There were problems getting equipment and inventory according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's testimony.
Pat Del Col, then Peter Waznys, then Phil Nolan were Mr. Perks' supervisors and she insisted she had no control over giving out overtime at anytime. She did admit to asking Mr. Perks to cover meetings for her or to attend meetings with her in '97 and '98. She said he attended "as a friend" meaning he wasn't getting paid by the Town to attend.
Mr. Yule then showed her documents marked as Plaintiff's Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 and a brief recess was taken. When they returned Mr. Yule showed her Exhibit 5 and asked her to read from a handwritten memo from her to Mr. Perks.
"Bill do you think you could cover this meeting for me since it involves the Coast Guard vis-a-vis the marina. I will get Director Nolan to compensate you for your time." She says that never actually happened as Mr. Perks never got back to her to say if he could attend. In 1997 she said she spoke to Mr. Perks about the Oil Spill Response Team hundreds of times. She also discussed things with Pat Del Col at least 50 times in 1997 and spoke to Mr. Perks on a daily basis in 1998. The discussions included: problems he was having with the Marine Division, oil spills he had responded to, reports, memos, conversations with Pat Del Col and Bob DeGregorio and any problems he felt he was having.
She said at some point she told him not to bother her with petty stuff, but never put that in writing, because according to her, "My training as a District Attorney: don't put anything in writing otherwise you will be reading it back at another litigation."
In 1997 she gave Mr. Perks her phone number, beeper number and cell phone number and said there were at least 40 or 50 other blue collar workers that had her phone number. Most of them were members of the Republican Party according to her. Mr. Perks called her every morning at 7 AM to talk about what he read in the newspaper, his kids, the latest oil spill, when he had a fight with his wife, or Acker, an inspection or any number of issues. "It ran the gamut".
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly at some point after 1998, said she had a problem with Mr. Perks not issuing enough summonses and because he issued a summons in December for an infraction that occurred in July. "I had a problem with that."
Q: What did you do about it?
A: Nothing.
Q: But you went to see him on the job on February 28, 1999, on a rainy Sunday night to talk to him about that didn't you?
A: (No Response.)
MR. ABELOVE: You are yelling at my client. We are going to try to keep this civil, if that's ok Ed.
MR. YULE: As long as everybody is telling the truth.
MR. ABELOVE: Don't badger her.
After several more questions it was determined there was no specific time for summonses to be issued in and despite thinking it was a problem she never discussed this with Pat Del Col or Peter Wazny's or Jody Anastasia. She might have mentioned it to Mr. Nolan she said sometime in January of '99, but again never put it in writing because she spoke to the Director personally.
In April of 1998, Pat Del Col left and was replaced by Josephine Jahier who used to be a reporter for Suffolk Life, according to Ms. Susan Scarpati-Reilly. Then Peter Waznys took over as Town Engineer and Director of Environmental Control and held meetings about once a week.
Shown Plaintiff's Exhibit 6, she was asked if the handwriting on the document was hers or her secretaries...she said no. The document was never identified and she did not recognize it. She did hand out a copy of criminal procedure law to the oil spill response team, according to her but did not believe there was any time limit for an oil spill response team to investigate an incident before they issue a summons. She found out when the year end report was issued, that summonses issued in December occurred in July, according to her.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly kept no diaries but had a calendar she was asked to produce. Mr. Abelove said she had already given all the documents she had available, even those from her computer.
Mr. Perks said she did have a diary that he saw that she never turned over during discovery.
Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 was shown to her, it was the Resolution adopting the Town of Huntington's Sexual Harassment Policy and Regulations. It was written by Lisa Smith, Frank Petrone's Secretary, according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. Ms. Smith regularly wrote the resolutions as part of her job, she said. Mr. Perks said it was Ms. Scarpati-Reilly who drafted the sexual harassment policy and he knew that was so, because she commented to him at one point how ironic it was that she was writing it while having an affair with him.
Although there was a policy regarding sexual harassment prior to that, according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly there were no regulations accompanying it until then. Each department handled it in their own way, according to her. There was something in writing in '94 '95 and '96 regarding the sexual harassment policy, but she could not say if it had been distributed to all the employees of the Town.
A $750,000 dollar payment to Nancy Bond was voided because she didn't make the statute of limitations, something Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she was not aware of, nor did she know who Phyllis Casterino was, another employee who made a complaint of sexual harassment.
Plaintiff's Exhibits 8, 9, 10 and 11 were marked and entered for identification. Exhibit number 8 was shown to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and she said a handwritten phrase was Bill Perks' handwriting, not hers. Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 was shown to her, it was a draft copy of John Leo's memorandum in support of the grievance hearing he represented Bill Perks in. She denied helping him with that grievance. On page 4 she said she had written something and on page 13 both Mr. Perks and her handwriting were present.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly did admit she helped Mr. Perks in reviewing a memorandum in support of grievances of William Perks that was faxed to him by John Leo for his review. She did that --not in her capacity as a councilwoman, but as a friend, she testified.
Editor's note: Further along in her testimony Ms. Scarpati-Reilly makes a very big deal of the fact that she is a councilwoman 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, she is a councilwoman when she is tucking in her kids to bed, when she is home, or even during this deposition, she is always acting in her position as a councilwoman...here she says she was not, she was just acting as a friend.
Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 was almost the same as 9 except for minor changes made by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly on pages 6 and 7. Plaintiff's 13 and 14 were marked for identification and shown to the witness. Exhibit 11 was shown to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and she identified it as 16 pages of various memos sent out to employees. Page 1 was a memo to Bruce Richard, the Director of Public Safety requesting Bruce Gentile be paid comp time for helping her with a Cablevision taping project.
Comp time is when the employee gets time off rather than actual money. It is not the same as sick time, the Town pays employees when their time pushes into the employees private time, then they are allowed to take time from their regular work day and get paid for it, they don't actually have to report to work for that period of time.
White collar workers can get comp time, but blue collar workers are usually supposed to get cash, unless there is an understanding between the employee and the director, according to the Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. "It's between the employee--if the employee signs off on whatever it is, then they can move outside of the contract and agree to do whatever they want to do between themselves and the director."
The contractual agreement with the Union would never allow for this, according to Mr. Perks. If it happened it wasn't legal, he said.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly asked the director for permission to approve overtime for Dave Timber and Bruce Gentile for help with videotaping a public forum for Cablevision, but didn't ask for permission in writing. She said she always asked in advance for permission and denied there were times when she didn't get permission first. When showed a page dated January 26, 1999 where she was asking for Mr. Gentile to be compensated for being her representative at a meeting on January 21st, she still said she did not make a misstatement when she said she always asked for permission in advance.
Shown Plaintiff's Exhibit 12, a complaint filed with the Division of Human Rights against the Town of Huntington and Dave McGovern of the animal shelter, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she had not seen the complaint but was aware of the case. It had recently been tried before Magistrate Wall in Federal Court and settled just prior to summations. Once again the Town paid for sexual harassment and still didn't distribute a written policy or required training.
Shown Plaintiff's Exhibit 13, the regulations regarding the Town's Sexual Harassment Policy adopted pursuant to Town Resolution of 1999-92, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly could not be sure if it was the correct version that was adopted since there had been so many versions. She had submitted her own policy (the one Mr. Perks said she made the comment about her writing it while having an affair with him) to John Matthews in September of 1998, but Mr. Abelove objected when she was asked why she did that.
Eventually she testified Mr. Perks was the impetus for her working on her own version of a sexual harassment policy. Both he and Bob DeGregorio told her it was a necessary project and that it would get her good press. A formal policy was not adopted until February 9, 1999 and was not distributed until March, after the February 28, 1999 incident at the Mobil Oil Response Unit.
The friendship between Mr. Perks and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly developed in 1997 and eventually they spoke on a daily basis. He expressed to her he was having marital troubles early on in the relationship as friends according to her and he spoke to both her and Mr. DeGregorio about needing to spend more time with his children as his wife was running off with her boss. Her own children would constantly complain she didn't spend enough time at home, according to her. Mr. Perks and she developed a close personal relationship and they saw each other outside of work, according to her and Mr. Perks often had lunch either with her or also with Bob DeGregorio.
Mr. Perks insists the relationship became sexual. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly has consistently denied this, but when court ordered to provide DNA to compare to DNA Mr. Perks said would prove there had been a physical relationship, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly failed to show up and give a court ordered DNA sample on several occasions and her lawsuit against Mr. Perks for defamation was dismissed as a result.
In the summer of 1996 Bill Perks called Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to say that Harry Acker was not doing his job. Mr. Perks told her there was oil in the water and cables were leaking. "Harry was disagreeing with him. And so there was a lot of discussion back and forth as to whether there was a cable leak or it wasn't a leak." she told Mr. Yule.
Q: You recall you walked the shoreline yourself and found oil?
A: Kirshbaum property, yes I did.
Q: Perks was right in that instance?
A: I believe he was right. We had gotten reports from the lifeguards that they are pulling kids out of Crab Meadow Beach and swimming lessons the harbormaster's office was reporting back there was no sheen on the water.
Ultimately it turned out that there was a pipeline leak of over 3000 gallons of number 6 residual oil called Bunker C; a black gooey substance that solidifies at room temperature. It has to be heated to 120 degrees in order to flow in the pipes...if not it hardens and the pipe can no longer function.
Questions turned to how often Mr. Perks and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly saw and spoke to each other.
Q: Beginning of 1997 January, February, March and April, how often would you talk to Mr. Perks on the phone during non-working hours.
A: I can't answer that.
Q: Approximately once a week, twice a week?
A: I would say more than that, but I can't answer that.
Q: Under ten?
A: I can't answer that.
Q: You know it's my job to try and get sort of pinning down. Was it between five and ten.
A: I can't answer.
Q: Many times?
A: I have no idea.
Q: Did you meet him outside of work to discuss work related projects?
A: Yes.
Q: May, June, July and August 1997, how often would you talk to Perks on the telephone during non-working hours?
A: I can't tell you.
Q: How often would you talk to him during working hours regarding his job?
A: I can't tell you.
Q: Was it four or five times a day?
A: During that time period, it was frequent. I can't tell you.
Q: What about after work, did you ever socialize with Perks after work in May, June, July August in '97?
A: I was in the middle of a campaign. There was times we socialized.
Q: I thought the campaigns don't start until July.
A: I thought you said August.
Q: I will narrow it a little bit. May, June, July?
A: Yes, he helped me get signatures on independent petitions.
Q: Did you ever go out sailing with him?
A: At that point, no.
Q: Did you ever go to Asharoken Beach with him?
A: Not in 1997.
Continuing to try to get a straight answer from Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, Mr. Yule pressed her to say how many weekends she saw Mr. Perks in May, June or July of 1997. Again she answered, "I can't tell you. I have no idea."
Q: August, September, October how often did you speak to Perks on the phone in 1997?
A: I can't tell you. I don't know.
Q: Frequently or infrequently?
A: Frequently.
Eventually, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she met with Mr. Perks on weekends during November and December of 1997, but had no idea how many.
Q: You did spend time with him on the weekends in November and December of 1997?
A: Yes, I think at some point I hooked up.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she discussed her personal problems with Mr. Perks, but only day to day interactions with her husband, nothing more than that. She did not believe she spent more time either talking to or being with Mr. Perks.
Finally, Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 was presented to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, it was a memo from her to Mr. Perks dated November 23, 1998.
Kindly prepare a schedule on a weekly basis that will assign personnel to be on call if there is a tanker to inspect. However, neither Mr. Acker nor Mr. Rollins is certified at this time to respond to spills. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
With that the deposition ended for the day...
On April 5, 2001 Mr. Yule continued his examination of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly.
Q: Have you ever had a sexual relationship with Mr. Perks?
A: No.
Q: Have you ever gone to a hotel or motel with Mr. Perks?
A: No.
Q: Have you ever been to the East Norwich Inn?
A: Yes.
Q: Have you ever been there with Mr. Perks?
A: No.
Q: Have you ever left Long Island with Mr. Perks?
A: No.
A quick series of questions about such places as Fire Island, Montauk, Atlantic City, Robert Moses Field 2 or Hobart Beach had Ms. Scarpati-Reilly denying ever frequenting those places with Mr. Perks.
She did admit to having coffee or a drink with him numerous times and going once to the Vanderbilt Museum and to Asharoken at Skudder Beach or Goldstar Battalion Beach.
From January to February 28, 1999, the night of the incident at the Mobil Oil Transfer Station, she testified she saw Mr. Perks about four times. She was not a heavy drinker according to her and Mr. Perks averaged three beers when they went out for a drink.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly described Mr. DeGregorio's home as pretty rundown. She denied ever telling Mr. Perks she was pregnant or going with him to a medical clinic in Smithtown. She said she had been sailing with him several times in the summer of 1998 and she was on his houseboat only twice to use the bathroom, according to her testimony. She said she never accused Mr. Perks of being homosexual and said Mr. Perks had been to her home when she was alone, to drop off papers, but couldn't recall what kind of papers they were.
They went to Manhattan together to see a boat at the Enterprise Museum that the municipality might have been interested in acquiring, she said, but that didn't happen.
Asked if she had been to Mr. Perks' home with him alone she said yes, but could not say how many times.
Q: More than twenty?
A: I can't tell you.
Q: More than 50?
A: That's really stretching it, but I can't tell you.
Q: Have you ever been behind closed doors with Mr. Perks in Town Hall?
A: Sure.
Q: Can you tell me in 1997 and '98 approximately how many times?
A: I can't even guess.
Q: You can't guess because it's too numerous or you can't remember?
MR ABELOVE:
She can't guess because it is a deposition.
They exchanged numerous gifts according to her:
She gave him: A magnifying glass, a ship wheel, a book, a pen with a little whale on it and a pewter dolphin. She brought him back a little wooden box from her trip to Sorrento and an Irish laminated prayer from her visit to Ireland.
She testified Mr. Perks gave her: A portion of a cable from Keyspan to Connecticut and a stanchion from when the Texas Barge broke up from the platform as gifts. According to Mr. Perks, these were not gifts but evidence he gave to her to show the damage and devastation that occurred when Harry Acker failed to properly inspect and oversee the transfer during the Texas Barge incident. Mr. Rollins called and couldn't work that morning and Mr. Acker should have called Mr. Perks to fill in because Mr. Acker said he wasn't feeling well. He didn't call anyone, at the time the barge was connecting...the barge broke free and severed seven electrical cables under the water costing tens of millions of dollars in damage to the ratepayers. This was not a gift.
Mr. Perks said she failed to mention other gifts she gave him including a gold bracelet, a cashmere sweater from Ireland and a crystal globe.
As for gifts he said he did give her there was some brain coral, and giant barnacles too.
He also gave her a gold pin of sailboats, a little gold shell bracelet and a matching pin, a sailboat pendant, a mirror and a life raft thing. He may have given her a book, she could not be sure.
MOHONK MOUNTAIN HOUSE
Mr. Perks alleges he and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly spent a weekend at the Mohonk Moutain House in August of 1998. Ms. Scapati-Reilly testified she was there with her husband celebrating his 51st birthday. She made the reservation with her credit card and handed the receipt to her husband on the way out while she juggled the luggage. He put it in the glove compartment, according to her and she accused Mr. Perks of stealing it out of the car, a charge he denies. She never called the police to file a formal charge of theft after she learned Mr. Perks was in possession of the receipt from reading the Fact Finder's Report. Mr. Perks claims she gave it to him after they spent the weekend together, so her husband wouldn't find it. Mr. Perks claims her husband was in Florida when they were at the Mountain hideaway and frequent flier miles proved that he was in Florida at the time. Mr. Perks said Judge Joanna Seybert suppressed that evidence claiming the subpoena to obtain it had been improperly obtained.
THE HOUSEBOAT
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly admitted to being on the houseboat twice to use the bathroom both times in the evening. She said she was never in the bedroom of the houseboat. She did park in the lot of Our Lady Queen of Martyrs in 1997 or '98 and walked from the church to Mr. Perks' home but couldn't say how many times. Asked if it were more or less than twenty, she responded, "I would say less than twenty."
She could not recall how many times she had been to his home, admitted it was several but again could not say exactly how many times. She picked him up or dropped him off there, according to her, or dropped off documents for him to give to Mr. Ambro, the Editor of The Huntington Observer.
Mr. Abelove had sent a picture of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly from the front page of The Observer along with a picture of Allison Sanchez at the top corner. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she was not aware her attorney had sent it, but admitted she had given him the picture. Mr. Yule was trying to understand why Ms. Sanchez was on their witness list. Citing attorney client privilege she refused to answer. She went on to describe the relationship between Mr. Perks and Allison Sanchez as "Very, very close." She denied she had any more than a "social relationship" with Mr. Perks, but stated that Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Perks had been seen at the Vanderbilt Museum and on numerous occasions giving her the impression they were very very close.
Ms. Sanchez told Ms. Scarpati-Reilly Mr. Perks was very kind and helpful to her, but she never told her she was having a sexual relationship with him. Mr. Perks said there was never any sexual relationship with Allison Sanchez ever.
Mr. Naughton, was also put on the witness list and Mr. Yule was trying to ascertain why he would be called to testify. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said he would say that her colleagues were conspiring against her "to bring all this stuff."
Q: "Bring all this stuff." When you say that what do you mean?
A: Well, he had informed me there was a meeting in the Supervisor's office, that they were all together, that they were talking about how they were going to bring a Fact-Finder that is going to destroy my reputation, that this was going to bring me down, that they wanted to get rid of me off the Town Board
and that I should be very careful. He warned me that my phone, to the best of his thoughts, was being tapped, that I should be concerned about--that I should be concerned about who I speak with in Town Hall, that they were going to go forward with this Fact-Finder, that they were going to set me up.
He told all of this to her on March 2, 1999 according to her. She responded that she knew that they had been trying for a long time to set her up and that they had systematically fired everyone she was close to in Town Hall, so that the only two people she trusted were Bob DeGregorio and Bill Perks.
Her close relationship with Pat Del Col was ended when Steve Israel told her "The Town wasn't big enough for her." so she should start looking for another job.
Mr. Naughton was suing the Town and had asked them to pay his attorney's fees, something she didn't know if she was going to vote to approve or not. Asked about the Mohonk receipt again, she testified that she never confronted Mr. Perks about taking the receipt from the glove compartment. She then claimed attorney client privilege when asked if she went to the Town attorney to complain.
Mr. Acker had taken a picture of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's car in front of Mr. Perks' home something she only learned about when she attended his deposition, according to her. She met Arthur Simpson one day at Mr. Perks' home when Mr. Perks was not on the clock. She had brought sandwiches and they sat on the deck with Mr. Simpson and Mr. Perks' tenant, Pam.
Then Mr. Yule shifted the questions to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's refusal to give DNA samples and she invoked attorney client privilege when asked to explain why she refused. At that point Mr. Yule pointed to the front page picture of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly along with a picture of Ms. Sanchez sent by Mr. Abelove to Mr. Yule with a letter saying he intended to call Mr. Simpson as a witness. Mr. Yule assumed that Mr. Abelove was trying to infer that the person Mr. Simpson testified he saw leaving Mr. Perks' house boat was Ms. Sanchez, not Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. Mr. Yule said if that were going to be the defense, then he would again demand DNA samples from her to compare to blood and pubic hair Mr. Perks said belonged to her that were taken directly from the boat.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly then volunteered the statement, "I would like to state for the record that I'm not making any allegation that Mr. Perks was having a sexual relationship with Allison Sanchez."
At some point in 1996, an anonymous caller told her husband she was having an affair with Mr. Perks.
Her conversation with her husband was marked as privileged and she refused to answer. Then she said there were numerous phone calls and hang ups weekly, so eventually she confided in Bob DeGregorio and Bill Perks about them. The phone calls stopped as soon as she got caller ID and told that to Mr. Perks, according to her, but she could not say he was the one making the calls. She never told Mr. Perks not to call her house and her husband was not upset about the calls, she testified.
She could not recall if Mr. Perks ever rubbed her back, "I don't think so, I don't recall." Mr. Perks had described her back as "bumpy", something she said she couldn't confirm or deny since she couldn't feel her own back.
After a brief recess, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said Mr. Perks called her every morning and they discussed various things. Patty Caruso also called her every morning, she was her legislative secretary and took over for Joyce Conklin, when she moved her desk to Steve Israel's side of the suite.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she had been told by several people that she resembled Mrs. Perks when asked if she thought she resembled Allison Sanchez.
Then Mr. Abelove and Mr. Yule started a verbal scrum about whether Mr. Yule had been making faces and gestures and yelling and banging on the table at times. Mr. Yule denied that was the case and the questioning continued.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly then testified she went to Mr. Perks' home on March 3rd after the February 28th incident at the Mobil Oil Transfer Station "Because it was a frantic situation and I was hoping to resolve the situation."
Mr. Perks asked why would someone claiming to have been assaulted by him just days earlier, claiming to be fearful for her life, come to his home all alone at night? He did not answer the door to her and refused all her phone calls after the incident.
She denied ever directing Mr. Nolan to provide her with a daily schedule of Mr. Perks' whereabouts, something he testified to under oath. She said she had only told him to "Keep an eye on him." because he was under a lot of strain and stress and wasn't very organized at the time.
Finding the truck that was never really lost.....
The topic shifted to one that was covered significantly in the Fact Finder's Report, the Town pickup truck that Mr. Perks drove. In November of 1998, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said Mr. Perks "challenged her to find the truck" when she asked him where it was. "Go look for it." he told her, she testified.
She just coincidentally had driven past Mr. Perks' home on Prospect Road in Centerport that day to make sure the roadwork done by Mr. Naughton during the prior summer was done properly. When she saw the truck was not there at about three in the afternoon, she said she called Mr. Perks. Earlier she had spoken to Jody Anastasia and asked if he knew where Mr. Perks was. Then she demanded to know where the truck was from Mr. Perks and he told her it was at an address in Lloyd Harbor to go check it out. When she arrived at the address that was about a half hour away the truck wasn't there, according to her and so she believed Mr. Perks had lied to her. Mr. Perks said it was on a 16 acre property and parked near the barn in the back, unable to be viewed from the road.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly felt compelled to check it out because he had challenged her, she testified and she did so to make sure that an item that belonged to the town was safe. The Fact-Finder found her testimony disingenuous and after a full investigation determined she only was interested in finding out where Mr. Perks was, not the truck.
Her salary was approximately $50,000/year plus health and retirement benefits and she was required to work full time, but there was no requirement for her to punch in or sign in to verify the hours worked.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she was a councilwoman 24 hours a day, so she was always working and with evening and weekends she probably put in at least 60 hours a week.
Next Mr. Yule asked if she knew Mr. Perks' new girlfriend. (Name redacted) She said "No." She had heard the name and then admitted to speaking to her the night of the incident at The Mobil Oil Transfer Station. She called his girlfriend and was looking for Mr. Perks and the woman told her he wasn't there. She asked again if she was sure and the lady again said he wasn't there. Then Ms. Scarpati-Reilly gave her beeper number to the woman and asked her to give Mr. Perks a message, "I would like to see a letter of resignation on my desk in the morning."
When asked why she asked for his resignation after she admitted she knew she had no power to discipline him she responded:
Because he had offered it to me earlier and said that if I was ever displeased with him because of the situation with not billing the Keyspan and Mobil and he was apologetic to it, he said if I ever felt that he was not up to the work , that I just had to tell him and he would be happy to submit his resignation and go back out of town hall, down to the harbors and waterways.
She said she did not call from her cellphone because it was a dead spot and so before she went to the Police Station, she went to Town Hall and got the unlisted number from a cell phone bill. She didn't recall whether it was unlisted or not.
Just prior to her showing up at the Mobil Oil Transfer Station she had been on the phone with Mr. Perks and asked him to meet her after he finished work to discuss NOV's (Notices of Violations).
She did not notice if the barge was there and sat in her car for a while in the parking lot before Mr. Perks came out of the building. She said he walked swiftly to the truck and said something she didn't understand. Then she got out of her car and he had opened the cab to his truck and was ranting according to her, "I've had it with you, I have had it with George Hoffman, I have had it with everybody."
When asked why Mr. Perks had mentioned George Hoffman to her, she guessed it had something to do with Mr. Hoffman and the Centerport sewer district tax schedule. Mr. Hoffman had changed the schedule without a necessary public hearing, a scandal she had brought to Mr. Perks' attention.
Mr. Perks said he never mentioned George Hoffman to her that evening..that her testimony is false.
At one point Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had alleged that George Hoffman was the one who made the police report instead of her, that he had gone in drag to impersonate her...later she admitted in a letter to the newspapers it was her and that she had lied to the press when she denied making the police report. She claimed then it was because she was so afraid of Mr. Perks. Two days after the incident she went to Perks' home at night by herself to try to work things out, but he refused to open the door.
Brought back to the Mobil Oil Transfer Station action--she said was dazed and that is why she got into Mr. Perks' truck and sat instead of getting back into her own car. She couldn't really say why. The door was open and it was raining, was her only reason. She said she felt afraid of him because his eyes were "Mansonized real dark pools and they were in my face." She noticed he was out of uniform at that point according to her and mentioned it to him. He responded that she should bring him up on charges and "investigate the truck while you are at it" while swinging his arms all over the place and hit her on her upper right arm, just below the shoulder, according to her testimony. Then when she said "Bill, you hit me." he said, "Listen lady, you hit me ." Then he just stared at her and then said, "You did it." "You were the one who damaged the vehicle." she testified he then left and she got in his truck.
After sitting in his car for a few moments she said she tried to approach him and talk things over when he heard her behind him, he told her "Get out of here, lady." Then she said he went off with his arms flying and the heels of his feet digging in with what she called a "certain gait."
Mr. Perks has always maintained that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly pulled up in her car and started screaming at him. He said he told her "I'm done." She got out of the car and went up to him and again he said "I'm done." She took her hand and hit him on the side of his head by his ear and temple he said. He backed off and she chased him around the car and he ran and locked himself in the office. Two employees said they witnessed her chasing him around the car and they told that to the private investigator working for the Fact-Finder.
The next series of questions focused on Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's statement that Mr. Perks didn't even have the truck with him. Eventually it was revealed that the truck was not necessary in order for Mr. Perks to do his job properly, because the equipment needed to fight an oil spill is already at the facility.
"God forbid on his way home he ran into an oil spill", was her response.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly then said she tried to call the police and dialed 911 but there was a dead spot and she couldn't. She wanted to document the incident because she had been told Mr. Perks had a propensity to go after people by filing grievances, lawsuits and charges when crossed. She was warned by Mr. Acker, Bob Hallogen's daughters and a lot of other people at town hall according to her. Then she admitted Mr. Acker himself had threatened to sue her over statements she made about the Texas Barge accident.
Only the Division of Harbors and Waterways was empowered to give summonses, according to the Town Code until December of 1998, when the Board amended the Code to include persons who were not members of the Maritime Services to issue summonses on an oil transfer.
Legal Actions Suit Her...
After the February 28, 1999 incident, there were three lawsuits filed by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. The first was the case this deposition was being taken for in United States District Court with Judge Joanna Seybert, then there was a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Perks (that was dismissed when she failed to produce court ordered DNA samples) and an Article 78 lawsuit against the Town's Ethics Board that received a copy of the Fact-Finder's Report and admonished Ms. Scarpati-Reilly for her behavior as a result. She refused to discuss that lawsuit citing confidentiality and ongoing litigation as the reason.
She also had a motion against Ernie Stolzer, an attorney hired by the Town that she claimed was an agent of the Ethics Board.
Discussing the lawsuits, she said there had been three decisions by Justice Gerard and she believed her name was supposed to be kept confidential, but it wasn't. Dave Ambro had called her regarding the decision and the fact that she had asked the court for "clarification". Mr. Ambro told her that Mr. Abelove and she deserved each other and said speaking to her was like "practicing dentistry", but she didn't know what he meant by that.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had no idea how many press releases, if any, she had released since the Judge released his decisions but she did put a Website up about the case. She had spoken to Bob DeGregorio just the day before about her re-election campaign and called him the night of the incident of February 28, 1999. She called him around 10:30 or 11 PM.
Earlier she had driven to Town Hall and called Mr. Perks' new girlfriend, but despite the fact that the Town Public Safety Office is located on the side of Town Hall and has someone on duty 24 hours and often there is a police car there, she chose to drive to the Police Station to make her complaint, she said.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was at Town Hall for only about ten minutes and she left and drove to the 2nd Precinct.
Her reason for calling Mr. Perks' girlfriend was to try to resolve things, she testified.
Q: Your way of resolving it was by giving a message that Perks should resign?
A: Yes.
That was in her capacity as a councilwoman because as she testified, when she took her oath she is like a cop or a lawyer and is a councilwoman 24/7 even when she is tucking her children into bed, she is always acting as a councilwoman and attorney.
The 2nd Precinct...
"YOU DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE DEALING WITH"
Testifying she was upset when she got to the Police Station, but was not crying she said Officer Louis Molinari took her statement. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly stated in her deposition that she purposely checked the incident report to make sure the officer didn't use the word assault and had only charged Mr. Perks with harassment. Officer Molinari said he had written harassment and showed her the statement, she testified.
At first Ms. Scarpati-Reilly insisted that she never said Mr. Perks should be arrested according to her testimony. She was told a plain clothes officer would contact her and Officer Molinari put his number on the back of the form. Then she said she asked about the "pro-arrest" policy because she felt it was a "domestic incident dispute." So Mr. Yule asked her again, "To get into this conversation is it fair to say you wanted him arrested?" She answered again, "No."
According to the transcript of the Arbitration trial (NYS Public Employees Relation Board Case No: A200-280) Officer Molinari testified Ms. Scarpati-Reilly appeared angry when she came to the Police Station on February 28th, 1999. In direct examination by Mr. Yule, Officer Molinari said she wanted to make out a complaint for harassment against someone and "wanted him arrested".
Q: (by Mr. Yule) What did she say specifically?
A: (by Officer Molinari) That she wanted this person arrested, and she said the person's name...William Perks.
She told the Officer at first that she was slapped in the face by Mr. Perks. She stated, "I wanted someone locked up for hitting me in the face." according to Officer Molinari's testimony at the Arbitration hearing.
Q: That is the best of your recollection, that those were her words?
A: Yes.
Shown the police report he filed of the Scarpati-Reilly complaint that had been marked as evidence, Officer Molinari continued to answer questions.
Q: After you spoke to her initially and she told you what you stated earlier about when she said she had been slapped in the face by William Perks, what was your response to that?
A: I asked her if she had any injury, at that time she said she had been slapped in her right arm.
Q: When she was relaying this to you what was her demeanor?
A: She was--she gradually became very argumentative and belligerent because she wanted the arrest to occur right then and there. I had told her it was not possible, there had to be a full workup done by the plainclothes unit for the harassment. If she wanted him arrested she could have had him arrested at the scene if she wanted it done immediately.
Then the Officer testified that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly told him she didn't call him from the scene because she had lost her cell phone.
Q: After she said she lost her phone did she say anything else?
A: Yes. She stated that there were no phones--excuse me she stated she came into the precinct , she lost the cell phone. I asked her if she had used one of the pay phones that are between Cold Spring Harbor and the precinct and she didn't--she became belligerent after I said that to her.
Q: When you say belligerent can you describe what you mean?
A: That she was--you know, she kept repeating that she wanted this person arrested. And you know, I had to repeat over and over that it was not going to occur at this time.
Prior to heading over to the Mobil Oil Transfer Station, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified she was home baking a cake for her son's birthday and her husband was out picking him up. While she waited for the cake to cool, she decided to go to the store for candles at King Kullen, but passed the store and went clear across town straight to the Mobil Oil Transfer Station to speak to Bill Perks instead. She hadn't called Mr. Perks before she left the house and she left without her purse, but with money on her. She called the operator for the phone number to the Mobil Station and when she called it just rang so she headed there and paged him on the way. He called her back and she was only a quarter mile away when they finished their conversation, so she just continued to drive to the Mobil Oil Transfer Station she testified.
Editor's note: It would appear by her testimony here that she had her phone. But she told the Officer she had lost it and that is why she didn't call from the scene. She testified earlier her cell phone didn't work because she was in a dead zone and said that is why she went to Town Hall to use their phone. Hmmmmm......The Fact-Finder missed this?
Mr. Labush the Fact-Finder told Ms. Scarpati-Reilly the police officer was "tuned up" according to her sworn testimony, meaning someone had agitated him and he just had an attitude, "Which is sometimes the case when you give someone a badge and a gun and they are forced to work a desk." she stated. "Some are nice, some have attitudes...There is a reason why they are sitting on the desk." she testified.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified here that she told the police officer that she definitely did not want him arrested, she called the District Attorney the next day and went out to the DA's office with Bob DeGregorio the following Monday to try to get them to prosecute him. The Town had not authorized Mr. DeGregorio or her to contact the DA.
It was an impromptu decision to visit Mr. Perks as she was only going to buy candles when she left the house. She had a trial the next day so had to speak to him that night, according to her deposition. She left company at her home for about an hour and a half on her son's 16th birthday, according to her. Her husband had gone to pick up her son, so she left them there alone, apparently. Her son Tim called her when she was leaving the precinct and asked where she was that they were waiting for the cake.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified Officer Molinari asked her for identification and she had none on her, not even her license. She said he made no issue about the fact she was driving without her license at all.
Officer Molinari testified in the Arbitration hearing "I told her that--I asked her if she was driving and she said she was. And I said "Well, you are supposed to have your license with you if you are driving a motor vehicle."" He said he could have given her a summons, but gave her a warning instead.
Mr. Yule asked Officer Molinari if Ms. Scarpati-Reilly ever told him she felt threatened. Clifford Bart, (Bart & Schwartz, LLP) the attorney for the Town of Huntington in the Arbitration Case, objected to Mr. Yule--"leading the witness" and there was a lengthy legal discussion. Eventually the Arbitrator, David Gregory ruled "quasi-leading questions" were not a problem.
Officer Molinari testified Ms. Scarpati-Reilly did not tell him she felt threatened or that her life was in danger. She did use the word assault, according to him and when she had no ID, she told him that she was the Councilwoman.
Q: Did she want Mr. Perks arrested for assault?
A: Yes she did.
Officer Molinari said he never spoke to her again and didn't know if any investigation took place.
He said was interviewed by The Fact-Finder but when asked if he spoke to the Town Ethics Board, Mr. Bart objected saying that was not relevant to the Arbitration. Another lengthy discussion between the attorneys and the arbitrator took place. Mr. Bart said,
That decision isn't here, I haven't read it. I don't know if you have read it or not. The ethics decision was an investigation of Scarpati-Reilly, not of Perks. It found Scarpati-Reilly had engaged in unethical conduct. What has that got to do--please, if I'm missing something I would like to know. I don't understand the relevance of that, just let me know and I'll be quiet.Mr. Bart also said "We have not offered to dispute Perks' version of what happened." and later "What happened on that evening in terms of Perks and Scarpati-Reilly because it allegedly triggered an entitlement is of some interest, although we really don't dispute Perks' version of the facts for the purpose of this hearing."
Mr. Yule argued that since the Ethics report was based almost entirely on the Fact-Finder's interviews and documents and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly bombarded the Ethics Board with documents and information those are the only things we used as a basis of the report which includes Union 1.
With that arbitrator said he would allow it since Mr. Bart had verbatim reads of testimony, questions and answers from that same video transcript proceeding earlier and allowing Mr. Yule to question now "I would see as broadly symmetrical, I'm going to allow it.
Mr. Yule continued to question Officer Molinari...
Officer Molinari said he told the Fact-Finder many of the same things he had already testified to here, including that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly wanted Mr. Perks arrested for assault, but he told her since there was no injury and with the facts she had given him it did not rise to the level of an assault charge, but warranted a harassment charge. At that point she became argumentative, he said "She wanted him arrested for assault." Officer Molinari said he did not notice any marks on her face, no injuries, she did not appear to need medical attention and no one from plainclothes ever contacted him.
Editor's Questions: If the Town Attorney, Mr. Bart testifies here that they do not dispute Mr. Perks' version of the facts and he also says the Ethics Board found her actions "unethical" why would the Town go one more step forward and pay one more penny in legal fees to continue the investigation of an alleged assault that she clearly testifies on the one hand she made sure it was not labelled an assault and did not want him arrested, but the Officer testified to the exact opposite? She admitted lying to the press in writing and so if it is the credibility of the Officer versus the Councilwoman's you need to decide who you think is more believable.
Susan Scarpati-Reilly told Officer Molinari Mr. Perks slapped her because she pointed out that he was out of uniform. He described her demeanor when she left the station as "upset and angry. She did not tell Officer Molinari she stopped off at Town Hall to call Mr. Perks' girlfriend but the Officer did say he never asked her if she came straight the the precinct.
Susan Scarpati-Reilly apologized in writing for telling reporters that it was not her that made the complaint to the police and Mr. Yule asked the Officer if he read that she admitted lying to the press.
An objection by Mr. Bart and again a rather lengthy back and forth on whether or not the Officer could speak to the issue. The arbitrator wanted to know what the Officer had read, an editorial, a straight news investigative story or a letter to the editor and gave Mr. Yule a little wiggle room.
Q: Did you ever come to learn after February 28, 1999 that the complainant Susan Scarpati-Reilly stated publicly that she did not file this police report, that it was an impostor?
A: Yes, I did. I was called into the commanding officer's office which is an Inspector Thomas Hammond. He is not a Chief of the Suffolk County Police Department. He showed me the article from the newspaper with the picture and asked me if that was the woman who came into the precinct to report the incident.
Q: What was your response?
A: Yes, it was.
Later the police report Officer Molinari brought was entered into evidence and Mr. Bart requested a "Voir Dire" of the report and it was granted.
Mr. Bart asked about a number (2400) on the report and some handwritten markings and Officer Molinari said he did not know what the number meant and he did not write those notes. The report had been faxed to the officer from the central records department in Yaphank at his request and was considered official police business and therefore it was accepted into evidence.
Mr. Yule rested his Direct Examination and Mr. Bart began his Cross Examination...
He learned Officer Molinari had never met nor spoken to Mr. Perks. He was never contacted by the District Attorney's Office and except for the Fact-Finder on the telephone, no one outside the Town ever contacted him...except for reporters he said.
Q: Did she (Scarpati-Reilly) characterize from a legal standpoint what she thought had occurred
A: That it was an assault.
A: And you told her, from what I understand, that it was not an assault; if anything, if it was proven, it was harassment; is that correct?
A: Correct.
Asked the difference between assault and harassment as he understood it from his training, the Officer said "Harassment does not involve physical injury.
Q: So if somebody engages in as this case you have told us was the case, engages in slapping someone, that is not an assault based on your training?
A: Correct.
Q: Is it harassment?
A: Yes.
Q: And despite the fact that she wanted you to file an assault complaint you felt based on your training it could be filed?
A: On harassment.
Harassment is a violation, not a felony and assault can be either a misdemeanor or felony Officer Molinari testified and with violations the officer has discretion to either arrest or issue a summons.
The difference between a Peace Officer (Mr. Perks was a Peace Officer) and a Police Officer was discussed for a while and though both can make arrests on misdemeanors and violations, the Peace Officer needs a greater level of proof than a Police Officer, according to Officer Molinari.
When Mr. Bart rested the Arbitrator asked a few questions of Officer Molinari.
Q: (by Mr. Gregory--the Arbitrator) Your testimony has been very straightforward and I appreciate that. You used adjectives and one of them was the Councilwoman was argumentative. And you explained that by talking about the various demands or requests she made that this grievant be arrested etcetera. You testified as to her physical condition, you saw no cuts, bruises, swelling, discoloration. I'm interested in the first instance now, without reference to this woman Susan Scarpati-Reilly, just based on your 14 years of experience as a police officer, if you say someone is angry, what are the normal indicators that would draw you to that conclusion?
A: They so not like being questioned. Usually that elicits some sort of anger or they become argumentative if they don't like the answers they are being given after they are questioned.
Q: When someone is belligerent, without reference to this woman, what are the indicators of belligerence?
A: Do not want to take no for an answer, continue to say something over and over.
Officer Molinari said Susan Scarpati-Reilly raised her voice and was shouting.
Q: She wasn't just speaking in an elevated voice, she was shouting?
A: Yes.
Q: Did she shout in an isolated instance or was it periodic outbursts?
A: Periodic outbursts.
The meeting between Ms. Scarpati-Reilly at the precinct lasted about 15 minutes and Officer Molinari
said he never raised his voice but she was yelling most of the time and began yelling when she realized he wasn't going to arrest this person immediately.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's final words to the Officer as she walked out of the precinct were according to Officer Molinari "You don't know who you are dealing with."
Q: Not have a nice day?
A: Right.
Q: She didn't have sort of---there were no pleasantries; thank you very much, have a good weekend?
A: No.
Mr. Gregory asked once more what her last words were and the Officer repeated, "You don't know who you are dealing with." He ended his questioning and Mr. Yule asked for a short Re-Direct...
He asked Officer Molinari what he thought she meant by "You don't know who you are dealing with." and he said "Because she stated she was a Councilwoman prior, I thought she believed there was some sort of threat in that, but I don't feel threatened by her."
Q: (by Mr. Yule) What tone of voice did she say that in?
A: Loud.
Finally, Mr. Yule ascertained that normally investigations are done by the Police and the DA prosecutes and has the final say on what the charges would be. No one from the DA's Office ever called him and he said he believed the investigation was still open because no one had told him it was closed, but he could not say for sure if it were still open.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly Goes Home...HOPEFULLY THE CAKE HAS COOLED...
When Ms. Scarpati-Reilly arrived home she said she did not speak to her husband about the incident and the first person she discussed it with was Bob DeGregorio, later that evening. ***
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said that Mr. DeGregorio had gotten several messages from Mr. Perks and each one sounded more frantic. She characterized her statement to Bob DeGregorio saying she told him Bill Perks was crazed and that he had hit her. When pressed by Mr. Yule she admitted she never used those words that night to Mr. DeGregorio and never told him or the Police that she felt physically threatened by Mr. Perks that night. "I don't think I ever used the word threatened." she said.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she was not hurt when Mr. Perks allegedly hit her shoulder with his right arm or hand and she insisted, "Never, it wasn't an assault."
When Mr. Perks accused her of damaging the vehicle, she said she didn't know what he was talking about, but again when pressed by Mr. Yule she said she had spoken to Mr. Perks earlier that day and he had told her someone had caused damage to his girlfriend's vehicle and he spent all day trying to fix it. Later she said she realized she thought he was accusing her of damaging the vehicle. Paint remover had been thrown onto her brand new Lincoln Navigator and it did $15,000 dollars worth of damage.
Eventually Ms. Scarpati-Reilly admitted that prior to February 28, 1999 Mr. Perks had never been issued a uniform as Oil Spill Response Manager. Before that she had been insisting it was necessary for him to be in uniform, so that men on foreign ships that came in would know that Mr. Perks was an American, because he had no other form of identification without a uniform.
One time when they were in a restaurant a police detective came up to Mr. Perks as he noticed he was wearing a gun. Mr. Perks showed him his credentials and badge and the officer told him he should be in a uniform, according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. The police officer was not in uniform and she could not say if he had been drinking before approaching them.
The issue of the uniform prevailed in the next series of questions. Mr. Perks had won a grievance because he was never issued a uniform in his capacity as oil spill response manager. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly supplied her attorney with box loads of documents she removed from Town Hall according to her because they came out of her own personal files. Asked if she had shredded any documents in Town Hall, she said yes. She added that she shreds documents every day at Town Hall and she had shredded some just the day before as well.
Editor's Note: She did not say why as a 24/7 Councilwoman she would have had any personal documents in Town Hall let alone "boxes" of them.
When they decided to break for lunch, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she would not be back that afternoon as she had to pick up her son. Mr. Yule expressed dismay that she waited until then to inform him of that and when he asked for an explanation as to why she didn't notify them sooner, Mr. Abelove refused to let her answer the question. Mr. Yule said he found that to be both against the rules and a surprise and he decided to let the court deal with it because he planned to make an application to the court.
The next deposition day was April 19, 2001
Continued Examination by Mr. Yule...
On her way home from the precinct at about 9 PM Ms. Scarpati-Reilly stopped at Edwards and bought candles and when she arrived home her sons, Tim and Rich, her husband Steve and her step daughter Liz were there. She said she did not mention what had happened earlier except to her husband but that conversation was considered privileged. Later she called Mr. DeGregorio at about 10 PM and left a message and called him again at 11 PM and spoke with him.
Editor's note: Does this contradict what she testified to earlier that she didn't tell her husband and the first person she spoke to about it was Mr. DeGregorio? (see bolded transcript above) ***
Now Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was saying that she told no one at her home about the circumstances, except her husband. When she called Mr. DeGregorio, she was only calling to see how he felt, according to her, not to discuss the incident with Perks. He was on the phone at the time with Mr. Perks so he didn't speak with her for very long and she didn't speak to him again until the next day at around noon she testified.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was in court handling a divorce case in Islip Supreme Court the day after the incident at the Mobil Oil Transfer Station, according to her, but she couldn't remember which case it was and when asked if she went to the DA's office located in the Central Islip complex, she said she neither called them nor visited them about the incident. When she left court that day she went to Mr. DeGregorio's home in Fort Salonga. She said Mr. DeGregorio had seen Mr. Perks and wanted to speak to her. She did not ask him what Mr. Perks said to Mr. DeGregorio according to her, not that afternoon and not the night before either--she testified.
According to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly Mr. DeGregorio said the sum and substance of the conversation was that Bill Perks was very upset and that he wanted him to write a resignation letter from him so he could leave the Oil Spill Response Management position and go back to the Harbors and Waterways Division. He told her he refused to write the letter. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she had many conversations over the next few days with Mr. DeGregorio, but couldn't recall what was said without refreshing her memory by reading her transcript from the Fact-Finder.
Let's Go To The Videotape.....
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's depositions were both taped and transcribed. According to her there were mistakes on the transcripts that did not reflect what she actually said, but she did not recall what the alleged mistakes were and she testified she did nothing about it. She told her attorneys Perini & Hoerger about it she said and she paid the bill they sent her, because "there was no provision in the code" to seek reimbursement for their legal fees.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's recollection of the first time she discussed the incident with Mr. DeGregorio
was very limited.
Q: (by Mr. Yule) Just so it's clear, your testimony is, as you sit here today, you have no independent recollection of what you said to Bob and what Bob said to you on March 1st other than what you've already said?
A: (by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly) Right.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she reviewed no documents prior to the deposition that might refresh her memory and when Mr. Yule asked if she knew he was going to ask her about these things, Mr. Abelove objected and told Mr. Yule to stop badgering his client. Mr. Yule said he was not badgering and the questioning continued.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly began reading her previous testimony and Mr. Yule objected...
I am going to state for the record, I'm not going to sit here and let you read your deposition for two hours, taking up the time and reading it. I'll instruct your counsel to please instruct you to read it before tomorrow's deposition. We will go with what you remember for today.Ms. Scarpati-Reilly responded:
Mr. Yule I don't have any time between this and tomorrow to read it. I do have another life. I am a professional and I have other appointments. If you want to give it to me now, I can briefly look at it. I'm sure it will put it all in context. If it's not going the way you like it, I'm sorry. If you'd like me to review it, within a matter of five minutes, I will have a context of what took place.Q: Maybe we will do that . Right now I'm going to ask you some questions and see if you can remember anything. How many conversations did you have with Bob DeGregorio, one or more than one?
A: Don't remember.
Q: More than two?
A: Don't remember.
Q: Less than five?
A: Don't remember.
Q: More than ten?
A: Maybe.
Q: At any of these conversations that day, did you tell Bob DeGregorio that you felt in fear of your life?
A: On March 1st, I believe I told him that Bill had scared me.
She said he scared her because he was in her face and he was "wild-eyed, according to her. She then said she did not feel threatened, but scared he might do something to her, but she couldn't say what she thought he might do. The only other person she told that she was scared was her husband, according to her, but when asked what his reaction was, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly invoked marital privilege and Mr. Yule objected for the record.
Then when asked to describe how Mr. DeGregorio described Mr. Perks' demeanor to her, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said, "He described Bill as the way I had described him the night before; that he was pacing back and forth, his arm was flying, he was hyper, he was yelling."
Q: So Mr. DeGregorio told you that he was wild, he was pacing and he was hyper?
A: In so many words, , I don't know if he used the word exactly, "wild" to me or if he said "pacing".
When he was talking he strode back and forth. In sum and substance, he described to me what I had seen the night before in Mr. Perks' behavior.
The resignation and his behavior was all she could recall about Mr. DeGregorio's conversation on March 1st. When pressed if it was true that Mr. Perks wanted to resign and go back to the Harbors and Waterways she replied:
A: If I can refresh my recollection.
Q: You stated before that you recall DeGregorio saying that to you.
A: I take that back then. I'm not quite sure. I need to refresh my recollection.
Q: So what you said before was inaccurate?
A: I don't know. I need to refresh my recollection.
Another verbal scrum broke out between the attorneys over the witnesses memory about whether Mr. DeGregorio told her Mr. Perks wanted to resign or not. Mr. Yule pointed out that she wanted to retract her statement after making it, but Mr. Abelove said her memory was just confused about the date, not the information.
The examination continued...
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified she was speaking to Mr. DeGregorio as both a friend and an attorney, in contemplation of litigation at that point. His advice from his position as Town Attorney was for her to contact the District Attorney's office and she decided to follow his advice according to her and she called the DA that day sometime after lunch.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly (a Republican) had also spoken to William Naughton, (a Democrat) about the case she said because he had Greg Butler, one of his employees call her the morning of March 2nd and he told her Mr. Naughton needed to meet with her outside of Huntington and it was very serious. They met at lunchtime in a Smithtown restaurant and that is when he told her he had walked in on a meeting where the Supervisor, (Petrone), George Hoffman, Scott Firestone and Steve Israel were talking about how they were going to destroy her political career. He warned that her phones might be tapped and she should be careful what she said at the office, in their hour long meeting.
Mr. Naughton she said had his own problems with the Town Board, he believed they were trying to get his job and he told her she was the only one who kept her word to him. She said she told them there was an incident with Mr. Perks, but didn't go into it and she said he never asked her for details.
She told him Bob DeGregorio told her to call the DA, but even after that he never asked her for more detail of the incident.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified Mr. Naughton wanted to meet outside the Town of Huntington, because she was so well known and so was he and "he had been told numerous times" by Marlene Budd and Steve Israel "that he is not allowed to talk to me in public in my presence."
After the lunch she called the DA from her office and specifically asked for Mark Cohen, someone she knew and trusted, according to her statement. They had a three minute conversation and she asked if she could meet with him. They made an appointment, but she did not tell him she was scared. She refused to say whether she had told Mr. Cohen that Mr. Perks had threatened her and when Mr. Yule asked her again she said, "I'm not answering that."
Q: You stated in about a half dozen affidavits that Mr. Perks threatened your life. Did you ever tell the DA's office on March 2nd that you felt threatened by Mr. Perks?
A: Mr. Yule, you think you know what the facts are in this case. You've got them all screwed up and I can't answer your questions the way you're posing them, in the order in which you're asking them.
Q: Sorry, you don't like the way I'm posing my questions.
A: Sorry, you don't like my answers then sir.
Q: This is going to be a problem.
A: It will be.
Several more attempts to get her to answer the question were unsuccessful and eventually Mr. Yule asked for the record to be marked at that point and he said he intended to seek rulings from the judge after the deposition ended "or we will read it to the jury, whichever comes first."
Between March 2nd and March 8, when she finally went to the Suffolk DA's and spoke to Chris Williams and Maureen McCormick, there was a series of conversations with Mr. Cohen about setting up a meeting, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified they had appointments and cancelled them until she finally went to the office on Monday the 8th with Mr. DeGregorio for an appointment with Mr. Cohen, but he was in Riverhead, and so she spoke with Mr. Williams and Ms. McCormick instead.
Mr. Degregorio was not there as her counsel on behalf of the Town of Huntington, she said, "He was there to report, I believe to the District Attorney's office, he felt threatened , that his life had been threatened."
The first thing she said to Ms. McCormick, according to her was "That I had been threatened."
Q: Anything else?
A: That's why I was there, that I was being blackmailed and my life was being threatened. At least that is the way I interpreted as to what Mr. DeGregorio said.
Q: I don't want to know what Bob DeGregorio said. You used three terms: Threatened, blackmailed and life being threatened. You said those words to Maureen McCormick?
A: Yes.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said Ms. McCormick thought it was a pretty serious matter. Then she said that she told her about the Sunday night incident and that over the next three days Mr. DeGregorio became concerned about her well being and that is why she called Mark Cohen.
Editor's note: She had already testified just prior that Mr. Degregorio told her the very next day after the incident to call the DA and she did. She also testified several times that she had never been threatened. (See above bolded transcript).
When pressed she admitted Mr. Perks had never threatened her to her face and she was only going by what Mr. DeGregorio had told her. Asked if he had ever threatened her on the phone she then testified for the record:
Q: When you say "kill the story" what story was he referring to in your mind?
He said I had to kill the story, that he was going to allege that we had this sexual affair, it was going to ruin my career. I had to watch out for my kids and that I was going to be found dead if I didn't kill the story and if I didn't go to the Police Department and tell them it was all a lie, and that it was a conspiracy out there and that it was George Hoffman trying to get us and that I had to kill the story or I would be found dead.
A: It was filing of the police incident report.
Q: Do you know when he found out you went to the police?
A: To the best of my recollection is probably, that Wednesday.
This conversation with Mr. Perks took place on March 3rd on the phone, according to her. She said she had spoken to him one other time at his home, between February 28, 1999 and March 3rd when she went there alone at night to try to talk to him, according to her. She said she went there because
she had never seen Mr. DeGregorio so upset. Asked why she couldn't believe he was so upset, she said, "I guess I just didn't want to believe what he was telling me...no one wants to believe that they are going to be killed."
At that point a break was taken as Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was crying and needed to compose herself. After a short recess, it was decided to end for the day at about 3:10.
Editor's questions: If Mr. Perks only found out on Wednesday, March 3rd that she had gone to the Police, why would he have threatened her from Monday to Wednesday as she said he did through Mr. DeGregorio?
Her first attempt to make the appointment with Mr. Cohen at the Suffolk DA's office was Monday afternoon, the day after the incident...according to her testimony. At that point she said she did not feel threatened and remember she testified she had asked Officer Molinari to be sure he didn't charge Mr. Perks with assault, the night before-and she testified she definitely did not want him arrested. Officer Molinari testified she was insisting Mr. Perks be arrested and she became belligerent when he couldn't arrest him right away.
If Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was telling the truth and Officer Molinari was not, then why did she contact the DA on Monday...to tell them what? To ask them to do what?
Intermission on the Susan Scarpati-Reilly depositions for the District Court case...This was the first three days. Next...the last three days...
If you missed any of the story and want to follow it from the beginning here are the links to the previous Acts...
Frank Petrone's Taxpayer Funded Political Theater Act 1 Frank Petrone's Taxpayer Funded Political Theater Act 2
Frank Petrone's Taxpayer Funded Political Theater Act 3
Frank Petrone's Taxpayer Funded Political Theater Act 4 Scene 1
Frank Petrone's Taxpayer Funded Political Thaeter Act 4 Scenes 2 and 3
Frank Petrone's Taxpayer Funded Political Theater Act 4 Scene 4 Formal Request for Investigation of the Burning of Radiated Waste
ACT ONE: THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND THE TOWN COUNCILWOMAN
Saw a Town employee blowing the whistle about the Town of Huntington burning radiated garbage at the Ogden Martin (now Covanta) Waste-to-Energy Incinerator at 99 Town Line Road and burying the ash in the Town's several landfills. Other State Labor Laws regarding employee safety and Right-to-Know Laws were being violated with former FEMA Director, Frank Petrone at the helm as Huntington Town Supervisor.
The employee (William Perks) admitted having an affair with then Town Councilwoman (Susan Scapati-Reilly) though she still denies the affair.
Feb 28, 1999 The "Incident at The Mobil Oil Station" took place...a true He said-She said with no other witnesses to the "event". The Town Councilwoman tried unsuccessfully that evening to have Mr. Perks arrested for assault, but that never happened. In fact though the police took a harassment complaint, they never even spoke to Mr. Perks as it was determined there was no assault and the case was not pursued. Then Ms. Scarpati-Reilly went to the Town Attorney and the District Attorney hoping to have Mr. Perks charged, but to no avail. Nevertheless, in March of 1999, Mr. Petrone, seconded by Steve Israel, presented Resolution No. 1999-184 and hired a Park Avenue $250 dollar an hour attorney as a "Fact-Finder" to determine the facts and events of the night of February 28, because as "based on media reports there was an assault" of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly by Mr. Perks, the resolution stated. There were no media reports of an assault at the time, however.
ACT TWO: THE REPORTS
THE FACT-FINDER'S AND BOARD OF ETHICS AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORTS
So ninety days later the Fact-Finder (Gerald Labush) finished his job (despite the Resolution saying it should be completed in thirty days) and presented his report to the Town Board and it concluded just what the police and district attorney found, that there was not enough evidence to charge Mr. Perks with any wrongdoing, however there was evidence both direct and indirect to determine Ms. Scapati-Reilly was less than credible and was admittedly lying on more than one occasion when it suited her. This may have been what happened that night of February 28th, 1999 and when she was allegedly looking for a Town truck that she said she was concerned had been stolen. The Fact-Finder saw through that excuse and said it was obvious Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was looking for Mr. Perks' whereabouts...not those of the truck as she declined to report it missing to the police when advised to do so by Josephine Jahier, the Deputy Commissioner of Waste Management.
The Huntington Town Board then voted for Resolution No. 1999-380 submitting the Fact-Finder's Report to the Huntington Board of Ethics and Financial Disclosure. (Ms. Scarpati-Reilly abstained from both Resolution votes)
The Board of Ethics found Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's behavior was so problematic, they recommended their report and that of the Fact-Finder be sent to the District Attorney and the State's Attorneys General.
Mr. Perks was never even contacted by the Ethics Board, but he cooperated entirely with the Fact-Finder with the assistance of his attorney Edward Yule of Northport. Those attorney's fees should have been covered by the Town, according to the union contract and had the Town paid them at that time they would have only been about $70,000 dollars (about what they paid the Fact-Finder). The Town refused to pay and Mr. Perks was forced to file a grievance in 2000. The fees are now over 4 million and accruing interest as the Town fights their payment in Appellate Court.
For her part Ms. Scarpati-Reilly called the Fact Finder's report "A cheap, five-and-dime trashy novel.", according to an article in The New York Times (Civic Affairs, Indeed: Huntington Tunes in to Report on Scandal by Stuart Ain, published October 3, 1999.) She said Mr. Labush declined to pursue evidence that would have exonerated her and that he got facts wrong. Mr. Perks told the reporter that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly came on to him and they first had sex in the office, then after a while on a daily basis for over a year and according to the Times article, "I'd be in her office for five hours. There were secretaries outside knocking on the door and she would go crazy that they dared to knock on the door. And I was sitting there and it was a command performance. "I want more", was her phrase...She wanted me for one thing and one thing only, her sexual gratification." Mr. Yule offered testimony of a neighbor who twice allegedly found the two involved in a physical tryst on one of Mr. Perks' boats, something Ms. Scarpati-Reilly also "vehemently denied".
According to the Ains' article, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly believed the rest of the Board "was gloating over the scandal" including Frank Petrone, then a Republican and Steve Israel, a Democrat. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly would not toe the party line according to her and stayed independent, that is why they wanted her out, but she refused to resign as they wanted even though according to her, she was being sold out by the Board.
ACT THREE THE LAWFIRMS...THE LAWYERS...
The Players: (Time period; 1999 to the Present)
Frank Petrone: Huntington Town Board Supervisor, Democrat. In 2001 he was a Republican...(Joined the GOP in 1976)
William Townsend Perks: Then Harbormaster for the Town of Huntington, now retired. Worked under Susan Scarpati-Reilly on the Mobil Oil Spill Response Unit.
Susan Scarpati-Reilly: Then a Town Councilwoman for Huntington Town. An attorney, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was Town Board liaison for the Town’s Mobil Oil Spill Response Unit in 1999.
Steve Israel: Currently a Congressman, Mr. Israel was a Town Councilman for Huntington Town at the time. Dated, married and divorced Marlene Budd.
Marlene Budd: Now a Suffolk County Family Court Judge (term 2006-2016) former Huntington Town Councilwoman, former wife of Steve Israel.
Joseph Anastasia: Director of Maritime Services; Mr. Perks' Supervisor, signed the payroll along with co-signer Phil Nolan, who was Director of Environmental Control and the Landfill and the Ogden Martin (Covanta) Town Incinerator.
Phil Nolan: Director of the Town of Huntington Environmental Waste Management, in charge of the incinerator and the landfill.
Josephine Jahier: Deputy Director of the Town of Huntington Environmental Waste Management, working directly under Mr. Nolan
Lawyers and Law Firms:
Attorneys were paid for by The Town of Huntington for various lawsuits, defenses and appeals for the Town of Huntington, Susan Scarpati-Reilly and those she accused of various things and had filed a myriad of lawsuits against. These included but were not limited to: Thelma Neira, and Marlene Budd and The Town of Huntington Board of Ethics and Financial Disclosure, the Chairman Howard Glickstein and all the board members collectively and individually and several Town Attorneys.
Thelma Neira: Assistant Town Attorney for Huntington
James (Jim) Matthews: Town Attorney for Huntington
Robert DiGregorio: Assistant Town Attorney for Huntington
Clifford Bart: Attorney for the Town in the Arbitration case
Maureen Hoerger: from Perini & Hoerger, For Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Ernest Stolzer: with Rains and Pogrebin, then with Bond, Schoeneck and King, LLP for the Town
James P. Clark: with Rains and Pogrebin, then with Bond, Schoeneck and King, LLP, Cullen and Dykman and James P. Clark Law Offices, for the Town
Jason Abelove: attorney for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Gerald LaBush and Robert Vespoli: For the Independent Fact-Finder
Edward Yule: Northport resident, the only attorney the Town refused to pay for. Attorney for Mr. Perks for the entire fourteen years, has yet to be paid by the Town despite two court rulings that support Mr. Perks', union contractual right to counsel, when accused of an assault.
THE LAWYERS SETTLE IN FOR THE LONG RIDE
January 14, 2000 The report of the Town Board of Ethics and Financial Disclosure based on Res. No. 1999-380 was released and by May of 2000, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had filed an Article 78 against the Board of Ethics and the members both as members and individually.
The list of lawsuits and attorneys is difficult to follow as they overlap in time and some of the attorneys move from law firm to law firm, yet remain on the case throughout the fourteen years and into the present. This is a quick overview of the lawsuits by year and the attorneys who worked on the cases.
2000
SUPREME COURT of the State of New York/Suffolk County
Susan Scarpati-Reilly vs Town of Huntington Board of Ethics and Financial Disclosure, Howard A. Glickstein as Chairman, Beth Graham, Stanley M. Heller, Karen Joy Miller and Laurie C. Nolan as Members, Town of Huntington's Town Attorney's Office, Lawrence W. Cregan as Ex-Oficio Member
of the Board and Special Assistant Town Attorney and James Matthews as Town Attorney.
Susan Scarpati-Reilly as a pro-se petitioner, was her own attorney in the matter. The Town Board members however, had to be represented. (See Act One for detail on this lawsuit)
In The Matter of Step II Grievance
William T. Perks vs Town of Huntington
On December 7, 1999 Mr. Perks filed three grievances, violation of Article 19, Section C and Article 19, Section D. For the record Article 19 Section C states: "The employer shall provide legal counsel to defend any employee as a result of an assault while acting on behalf of the employer within the scope of their employment." Mr. Perks alleged sometime in February of 1999, Mr. Perks was at the Mobil Oil Dock and was assaulted by Councilwoman Scarpati-Reilly. Certain legal action took place after that, various lawsuits and as a result of that Mr. Perks claims the Town must pay the legal fees for Edward Yule, his attorney. Mr. Perks also went to doctors for certain stress ailments and he saw various psychologists, as a result of going through this turmoil he had to take extensive sick leave and eventually used his vacation time. Mr. Perks was asking the Town to pay his attorney, Mr. Yule and also to not deduct any sick or vacation time Mr. Perks had to use as a result of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's assault. The Town was paying Jason Abelove for Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, but wouldn't pay for Mr. Perks' counsel. Mr. Perks did not see a therapist until May or June, but was taking sick time and time to cooperate with the Fact-Finder in the meantime, he said.
Non-discrimination, Article 22:
The grievance with the Town of Huntington is that they discriminated against Mr. Perks when they provided legal counsel to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and to other Town employees falsely accused by her, but then refused to pay for Mr. Perks' attorney, Edward Yule. Mr. Nolan tried to insist no assault against Mr. Perks was documented, Mr. Perks pointed directly to the resolution that said Ms. Scarpati-Reilly accused him of assault, when the complaint was for harassment, not assault. Cooperating with the Fact-Finder, Mr. Perks showed he was the victim of assault by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and although she admitted to lying on several occasions including to the press, Mr. Perks' information has remained consistent with the facts and he has never changed his story.
The legal appearances for this hearing:
Gerald M. Labush, Esq., Fact Finder, 475 Park Avenue South, New York, New York 10016
Robert Vespoli, Esq., Assistant to the Fact Finder, 475 Park Avenue South, New York 10016
Perini & Hoerger., Maureen Hoerger; 1770 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge, appearing on behalf of Susan Scarpati-Reilly. Also present: Kenneth M. Kelly
2001
United States District Court (USDC)
Judge Joanna Seybert
William Perks vs The Town of Huntington and Susan Scarpati-Reilly as Councilwoman and
Individually
March 12, 2001
Susan Scarpati-Reilly Deposition
March 19, 2001
Joe Anastasia Deposition
April 5, 2001
Susan Scarpati-Reilly...continued deposition
April 12, 2001
Marlene Budd Deposition
Kathleen Rumplelein Deposition
April 16, 2001
Gerald Labush (Fact Finder) and Maureen Hoerger for Susan Scarpati-Reilly Re: Res. No. 1999-184
Kenneth Kelly present
April 19, 2001
Susan Scarpati-Reilly...continued deposition
April 19, 2001
Town Councilman Mark Cuthbertson's Deposition
April 23, 2001
Susan Scarpati-Reilly continued deposition
April 25, 2001
Frank Petrone Deposition
May 7, 2001 Susan Scarpati-Reilly continued deposition.
May 11, 2001
Town Clerk, Joan Raia Deposition
Legal:
Ernest Stolz and James Clark with Rains and Pogrebin: for Town of Huntington (TOH)
Jason Abelove: for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Edward Yule: for William Perks
Supreme Court Suffolk County
Judge James Catterson
Susan Scarpati Reilly vs William Perks (Lawsuit for Defamation)
July 18, 2001 through September 6, 2001 Dropped when Susan Scarpati-Reilly failed to appear for a scheduled court case without any explanation and failed to submit to court ordered scheduled DNA testing. Here Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was using a Town appointed attorney for her own personal case aginst Mr. Perks. No Resolution allowing Mr. Abelove to represent her in this private action has been found, raising the question as to who paid for this., the taxpayers or Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. This question needs to be answered.
Legal:
Jason Abelove: for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Ahmuty, Demers & Mcmanus: Christopher Kendric as Mr. Perks' attorney
ARBITRATION LAWSUIT
State of New York Public Employment Relations Board (PERB)
Local 342 and William Perks vs The Town of Huntington
Arbitrator: David Gregory
Legal:
Bart & Schwartz LLP, by Clifford S. Bart for Town of Huntington
Edward Yule: for Mr. Perks
Jason Abelove: for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
2003
USDC Perks vs Town of Huntington and Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Judge Joanna Seybert
Legal:
Edward Yule: for William Perks
Ernest R. Stolzer (Rains and Pogrebin): for the Town of Huntington
Jason Abelove: for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
2005
USDC Perks vs Town of Huntington and Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Judge Joanna Seybert
Transcripts of Trial produced on Daily Basis
October 24, 2005
October 26, 2005
November 2, 2005
November 3, 2005
November 7, 2005
November 8, 2005
November 9, 2005
November 10, 2005
Legal:
Edward Yule: for William Perks
Eric Stolzer and James P. Clark: (now from Bond, Schoeneck & King LLP in New York City for the Town of Huntington
Jason Abelove and Raymond Baierlein: for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
2006
USDC Perks vs Town of Huntington and Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Judge Joanna Seybert
Transcripts
February 23, 2006
May 18, 2006 Memorandum and Order
Legal:
Edward Yule: for William Perks
Eric Stolzer and James P. Clark: (now from Bond, Schoeneck & King) for the Town of Huntington
Jason Abelove and Raymond Baierlein: for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
2007
United States Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Affirms Judge Seybert's Opinion
May 10, 2007
Legal:
Edward Yule: for William Perks
Eric Stolzer and James P. Clark: (from Bond, Schoeneck & King) for the Town of Huntington
Jason Abelove and Raymond Baierlein: for Susan Scarpati-Reilly
2008
USDC Perks vs Town of Huntington and Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Judge Joanna Seybert
March 31, 2008
Memorandum and Order
Re: Daily Transcript Costs
Legal:
Bond, Schoeneck & King: Eric Stolzer for Town of Huntington
Cullen and Dykman: James P. Clark for Town of Huntington
Edward Yule: for William Perks
PERB Arbitration Case
September 11, 2008
Legal:
Bond, Schoeneck & King: Eric Stolzer and Amy Culver for Town of Huntington
Cullen and Dykman: James P. Clark for Town of Huntington
Edward Yule: for William Perks
November 5, 2008
Letter from Stolzer to Yule, cc Thelma Neira
Bond, Schoeneck & King: Eric Stolzer
2009
Arbitration Case No A200-280
February 16, 2009
Decision by David Gregory
That Perks' grievance was timely and arbitrable and the Town breached Article 19, Section C of the collective bargaining agreement. Ordered that the arbitration be commenced forthwith to determine the monetary liability of the Town with regard to Article 19 Section C legal counsel fees and any other unresolved matters of the PERB case. The Town had asked to bifurcate (or separate) the issue of legal fees back then and so this decision would restart the arbitration temporarily paused while the legal fee issue was handled.
For the Town:
Clifford Bart from Dec 14, 2000 to May 8, 2001
then Mr. Ernest Stolzer (Bond, Schoeneck & King) May 19 to the present with
Amy Culver
Mr. James Clark with Bond, Scheoenck & King, for the May 19th hearing, then he went to work with Cullen and Dykman
For Mr. Perks:
Mr. Edward Yule
Court of Appeals
May 27, 2009
USDC Perks vs Town of Huntington and Susan Scarpati-Reilly
Appeal of the decision of March 31, 2008 Memorandum and Order Re: Daily Transcript Costs
Judge Joanna Seybert
Mr. Perks lost his appeal.
2010
Supreme Court Suffolk County
March 30, 2010
Petition to Confirm Arbitrator's Award and
Notice of Cross Motion to vacate the award of the arbitrator David Gregory in the matter of:
Local 342, Long Island Public Service Employees, United Marine Division, International Longshoreman's Association AFL-CIO (Grievant William T. Perks) vs The Town of Huntington
2012
Acting Justice Supreme Court
Honorable Judge Joseph Farneti
May 9, 2012
Decision upholding the award of fees to Edward Yule, attorney for Mr. Perks, based on
the decision by Arbitrator, David Gregory.
Legal:
For the Town:
Mr. Ernest Stolzer (Bond, Schoeneck & King) May 19 to the present with
Amy Culver
Mr. James Clark with Bond, Scheoenck & King, for the May 19th hearing,
then he went to work with Cullen and Dykman
For Mr. Perks:
Mr. Edward Yule
2013
Supreme Court of The State of New York
Appellate Division 2nd Department
March 14, 2013
Appeal of Judge Farneti's Order by The Town of Huntington
Statement pursuant to CPLR 5531
Eric Stolzer (Bond, Schoeneck & King)
of counsel James P. Clark and Hilary L. Moreira
for Town of Huntington
Edward Yule: for William Perks
