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. Judge Joanna Seybert presiding.
Present were:
Rains & Pogrebin Lawfirm:
Ernie Stolzer, attorney for Mark Cuthbertson 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
Councilman Mark Cuthbertson
William Perks
THE DEPOSITION OF TOWN COUNCILMAN MARK CUTHBERTSON
April 19, 2001
Examination by Jason Abelove (Susan Scarpati-Reilly's Attorney)
Mr. Cuthbertson was first elected as a Democratic Huntington Town Board member in November of 1997. He was named the liaison to the Engineering Services Department, the Assessor's Office and the Department of Human Services sometime in 1998.
Irving Toliver was the head of the Department of Human Services and Mr. Cuthberston met with him six or seven times a year. He did not believe he was the Supervisor of the Department heads or their employees, but he did say he spoke to some of the employees directly, especially the veterans or the minority community representatives.
Mr. Cuthbertson said at the time he generally worked two days a week, Tuesdays and Fridays from about 9:30 to 6 o'clock. He went on to describe the office layout, determining that the offices were all in one line, with secretaries in the open areas in the suites and the walls were glass with shades.
Mr. Cuthbertson said he knew Mr. Perks and had seen him in Councilwoman Susan Scarpati-Reilly's office at times, but never took note of how long he spent there. He testified he did not hear or see anything that would lead him to believe there was sexual activity from inside the Councilwoman's office. Mr. Abelove asked him if he heard any secretaries banging on the Councilwoman's door.
A: There was an incident, some sort of vague incident, I remember, about door slamming and something with one of the secretaries. But I don't know if--
Q: Were you there?
A: I may have been, but I may have heard about it secondhand.
Then Mr. Abelove asked Mr. Cuthbertson if he ever recalled hearing the Councilwoman yelling at secretaries for knocking on her door?
A: I recall some level of incident on this type of thing, about disturbances and somebody in there. I don't know whether it was conveyed as second hand or I was in there in person.
He could only remember the one incident.
The questions shifted to the topic of the Town Seal and Mr. Cuthbertson said he never used the Town Seal on political advertisements and thought it would be impermissible to use it for political or commercial purposes. Since he is an attorney he said he may have seen a Penal Code section about using the Town Seal for political or commercial uses, but could not recall the exact section.
Asked if he wrote a letter on his stationary with the Town letterhead that was not strictly for Town business, he replied, "Most of the correspondence is, you know, constituent driven so there may be a personal note that you jot to someone. For instance when people pass away, family members of the Town employees, I'll send a note. But in many respects that's Town business, I guess because that is a function of interacting on that level. I don't have a specific recollection besides just jotting a personal note or things like that."
Mr. Abelove then showed him a document labelled Cuthbertson Exhibit A for identification and asked if he ever knew if the Town Seal was used in political or commercial advertisements. He responded,
A: The only thing that comes to mind is the letter that Susan had in Suffolk Life.
Mr. Cuthbertson could not recall another time when the Seal was used for political reasons and did not recall any specific procedure for people seeking authorization to use the Town Seal for events scheduled with outside groups.
Exhibit Cuthbertson A was an advertisement that said "Help Shape Huntington's Future" at the top.
Asked if he was a member of the the Town's Smart Growth Steering Committee, Mr. Cuthbertson was unsure and asked to see if his name was on the list...it was. The Town Seal was on the advertisement and the questions surrounded whether there was a request to use the Town Seal prior to the ad being published. He could not recall, but said there was a Town Board Resolution and the Town had allocated $10,000 dollars for a speaker series and they were working together. Vision Huntington put the speaker series together and it was a joint effort, according to him.
Exhibit Cuthbertson B was a one-page ad from The Long Islander (November 12, 1998) that said "Thank you Huntington" at the top. Several questions about the ad revealed the Town did not pay for it but there was a Town Board vote with respect to the referendum. It took place in order to place the referendum on the ballot that allowed them to have an open-space fund; that they were thanking for in this letter. Yes, we voted on that."
Exhibit Cuthbertson C was marked for identification and shown to the deponent. An eight page double sided pamphlet entitled "AARP Chapter News", Mr. Cuthbertson said the ad did have the Town Seal on it and was taken out by himself as a reproduction of his business card as a Town Board member.
He did not seek authorization from the Town Board before using the Town Seal and he did not give them prior notice according to his testimony. Mr. Cuthbertson said he either paid for the ad from his "personal pocket" or from his campaign committee fund.
Mr. Abelove ended his questioning of Mr. Cuthbertson and Mr. Yule began his examination.
Mr. Yule asked Mr. Cuthbertson a little about his background and learned he attended Albany law School and subsequently worked at Painewood and Littlejohn from '92-'96.
In May of 1996 he became an assistant Town Attorney and worked there until he took office in January 1998. At that time he went back to Paine and Littlejohn as counsel doing real estate, zoning litigation, bank closings, "sort of jack-of-all-trades." Licensed to practice in New York State he was originally licensed in 1992. He had never done criminal or matrimonial law according to the deposition. His focus was now to be more on education law, employment law and bank commercial foreclosures, commercial litigation.
The curriculum vitae completed, Mr. Yule then asked if there came a time that Mr. Cuthbertson had found out that Susan Scarpati-Reilly had made a police complaint against Mr. Perks regarding an incident of February 28, 1999.
Not sure how he became aware of it, by hearing it from someone or reading it in the newspaper, he mentioned The Long Islander, the Huntington News and the Northport Observer.
Q: (by Yule) As a Councilperson at the time, was there any discussion by the Town Board regarding that incident, after it was made public?
A: (by Cuthbertson) When you say the "Town Board", I don't know that, as a Town Board, we sat and discussed that matter. At some point we did, I guess, as a Town Board, because there was litigation. But you have to really pin down what you mean by the Town Board and when you are talking about.
Mr. Yule showed the witness exhibit Budd E which was Town Board Resolution 1999-184 dated March 9, 1999 and asked Mr. Cuthbertson about the working sessions prior to the March 9th meeting.
Distinguishing between the roughly 45 minute public session where people take ownership of the resolutions they want to sponsor and the Executive Session which is private and not open to the public, where discussions continue on particular resolutions.
Mr. Cuthbertson said there would not have been a working session regarding this resolution, that it would only have been discussed in Executive Session.
Asked about the media reports that were allegedly the impetus for the discussion in Executive Session and the resulting resolution, Mr. Cuthbertson could not recall the specific time period asked about, prior to March 9, 1999 and after February 28, 1999. "I don't recall the specific news articles in that time period, I recall that there were news articles after the date of that incident. I don't recall what the date of the incident was."
Mr. Yule asked about the Fact Finder appointed by the resolution of March 9, 1999.
Q: Is it fair to say, as a result of this resolution the Town Board appointed a fact-finder to investigate the media reports?
A: I don't know if they--I don't think that we appointed him to investigate the media reports. We appointed him to investigate "the factual circumstances that were detailed in those media reports. So he wasn't going to go and talk to the people about the media reports. He was trying to get at the underlying facts of the alleged incident.
Q: That was regarding an alleged assault upon the Councilwoman by Mr. Perks.
A: I think that's right. It was of that nature, right. It was that allegation of him having struck her, and a police report. And I think he had--he was looking into the circumstances, all of the circumstances of that.
Editor's note: At that point there were no media reports that said there was an allegation of an assault.
Clearly, there were no media reports of an assault and none were attached to the Town Board Resolution. Amazingly not one Town Board member can recall who wrote it, submitted it or seconded it, but each one of them refer to both print and television media reports. Only after the resolution did the media reports actually use the word assault. In effect the Town Board members fabricated media reports and created a media frenzy based upon false and fabricated information.
Then it took on a life of it's own, according to Mr. Perks and the media took the bait and created the "Harbormaster and the Town Councilwoman Tryst". It was a case of the tail wagging the dog.
Mr. Cuthbertson could recall of no other time an independent fact-finder had been hired to investigate a Town employee. After saying he had read the completed fact-finder's report, he recollected there were a series of recommendations and references after the report was made public. It was supposed to be sent to the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office, the Town's Ethic's Board and the State Attorney General's Office, Mr. Cuthbertson believed.
Mr. Yule and Mr. Stolzer traded objections related to attorney client-privilege on the discussions held before the resolution was adopted. Eventually, Mr. Cuthberston said he could not recall who drafted this resolution (marked as Budd E), the one that hired Mr. Labush, but he admitted there was also an investigation of Mr. Perks for possible disciplinary actions regarding the incident of February 28, 1999.
"I know there was always the specter of that hanging out there. If an employee had actually struck a Town Board member, there was reason for an employee disciplinary investigation. I think that was part of it. Whether we did something independent of that, I don't recall." he testified.
According to Mr. Cuthbertson:
"The Suffolk District Attorney is...Incompetent !
Q: Do you know if the Town Board is still investigating Mr. Perks over that incident?
A: I'm so confused with all of these things that are going on, that I don't know sort of where it begins and where it ends. I don't think so, but I don't recall exactly how things wrapped up with that allegation.
Q: Is it fair to say that you don't know one way or another whether the investigation of Mr. Perks by the Town regarding the February 28, 1999 incident is, in fact, completed or not completed?
A: I have a sense it's completed, only because I know there are applicable statutes and provisions in collective bargaining agreements relative to discipline. So I sense that whatever was going to be done, has been done.
According to Mr. Perks, Susan Scarpati-Reilly, on the night of the alleged incident attempted to file the assault claim to Officer Louis Molinari, but there was no credible evidence to support her claim. The Town Board fabricated a Resolution claiming there were media reports of the incident using the word assault. Nothing could be further from the truth. In depositions and then on the stand in the trial, the members of the Town Board pointed to The Long Islander, The Huntington Observer, Newsday and all major television news outlets in the tri-state area that supposedly ran reports of an alleged assault. The problem for the Town Board remains that not one media outlet ever ran a story saying that an assault had taken place until after the Town Board Resolution was crafted.
At no time up until the present moment did any member of the Police Department even speak to Mr. Perks about the allegation...it was so far fetched, they did not charge him in any way. Newsday actually referred to this as a "He said...She said incident" and failed to perform due diligence and observe the facts, ultimately causing Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to be perceived as a scorned woman, when in actuality she was a self-professed liar. To this day Newsday has failed to correct the record.
According to Mr. Perks, "Newsday was duped".
Mr. Cuthbertson did not think the Town Board authorized anyone from the Town of Huntington to go to the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office to begin an inquiry regarding the incident. "I think the only referral to the District Attorney's office was---the only official Town Board action that involves this incident and the District Attorney's office and this incident to my recollection, is the resolution in response to the Labush investigation."
Q: To your knowledge did anyone from the Town Board or the Town Attorney's office authorize special Town Attorney Robert DeGregorio to meet with Councilwoman Susan Scarpati-Reilly and then go to the District Attorney's office regarding the incident of February 28, 1999?
A: No. They wouldn't have. Because that's why we hired Labush, was because there was a conflict in having the Town's Attorney's office be a part of this whole incident. And we felt that we needed someone outside of that office to do whatever follow-up we felt was necessary.
Q: Why didn't you call the Police Department or the D.A.? Why didn't the Town Board contact the D.A.'s office and let them do the investigation as opposed to hiring an outside attorney to do this?
A: I don't think we thought it was appropriate. It was an alleged slap or an alleged assault. I'm not sure that we thought it rose to the level of a District Attorney's investigation. We had a very serious concern at that point, as an employer and wanting to investigate the facts of an incident between an employee and an elected official. We thought the most appropriate course was to have an outside independent investigator look for this.
Mr. Perks said the Town Board knew the Police were not interested in filing any charges against Mr. Perks because there was no evidence that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was hurt in any way. There was nothing to prove otherwise according to Officer Molinari. The Town Board should have known that that meant there was no reason to contact the District Attorney at that point. Mr. Cuthbertson says that there was no official permission for Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to go to the Suffolk DA with Town Attorney Jim Matthews or Special Assistant Town Attorney, Robert DeGregorio...but that didn't stop them from going anyway.
The Fact Finder cost over $75,000 dollars to taxpayers....why didn't the Town just leave the matter in the hands of the Suffolk DA that would not have cost a penny? Mr. Perks said, "By going to the DA, the Town would lose control of the investigation and the media frenzy. If the Suffolk DA had been involved, they would have contacted the Police and learned it was not a case that could be tried. There was absolutely not a shred of evidence of an assault."
Mr. Cuthbertson believed the Fact-Finder cost the Town $75,000 dollars. Mr. Yule asked how much the D.A. would have cost to do the same investigation and report...
A: It wouldn't have been appropriate for the D.A. to investigate it at the level we wanted it investigated.
Q: What level did you want it investigated, that the D.A.'s office couldn't provide.
A: As an employment matter, I don't think that the D.A.'s office is competent to do investigation on behalf of employers with respect to disciplinary issues.
Statutes of Limitation?
Asked about any applicable Statute of Limitations regarding the Collective Bargaining Agreement as it related to the incident of February 28, 1999, Mr. Cuthbertson said although he had done some work with Section 75 of Civil Service Law, he did not know what the applicable Statute of Limitations was with regard to the incident.
He believed there may have been a written referral to the Suffolk County D.A.'s office, after the report was issued, but he had no independent knowledge of that. He did not think the Town Attorney's office authorized Bob DeGregorio to represent Councilwoman Scarpati-Reilly in this matter or to be involved in any way in his capacity as Town Attorney, with the incident of February 28, 1999.
To his knowledge Mr. DeGregorio never told him or any other board members, that Mr. Perks had threatened Councilwoman Susan Scarpati-Reilly's life. He did not believe the Town Board ever authorized James (Jim) Matthews to meet with Ms. Scarpati-Reilly in his official capacity as Town Attorney regarding the incident.
Mr. Cuthbertson said he later learned that Mr. Matthews and Mr. DeGregorio met with Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to discuss the incident, although it was not authorized by the Town. Subsequently, Mr. DeGregorio went from full time to a part time position and decided to leave with a termination pay of between $20,000 to $50,000 dollars.
So essentially, according to Mr. Perks, after numerous calls to the DA's office went unanswered fror almost a week, she went with Mr. DeGregorio to the DA's office, to get them to intervene, but they refused.
Medical benefits, pension credits, a salary and a secretarial staff were all provided to Mr. Cuthbertson as a Town Board member he said, but he did not know if he would technically be considered "an employee" of the Town.
Mr. Yule then shifted his examination to questions about who paid for Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's attorneys.
Originally, she hired Raymond Perini and Maureen Hoder to represent her regarding the February 28, 1999 incident.
Mr. Cuthberston said Ms. Scarpati-Reilly may have made a request for the Town to pay for her attorneys, or she might not have. She may have presented a bill to the Town Board...or she may not have, according to Mr. Cuthbertson, he could not recall either way.
He thought it was referred to the Suffolk D.A.'s office as part of the resolution, but could not recall any response back from the Suffolk County District Attorney's office.
The Town honored Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's choice of attorney and her request for them to pay Jason Abelove, according to Mr. Cuthbertson, because it was a "conflict situation".
According to Steve Israel, a Town Councilman at the time, if it was determined that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly 's actions fell outside the scope of her duties and responsibilities as a Town Board member, the Town would act to recoup the legal fees for Jason Abelove that the Town laid out in her defense. Even after the United States District Court jury found her guilty of sexual harassment, which obviously falls outside of her duties as a Councilwoman, the Town to date has not attempted to get any of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees back from Ms. Scarpati-Reilly.
Editor's note: Why not?
According to his union contract Mr. Perks had an absolute legal right to counsel, in the case of an assault, but was denied legal representation and was forced to go to arbitration where he won his case, after an exhaustive and protracted lawsuit. Upheld by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Farneti, the award has once again been appealed by the Town...(cha-ching for the attorneys involved).
According to the Arbitrator's comment, "Justice delayed is justice denied."
According to Mr. Perks the Town has wasted a fortune supplying Ms. Scarpart-Reilly with legal counsel for numerous actions all of which she lost and yet they refused to honor the provisions of the union contract that absolutely required them to supply him with legal counsel as they had done in the past. "It is a simple case of retaliation against a whistleblower who insisted on telling the public they are at risk for exposure to radiated waste that was burned in the Ogden Martin (now Covanta) Resource Recovery Plant in Huntington.
No response from the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office was ever received...but the open ended investigation of Mr. Perks hangs like a Sword of Damocles over the life and family of Mr. Perks.
Other Accusations by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly...
Asked if Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had accused Thelma Neira (still an Assistant Town Attorney) for Huntington Town, of a criminal accusation, Mr. Cuthbertson said he did recall something about a memo, but it predated his time on the Town Board.
Exhibit Cuthbertson D was shown to Mr. Cuthbertson, it was an interoffice memo dated June 11, 1998 regarding liaison positions. He was appointed to the Department of Human Services, the Department of the Assessor and the Community Development Agency and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was appointed as the liaison to the Oil Spill Response Board, the Department of General Services and the Department of Waste Management.
Councilman Steve Israel was appointed liaison to the Department of Environment and Maritime Services. Mr. Cuthbertson said he had an issue and wasn't delighted with the "slots" he got.
Exhibits Cuthbertson E and F were handed to the witness and Mr. Yule asked about "E", the police report regarding the incident of February 28, 1999, that was made by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly.
Q: Did you come to learn that at some point Ms. Scarpati-Reilly denied going to the precinct.
A: Yes...I either read the fact that she denied that in a newspaper report, or I heard it secondhand, that she denied filing the police report.
Mr. Cuthbertson said he also became aware that she had accused George Hoffman, the Chief of Staff, of impersonating her at the precinct and filing the complaint against Mr. Perks, again, either secondhand or part of a newspaper account. When Mr. Cuthbertson spoke to Mr. Hoffman he said George Hoffman was very upset and he thought Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's statements that he made the complaint dressed as her, were "libelous and bizarre."
"It would be a masterful contrivance to come up with these sort of circumstances." Would it be a masterful contrivance to think that George Hoffman impersonated her?
Next, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's accusation that there was a conspiracy by the Democrats to "get her", was not true, according to Mr. Cuthbertson. He did not feel it was his place as liaison to discipline employees directly that work within the departments that he is liaison to, but the proper course of action would be to go to the director of the department...the head., who has power to hire and fire.
Mr. Cuthbertson said he was aware Ms. Scarpati-Reilly accused Councilwoman Marlene Budd of stalking her son and then sent a note saying she was "just kidding." He also knew of an accusation by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly against Steve Israel when she accused him of taking a bribe from Mr. Klar, by way of Steve Reilly and reiterated the charge against Thelma Neira for allegedly changing a memo...
The accusation against Mr. Israel sort of "peetered out", according to Mr, Cuthbertson and no Fact-Finder was hired in that instance. Mr. Steve Reilly Sr. was involved in the alleged accusation of Mr. Israel, according to the Cuthbertson testimony.
Editor's note: All of these criminal allegations fettered by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly...against political allies...all peetered out because she was untruthful. Ms. Scarpati-Reilly lies about a bizarre incident about Mr. Perks and George Hoffman allegedly in drag impersonating her at the 2nd Precinct filing a harassment complaint....she is forced to admit in written statements to the press and the public that she was a bold-faced liar.
This however, did not stop Mr. Cuthbertson and the Town Board from acting on the word of a self professed liar, from using her false allegations against Mr. Perks to spend millions of dollars in legal fees to target Mr. Perks on the unsubstantiated charge of assault by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. Remember, Mr. Petrone said in his deposition he had told her, "Susan...you asked for it...you got it." referring to the Town Board Resolution charging Mr. Perks with assault based on no media reports.
Mr. Cuthbertson did not believe is was proper for a Councilperson to assist a union represented employee of the Town in writing grievances against the Town. He had not heard Mr. DeGregorio had requested that Mr. Perks cut down some trees in his yard in return for assisting him in preparing his grievances against the Town of Huntington.
Mr. Cuthbertson was not aware of the fact that two persons signed Mr. Perks' checks and he did not think it would be the liaison who could authorize overtime, but the department head. He also noted it would probably be the harbormaster who had the authority to write summonses, but was not sure. He was never given a copy of the Town's sexual harassment policy, according to him, when he first took office in 1998.
Exhibit Cuthbertson F was shown to Mr. Cuthbertson, the resolution where they would have adopted a section regarding a sexual harassment policy and regulations dated February 9, 1999. Then Exhibit Budd F was also shown in conjunction with Exhibit Cuthbertson F and the sexual harassment policy was identified as "Schedule A". It was adopted sometime after February 9, 1999 and was a new sexual harassment policy.
Mr. Cuthbertson did not know Nancy Bond, but he was aware of a sexual harassment case involving David McGovern and the Huntington Animal Shelter that took place while he was a Town Board member, though he couldn't recall the substance of the complaint by the plaintiffs. He was shown Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 to refresh his recollection that reminded him there were discussions in the Executive Session with outside counsel about the case.
He could not recall Ms. Scarpati-Reilly asking the Town Board if she could hire Jason Abelove. Mr Yule then asked if as an attorney and a Councilman he thought there was a conflict with Mr. Abelove defending Ms. Scarpati-Reilly in this lawsuit, in which the fees are being paid for by the Town and also representing the Councilwoman in the personal matter against Mr. Perks.
Q: Is that unethical, do you know?
A: Off the top of my head, I don't know.
According to Mr. Perks, "Susan Scarpati-Reilly filed a lawsuit against me, my attorney, Ed Yule said that I should check with my home owner's policy to see if they would cover me. They did and paid out tens of thousands of dollars to defend me. " This case was held before Judge Catterson and Mr. Perks' attorney, Edward Yule requested that twenty five pubic hairs be removed from Susan Scarpati-Reilly above and 25 pubic hairs be removed below the naval by an attending forensic physician. After several court delays, Judge Catterson ordered Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to appear...and produce the DNA evidence that would support or refute the alleged affair aboard a houseboat owned by Mr. Perks. When she and/or her attorney failed again to appear in court to produce the evidence, Judge Catterson dismissed the case.
Acording to Mr. Perks...months later he was dropped by the home owner's policy.
Mr. Cuthbertson also did not know if the Town was paying for Mr. Stolzer and his associate at the deposition that day, "I don't know how they work, if they have a blended rate, how they bill. I don't get involved in that."
Asked if the Town of Huntington had an emergency response plan for evacuation, he did not know.
Ed Yule then paused his examination and a short recess was taken.
When the deposition reconvened, Mr. Cuthbertson was shown the letter Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had written to the newspaper (Budd D) that had the Town Seal on it. He did not believe that was a proper use of the Town Seal as it was a personal letter. He took issue with the accusation that there was a Democratic plot and a conspiracy "and how somehow the Town Board members savor this litigation and what is happening. I disagree strongly with that.. There are other aspects of the details of this that probably, if we went piece by piece, I would disagree with."
The next few pages of the deposition called for a back and forth between the attorneys about what part of discussions with the County Attorney may have been held in the company of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and whether the questions crossed over the realm of attorney client privilege and confidentiality. Mr.
Cuthbertson declined to answer that and also the next question that involved Ms. Scarpati-Reilly lying to the press about George Hoffman, because she said she was afraid of Mr. Perks who she claimed was threatening her.
A lengthy discussion then took place between Mr. Stolzer, Mr. Yule and Mr. Abelove regarding the issue of privilege. Mr. Yule asserted that if they do claim privilege in the deposition, they cannot use any of that evidence at trial and they may have to disclose those discussions, maybe in an in-camera review by the court. Because some of the statements that may be made in Executive Session were not privileged and available for him to assist in his case, if they were going to claim privilege here, they could not use the information at trial. He reserved his right to get a ruling on questions involving the discussions with the Town Attorney's office at which Susan Scarpati-Reilly was present and privy to information that he was not privy to.
Mr. Yule asked how many discussions were held in Executive Session with Susan Scarpati-Reilly present, without revealing the substance of the conversations and Mr. Cuthbertson said there were a few, maybe less than ten discussions with her present.
Q: (by Yule) With regard to the East Northport landfill, were you aware that Mr. Perks was assigned there sometime after February 28, 1999?
A: (by Cuthbertson) Yes.
Q: Were you aware that while he was assigned there, that the radiation alarm that is installed at that facility went off?
A: I've read newspaper accounts about radiation. Am I aware that an alarm with respect to radiation actually went off? No, not personally. I read a newspaper about that issue.
Q: Does the Town of Huntington have a procedure to protect employees at the landfill in the event that there is radiation found there, to your knowledge?
A; I don't know anything about those procedures..
Mr. Yule ended his examination and Mr. Abelove began to ask questions of Mr. Cuthbertson.
Examination of Mark Cuthbertson by Jason Abelove, Susan Scarpati-Reilly's attorney:
Mr. Abelove only asked a few more questions including whether or not Mr. Cuthbertson had heard directly from Ms. Scarpati-Reilly about her accusation regarding Councilman Steve Israel and the alleged bribe he took from Mr. Klar. He believed he had read it in a newspaper and did not hear it directly from Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. He did not read any statements drafted by the Councilwoman where she made those allegations and did not hear them from Mr. Steve Reilly or read any documents drafted by him.
The 96 page deposition then ended...
Stay tuned for the entrance of the leading lady in this drama, the deposition of Susan Scarpati-Reilly coming up next......
No comments:
Post a Comment