Last month Freelance Investigations published an Exclusive Article revealing that Governor Andrew Cuomo has requested the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) look into serious allegations made by a former Town of Huntington Harbormaster and Hazardous Materials Coordinator against some former and some current Town Board members of the Town of Huntington.
William Townsend Perks has been raising red flags for over fifteen years that radiated scrap or "grizzly" was being trucked and burned in the Town of Huntington waste-to-energy incinerator (then Ogden Martin) now known as the Covanta Incinerator. It has cost him and his family dearly. To catch some of you up with the story...
"GRIZZLY-GATE"
Mr. Perks supplied Freelance Investigations with evidence that indicates truckloads of radiated scrap (grizzly) were burned and radiated waste was trucked illegally on neighborhood streets perhaps for over a decade. This was done without any permits or notification to proper authorities--for as far back as 1994 and through at least 2003. The State DEC upon receiving the letter from Governor Cuomo, decided the matter was serious enough to open a criminal investigation into the allegations sent to them by the Governor's Office. (To see full article press the link: http://freelance-documentdrivennews.blogspot.com/2014/02/governor-cuomo-asks-state-dec-to.html)
Mr. Perks has been labelled overly litigious by the Town, but he insists he was only trying to protect himself and the employees who had an absolute right to know what they were being exposed to because New York State has very strict and specific Right-To-Know Laws, but also because these people were being exposed to radiated materials in the course of doing their jobs for the Town. Then they went home in the clothes that they had been exposed to radiation in. They wore them home to be washed in the same washing machines with the clothes of their babies and wives and children and grandparents and other family members, potentially exposing them as well. Radiation is colorless, odorless and tasteless...without a radiation detector, there is no way to know if radiation is present or how much exposure there may be.
The Town has refused for years to pay for Mr. Perks' legal fees when he was falsely accused of an assault in a Town Board Resolution. The resolution was passed in order to spend nearly $100,000 dollars to hire a Fact-Finder to investigate the alleged assault by Mr. Perks of a Town Councilwoman., Susan Scarpati-Reilly.
According to Supervisor, Frank Petrone, they did so because there were multiple media reports that had already exposed the alleged assault. The problem is there were no media reports about an assault at that time. However, the press had a field day with the "Horny Harbormaster and the Town Councilwoman" stories-- for years after that. Almost all of the news outlets ignored the serious issues about the radiation and were only focusing on the sleazy alleged affair between the two and the myriad of cross-accusations and lawsuits they were able to exploit to sell papers.
The Town refuses to pay Mr. Perks' legal fees to this day...continuing to spend millions in order not to have to pay what originally was a bill for about $70,000 submitted by his attorney, Mr. Edward Yule. That original legal bill has now burgeoned over these many years of forced litigation by the Town, to over five million with interest that was awarded by Judge Joseph Farneti, after the years of continued arbitration and in an appeal by the Town of Mr. Perks' legal fees for his attorney, that were awarded by the arbitrator.
The Town has now paid for over fourteen years of litigation and spent millions in attorney's fees in order not to have to pay Mr. Perks' original legal fees of about $70,000 dollars. They continue to waste the taxpayer's money to the very present day, even though arbitration and Judge Farneti's decision sided with Mr. Perks and his Attorney, Ed Yule and said that the Town is responsible for Mr. Perks' legal fees because they were always covered by his union's collective bargaining agreement.
To this very day, the Town insists on spending more taxpayer money in legal fees to now appeal the Judge's Decision that supported the arbitrator's decision saying they should just pay Mr. Yule.
Conversely, Huntington Town has willingly and pretty much without questions spent millions in legal fees over fourteen years to pay for the defense of litigants sued by former Town Councilwoman Scarpati-Reilly and for her and their own defense against a sexual harassment lawsuit brought against her and the Town by Mr. Perks. The jury decided Ms. Scarpati-Reilly did sexually harass Mr. Perks, but did not hold the Town liable for her actions and awarded Mr. Perks no monetary compensation.
He Said...She Said...
He Supplied DNA...She Refused to...She Shut Up
Mr. Perks has always testified that he had an affair with the married Councilwoman and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly has always denied that. However, when Ms. Scarpati-Reilly sued Mr. Perks for defamation based on his assertion they had an affair, she said he was lying. He said he had DNA to prove he wasn't...the judge insisted she supply DNA to compare to blood and hair samples Mr. Perks said he obtained from his houseboat where he alleged the affair had taken place on occasions.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly did not appear at several scheduled court appearances and never submitted to the court ordered DNA testing. So the Judge warned her once more on the record in open court, that she had to submit her DNA by a certain date, because after all, she was the one who was suing Mr. Perks saying he was lying about the affair. Mr. Perks' defense was that what he was saying was true and the DNA could prove that-- he asserted. When Ms. Scarpati-Reilly again did not comply with the court ordered DNA test, which was just a cheek swab, the judge noted and so it was not invasive as she had claimed earlier, according to court documents, when she failed to comply again, the judge dismissed her defamation case against Mr. Perks.
Mr. Perks kept filing grievances for himself and also on behalf of the other employees, because they never had the proper training or Haz-mat gear to protect them from exposure to radiation, he said. Even the DEC personnel assigned to the incinerator in East Northport, when the newly installed radiation detector continued to go off-- admitted to Mr. Perks they had no training related to radiation exposure whatsoever. When told the alarm was continuing to go off... the background level was raised five points higher so then, according to an interoffice memo, the alarm didn't go off as much after that.
The document in question was about the radioactive waste and dated May 18, 2000 from the facility manager at Ogden Martin; Thomas Chambers. It shows that from January to April of that year there were 25 incidents of radioactivity at the plant. Mr. Chambers wrote:
“With the exception of (3) ferrous metal loads returned from Gershow recycling most all incidents involved metal isotopes utilized in diagnostic testing. In the beginning of April 2000 we raised the detection level of the Bicron radiation detector to (5) times background and therefore the amount of detections dropped off considerably in April."
According to testimony of former Huntington Town Councilwoman, Susan Scarpati-Reilly, (from her deposition in a federal court case) the Town Board knew about the radiation at the plant as far back as 1994/95, but they handled it and took care of it in the private and undocumented Town Board Executive Sessions... because in Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's exact words, they were concerned about "litigation".
Radioactive isotopes were found in the fly ash of the burned scrap that was buried in the landfills to cap them. When tested it was revealed they contained radioactive isotopes with half lives of several billion years.
On February 18, and May 12, 1999 NDL Organization Inc. located at 1000 Lower South Street in Peekskill, New York, conducted an analysis under Gamma Spectroscopy of the Ash Content, Debris and Sludge (Slag & Debris) from the Ogden Martin Facility at 99 Town Road in East Northport and found that it contained: Thorium 232, Uranium 238, K-40 (Potassium) and Cesium 137.
Specifically:
Uranium-238+D at 8.6 pCi/g Half Life: 4.46 Billion Years
Thorium-232 +D at 91.2 pCi/g Half Life: 14 Billion Years
K-40 (Potassium) at 0.94 pCi/g Half Life: 1.25 Billion Years Cesium-137 at 0.82 pCi/g Half Life: 30 Years
Thorium- 232 is classified as a carcinogenic and emits alpha particles. It is extremely insoluble, but can become more soluble in the presence of high concentrations of organic materials.
Uranium-238 emits alpha particles. They are less penetrating than other forms of radiation, and weak gamma rays. As long as it remains outside the body, uranium poses little health hazard, if inhaled or ingested, however, its radioactivity poses increased risks of lung cancer and bone cancer. Uranium is also chemically toxic at high concentrations and can cause damage to internal organs, notably the kidneys.
Half-life is the period of time it takes for a substance undergoing decay to decrease by half. (Information from: The Environmental Health Division of the Wisconsin State Laboratory relating to Radiochemistry)
Here is part three and the final part of the deposition from Susan Scarpati-Reilly...
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 of New York.
Present were:
Rains & Pogrebin Lawfirm:
Ernie Stolzer, attorney for 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 an account of the testimony contained in the deposition on MAY 7, 2001, the last day of the deposition.
THE DEPOSITION OF TOWN COUNCILWOMAN SUSAN SCARPATI-REILLY
May 7, 2001
At the end of the last deposition day, April 23, 2001 Ms. Scarpati-Reilly allegedly tossed an Exhibit at Mr. Yule, the attorney for William Perks and yelled at him and his client to stop staring at her and walked out of the deposition. The characterization of her actions was objected to by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's attorney, Jason Abelove and the subject was left for a judge's ruling.
The deposition picked up where it left off and Mr. Yule showed the witness an exhibit and began the questioning again.
The common political affiliations between Mr. Perks and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly eventually caused them to become closer socially and in 1996 he would call her and tell her his marital problems. They had lunch together often and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly enjoyed his company because he was funny, personable and engaging according to her description. Their friendship was close until the incident at the Mobil Oil Transfer Station on February 28, 1999 she testified.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she had a meeting in December, 1998 with Mr. Nolan, Mr. Perks' director, Mr. Anastasia, the head of Maritime Services Division and Josephine Jahier, who showed up late.
LILCO apparently owed about $16,000 dollars in permit fees and this was a matter for discussion, according to the deposition. Mr. Yule then asked about a 12B6 motion Ms. Scarpati-Reilly submitted to Federal Court. There was an affidavit submitted with the motion and the judge ruled that was not proper. In the affidavit Ms. Scarpati-Reilly wrote, "I feel it imperative to stress to this Court that not only did I never have a sexual relationship with the plaintiff, I never threatened the plaintiff with the loss of his job."
The Fact-Finder's report was full of "non-facts", according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and she reiterated that she did not believe asking Mr. Perks to submit his resignation did amount to threatening him with loss of his job.
Q: Do you still believe that today, that you never threatened him with loss of his job?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you wrote, there's a comma, "other benefits of his employment." Do you still believe that you never threatened the plaintiff with the loss of other benefits of his employment?
A: No.
Q: What about you never threatened the plaintiff with criminal prosecution?
A: Never did.
Q: Didn't you go to the police station on February 28, 1999?
A: Yes.
Q: Didn't you go to the DA's office a couple of times thereafter?
A: Yes.
Q: Didn't you speak on the phone on a number of occasions with persons, whether they be secretaries or actual ADA's of the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office?
A: Yes.
When she went to the Mobil Oil Transfer Station that rainy Sunday evening, she said she was upset because Mr. Perks was out of uniform, didn't have the truck and equipment she felt he needed to do his job and she wanted to speak to him about permit and summonses that should have been handled the prior summer.
Mr. Yule asked the witness what rule or Town code required Mr. Perks to have equipment in his truck and she could not cite any specific rule or law. Mr. Perks has insisted the equipment he needed was at the station and he didn't need to have the Town truck and equipment in order to do his job that night.
BACK TO THE 2ND PRECINCT...
Mr. Yule asked Ms. Scarpati-Reilly if she ever asked the police to have Mr. Perks "locked up".
A: I was going home. I didn't have any time to write out an affidavit and play around with the police department. It takes two or three hours in order to do all that. I didn't have the time, I had people waiting for me.
Q: Did the police tell you that you had to wait around and fill out all sorts of paperwork before they would lock him up?
A: Did the police tell me that?
Q: Yes.
A: I have my knowledge of bringing clients down in the past for that kind of situation.
Q: But when you went to the precinct did you say the words "I want you to have him ," quote, "locked up." end quote?
A: Never.
Q: Did you ever say I wanted him arrested?
A: Never.
Q: --"right now"?
A: Never.
Q: Then you went on to say in this affidavit, "because I was assaulted." You wrote that word "assaulted"?
A: I didn't write it. My attorney prepared this.
Q: But you signed it right?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: You signed it under penalty of perjury?
A: Sure did.
Q: You know the difference between assault and harassment; right?
A: Yes. I do.
Q: When you went to the precinct, did you ever tell them that you were assaulted?
A: No, I told them I was slapped on the arm.
Mr. Yule asked about a subpoena Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had received to appear in Mr. Perks' arbitration case and if she thought it was still good. She said, the Town Attorney, Thelma Neira told her she no longer had to appear under subpoena at a meeting they had a week prior to discuss the arbitration.
Then Mr. Abelove and Mr. Clark both objected to any more questions regarding their conversation, once again citing privilege.
The attorneys proceeded to argue whether or not Mr. Yule was badgering Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, Mr. Yule insisted he was merely asking questions and continued with the examination.
In the affidavit, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly used the word "assault" and Mr. Yule pressed her about it.
Q: You used the word assault in this affidavit. What's the definition of assault?
A: Which form?
Q: Well, when you used it here in the affidavit.
A: It could be a civil assault, intentional striking of an individual.
Q: So that's what you meant, a civil assault, when you wrote that in there?
A: I didn't write this. This was prepared by my attorney.
Q: But that's your signature on it?
A: Yes, and I overlooked that when I signed it. I just ran--I think I testified already that this was not worded the way I would have worded it, but it was worded by my attorney. He wasn't available when I signed it. I was under pressure to get it done quickly, because he was under pressure to get it done quickly because of time restraints and so I didn't get an opportunity to go word by word with my attorney and I guess I didn't really notice it at the time. I just went through it.
Q: Did you ever notify the Court that it was an error?
A: No, but I will.
Q: Two years later?
A: Yeah, I am just noticing it.
Q: Did you notify the Town regarding your use of the word assault in an affidavit was a mistake?
A: I just found out about it, so I will notify the Town. I think they're here. So notified.
Mr. Perks said that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly initiated the contact with Court by submitting an affidavit of her own volition that was ruled out of order by Judge Mischler. Mr. Perks, said "The time constraint was created by her own actions in an attempt to derail her original assault charge, which by now was a runaway train with Frank Petrone as the engineer and conductor and the Town Board as passengers, while taxpayers bought the ticket."
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had written in her affidavit that the most serious portion of Mr. Perks' conversation with Mr. DeGregorio, was the fact that "he wants us to change the story. He wants me to go to the police, was threatening that I had to change my story, tell them it wasn't me."
Mr. Perks asked in a recent interview, "Why would anyone ask her to go back to the police that she had already spoken to and try to tell them it wasn't really her? That it was a man pretending to be her? Does that make sense to anyone...? The DA didn't think so either."
She continued, "Yeah He threatened me. He threatened that I was going to be found dead if she didn't change the story and tell the police that it wasn't me who filed the incident report."
Q: Did you tell the Assistant District Attorney that it was really tampering with a witness? That you felt that was the charge that should have been brought against Mr. Perks?
A: I told--it was a litany, a litany of things, but I believe I would leave that up to their discretion. It was more I guess, Mr. DeGregorio.
Q: Did you ever tell the DA that Mr. Perks threatened your life?
A: Yes.
Mr. Perks said, "In previous depositions she said I threatened she would be found dead on the side of the road from suicide....the officials didn't buy that story, so now she changes her original premise and now she includes the threat against her life by me...She no longer says suicide, now it's a threat of murder. So we've morphed from a slap on the arm, to assault, to threat of suicide, to threat of murder...and still no one is biting. Now she is dragging Mr. DeGregorio into this." Mr. Perks added "She said it was up to the DA's discretion...they referred her back to the police and by March 11th she had already told the police she didn't want to go any further with the complaint...but that didn't stop the Town from going forward with their own in-house investigation against me."
Mr. Yule then showed the witness Plaintiff's Exhibit 30, a memo Ms. Scarpati-Reilly wrote to Mr. Perks dated November 23, 1998 and it had her initials next to her name.
The memo was related to the need for additional employees to be certified and trained as on-scene incident commanders or hazardous material technicians. At that point in time, only Mr. Perks was qualified and Mr. Acker and Rick Rollins had failed to become certified because they both failed the exam. Or as Ms. Scarpati-Reilly described it, "Obstacles were put in the way." As a result she asked Jody Anastasia and the Oil Spill Control Board to schedule another exam, so they could become qualified.
Mr. Acker's management status made it difficult for him to assign him to inspect tankers on overtime, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said and that was why in the memo she wrote to Mr. Perks, "Therefore, you can assign another employee to cover ship inspections during non-working hours." This was an authority that Mr. Perks had as Oil Spill Response Manager, she said.
At some point there was a complaint from Matt Gross about the overtime, but Mr. Acker and Mr. Rollins were not certified to handle oil spills. She also asked Mr. Perks to prepare a weekly schedule to assign personnel to be on call in case there were a tanker inspection, but she had no idea if he ever did that.
Mr. Perks was more qualified and more highly certified to handle oil spills than any one else at the Town, including his bosses; Peter Waznys, Phil Nolan and Josephine Jahier.
According to Mr. Perks none of the three had any training or practical experience or certification in any of the requirements of the job. Jody Anastasia had some qualifications and experience from his service in the Coast Guard, but the Town refused to allow Mr. Perks to work for him as harbormaster. "They insisted on making me work out of title and classification at the landfill as hazardous material's coordinator.", he said.
When asked why Peter Waznys didn't write the memo to his employee, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said he asked her to do it.
Q: Peter Waznys as director, asked the Councilwoman to write a memo to Waznys's subordinate?
A: Yeah.
Switching to Exhibit 30A; an interoffice memo from Susan Scarpati-Reilly to Mr. Perks dated November 23, 1998 and a draft memorandum prepared by Bob DeGregorio dated September 17, 1996 Mr. Yule, then showed her a memo dated November 24, 1998 from Mr. Perks to Susan. She could not recall receiving the memo, but it was most likely given to Mr. Yule by her attorney she agreed. She said she got quite a few memos in 1998, but she didn't always read them all, sometimes she just glanced at them, then filed them.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly attended all the meetings of the Oil Spill Response Board, but it was Mr. Perks who really chaired the public meetings and set the agenda, although all members shared their opinions, she testified. Despite the fact that Patricia Del Col was the director, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she was asked by Ms. Del Col to distribute the Standard Operating and Notification Procedures on behalf of the Oil Spill Control Board.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said "I stepped into the shoes of Frank Petrone to do that." She did that because Frank never did it when asked to by Pat Del Col and she wasn't sure if Frank told Del Col to ask her to do it, but Pat said to her, "Here on behalf of the Oil Spill Control Board, you send it out.". She could not say why Mr. Petrone didn't send out the cover letter himself. There was considerable discussion of how far back they could go on charge backs and it was decided one year was the limit.
"THE LIE...The Shower"
Questioning by Mr. Yule shifted to a previously identified web page (Plaintiff's 21) from August or September of 1999, written by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly.
Q: Why did you feel the need to put a website entitled quote, "The Lie", end quote?
A: Because that was what the press was--the terminology of the press.
Bob DeGregorio did not help her write that, she said.
Mr. Matthews, the Town Attorney, first heard of the incident of February 28, 1999 when he went to Mr. DeGregorio's home on March 7, 1999 and met with Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and Mr. DeGregorio. Testifying she believed Mr. Matthews was there in his official capacity he told her that she was "doing the right thing". She could not say how long the meeting lasted and she was there as a Councilwoman as she is always acting in her official capacity 24 hours a day, clarified by Mr. Abelove that when she is taking a shower, even though that is not an official duty, "The Councilwoman is in the shower."
Similarly she said, when asked if Mr. Matthews was there as a friend or in his official capacity as Town Attorney, "The same thing. He is a lawyer. He never takes that off. He also had an appointment. He never--he can't shake that. That's what he was."
Q: But.
A: Just like a police officer, 24 hours a day. You're on duty 24 hours a day. Same exact thing.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she assumed that at the meeting set up by Bob DeGregorio with Mr. Matthews, he was acting on behalf of the Town in capacity as Town Attorney.
Then as the three of them sat at the table, she testified, John Matthews took her hand and Bob's hand and said a prayer. There was no question on the table at the time, "At the end of our discussions, he grabbed both of our hands and said a prayer."
A short five minute break was taken and the questioning continued about the "incident" on February 28, 1999.
Q: Councilwoman, from February 28, 1999 until March 9, 1999, did Mr. Perks ever tell you directly he was going to kill you?
A: No.
Q: Did he ever say he was going to kill your family?
A: I never talked to Mr. Perks except for March 3.
Q: Did he tell you then that he was going to harm your family.
A: He said my children would suffer.
Q: He said your children would suffer?
A: He said they would be hurt.
Q: Of course you went to the police after that; right?
A: I went to the District Attorney's office.
Q: What did they do?
A: I--I told them--what did they do? I told you what they did. I was waiting for Mr. Cohen to get back to me and I spoke to Mr. Cohen. At that point he advised me to proceed to the police if I was to choose that route and then I decided the fact-finder had been appointed and I would handle it in that fashion.
There was a discussion between Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and Mr. Ed Hennesey where it was mentioned that if Mr. Perks didn't cooperate with the Fact-Finder and she didn't either, then they would have nothing and there would be nothing to investigate. Ed Hennesey, was contacted by the union (by his own brother Harry) and asked Ms. Scarpati-Reilly if she would accompany him to speak with Mr. Yule.
She said Ed Hennesey did not encourage her to plead the 5th when she spoke to the Fact-Finder, nor did Harry. She did let the Fact-Finder know that Perks had threatened her children and her life she testified and Mr. Labush made no comment but "was concerned" she said.
Plaintiff's 20, the Ethics Board web pages, were shown to her and she said she wrote them but had Mr. DeGregorio review them prior to publishing them. He suggested grammatical changes, but wasn't acting as a Town Attorney she said because he wasn't employed by the Town at that time. Then she said he hadn't been appointed by the Town. Records show he was dismissed by the Town as Environmental Counsel at that time and re-hired as outside counsel when he asked them for numerous sick and vacation days he had no in no way documented, but demanded to be paid for. He never punched a clock and no one had kept track of his time, except him.
In paragraph 68 of the website she wrote a letter to the press apologizing for "misstatements" and in the letter she said, deponent, referring to herself "was careful not to mention Perks' threats of being found dead from suicide. This was done at the explicit instruction of the District Attorney's Office."
Mr. Perks noted: "Now she is saying that the District Attorney's Office had instructed her to change the story and it is back to suicide."
"DEPENDS ON WHAT YOUR DEFINITION OF A LIE IS"
Maureen McCormick, the Suffolk ADA, specifically told her to do that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified.
A: I told them I had lied to the press. They said they weren't telling the press anything either. I said that I had to send a letter of apologies to them and um--as a result, they said, "Well be careful not to talk about the threats that I was to be found dead through suicide" because it was still at that point in time being discussed whether we were going to try and put a tap on his phone and have him speak with Mr. Perks and see if Mr. Perks would again make those threats and to obviously--
Q: Why did you have to send a letter to the newspaper?
A: I just felt it was my obligation, as an elected official to apologize to the public for stories that were being written that week.
Q: You wrote a letter apologizing for your lying?
A: Misstatements.
Q: Would an analogy for a misstatement be a lie?
A: Depends on what your definition of a lie is. I don't know what your definition is. You call me a liar all the time, so I don't know.
Q: What is your definition of a liar?
A: There were misstatements. I was trying to protect myself and my family from harm.
Q: Physical harm?
A: Yes, yes.
Q: But what's your definition of a lie?
A: Maybe not completely truthful.
Q: I mean you even referred to yourself a few moments ago of having lied; right?
A: I don't know. Can I have that read back please?
MR ABELOVE: (Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's attorney) I honestly don't remember her saying that, so--
Q: (YULE) I'll ask you another question then. Would it be an accurate statement to characterize your false statement to the press saying it wasn't you who filed the complaint and then later apologizing for that as lying to the police?
A: (Scarpati-Reilly) It was extortion. Mr. Perks was extorting me, coercing me into telling the press these particular misstatements in order to, I guess, further his own, I guess, benefit. And for me I was being threatened, my family was being threatened.
Q: As a result of that you lied?
A: As a result of that I followed Mr. Perks' instructions to protect myself and my family.
Q: But those instructions, you say they were from Perks? You got them directly from DeGregorio; right? You never got them directly from Perks?
A: No, directly from Perks.
Q: You did?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: When was that?
A: On March 3, in a telephone conversation I had with him.
Q: Then after that telephone conversation you went to his house?
A: No.
Mr. Perks upon reading this part of the transcript said, "Now she is accusing me of extortion and coercion and is saying I told her to lie to the press, when just a few paragraphs earlier she said it was the DA..."
Mr. Yule then asked about the Ethic's Board report and Ms. Scarpati-Relly said she had read it.
Q: Is it fair to say that they did not believe your version of the facts that Perks had threatened your life?
A: I think the document speaks for itself.
Q: Did they believe you?
A: I have no idea. I have never spoken to them.
Q: You read their report right?
A: Yeah, a long time ago.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she removed her web page about the report, but did not know when she did so.
"This all happened in the space of a few months and she had written a rebuttal to their report." Mr. Perks said, "So how could she possibly have forgotten that so quickly?"
Conflicts of interest between attorneys was the topic next up on Mr. Yule's roster and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly did not find any problem or conflict of interest when she met with Town Attorney, Matthews and Bob DeGregorio in Mr. DeGregorio's home. There was no problem with them praying together that day. Then Mr. Yule showed her a quote from Mr. Matthews from a press release where he said:
She believed the quote was from the Observer and Huntington News article dated August 19, 1999.
"Ultimately we believe that a judge and/or jury will dismiss all claims against the Town. To the extent that Mr. Perks has any claim of harassment, we believe it is between Mr. Perks and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly." (Town Attorney; Jim Matthews)
When asked, she said she did not believe after reading it that Mr. Matthews had a conflict of interest when he met with her that Sunday at Mr. DeGregorio's home.
Next she was asked if she thought it was a conflict of interest for her to represent her husband and children in the defamation case where she could have been called as a material witness. Mr. Abelove objected, instructed her not to answer and it was marked for a ruling.
She was asked if she thought it was a conflict of interest when she spoke to Laura Perks and she did not.
She did tell Mr. Labush that before the vote on the resolution appointing the Fact-Finder, that she tried to let Mr. Petrone, the Supervisor and Mr. Matthews, the Town Attorney that the word assault was not correct or accurate and was a mistake "and needed to be changed."
Q: When did you tell him that?
A: I told him in the informal interview as well as in the deposition.
Q: But you didn't mention it in the deposition?
A: I did mention it in the deposition.
Q: What did you say in your deposition, to the best of your recollection?
A: I said that I had confronted Jim Matthews as well as Frank Petrone over the word of assault and ask that it be changed.
Q: Why were you involved in discussions of the resolution when you abstained from the vote?
A: Because the resolution, I had to make--I had to vote on it. I decided after reading the resolution that I abstained on it.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she didn't make a public comment on it because she thought she had made adequate representation to the Town Attorney and to the Town Board Supervisor. Then she also told the Fact-Finder who was supposedly investigating on behalf of the Town, that it was done improperly.
"BARRISTER IMBROGLIO"
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly used the word assault in her affidavit to the judge. When confronted about that fact, she said, "I didn't. I told you I reviewed that very quickly. I did not catch that at the time. I just caught it today when you showed it to me."
Q: You mean you caught it the last time when I showed it to you just before you walked out.
A: I don't believe so. I don't think I got to that page yet.
(Editor's Note: She had gotten to that page and she was shown it at the last deposition day.)
Q: The last thing you'd like to see is Mr. Perks have his attorney paid for during that investigation; is that a fair statement?
MR. ABELOVE: During which?
MR. YULE: The Fact-Finder.
MR. ABELOVE: Objection. That's just badgering her.
MR. YULE: No it's not.
MR. ABELOVE: I think the last thing she'd like to see is her kids getting murdered.
MR. YULE: Maybe you should check the witnesses out before you make statements about Perks' alleged threats about their children because no one in the world seems to know about these threats.
MR. ABELOVE: Objection. I mean you are badgering the witness.
MR. YULE: I'm talking to you in response to your statement.
MR. ABELOVE: But you're being sarcastic.
MR. YULE: And so--
MR. ABELOVE: --and totally unprofessional.
MR. YULE: So are you.
MR. ABELOVE: What's sarcastic, the comment? I objected on the record.
MR. YULE: I will not argue Jason--
MR. ABELOVE: --and you came back with sarcasm.
MR. YULE: You stated my client was going to kill her kids, but there is not a single person in the DA's Office that will back you up.
MR. ABELOVE: All right. That's it. I mean any more of this and I'm ending this deposition because it's totally inappropriate. Now you're pointing at me and giving me attitude and being argumentative.
MR. YULE: I'm asking you to stop calling my client a murderer.
MR. ABELOVE: When did I call your client a murderer?
MR. YULE: Well, you'll read the transcript.
MR. ABELOVE: Read the transcript from what? No I didn't.
The verbal volley between attorneys finally ended and Mr. Yule showed Plaintiff's 22 to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. She said no one had helped her write it and no one reviewed it before she published it. In it she said Mr. Perks falsely accused her of sexual harassment, but could offer no proof except her testimony.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly stated that Mr. Perks had not substantiated his claims of sexual harassment, however a jury in United States District Court eventually found her guilty of sexually harassing Mr. Perks, but released the Town from any financial liability and awarded Mr. Perks no financial remuneration.
The next few questions referred to transfer of funds from the Oil Spill Trust and Agency account that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had sent a memo to the comptroller asking about. Josephine Jahier and Phil Nolan were the ones that got the printouts of the shortfall and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly could not say for sure if Mr. Perks was ever notified.
Winding down the questioning Mr. Yule asked if Ms. Scarpati-Reilly ever told Mr. Matthews that Mr. Perks had assaulted her. She said "No.".
Q: Did you ever tell the District Attorney's Office that you were the subject of extortion?
A: They're the ones that told me.
Q: Which one?
A: I don't recall which one.
Q: Either Mr. Williams or Ms. McCormack?
A: Yes.
Q: At that meeting when you were there with Mr. DeGregorio--
A: Yes.
Q: --Did you ever tell the Fact-Finder that you were the subject of extortion?
A: Um--I believe he also acknowledged that.
Q: How did he acknowledge that?
A: We had a conversation about the fact that I was being blackmailed. That's why I believe in the transcript he asked me if I felt I was coerced.
Q: Did you ever tell the police that you were the subject of extortion?
A: No. I only talked to the police to make an incident report on February 28 and when I talked to the sergeant concerning the actual incident on--on the 8th of March, that I had decided at that point in time not to pursue any more discussions with the police department.
Q: Did you ever say to Sergeant Hunt that you had a change of heart?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever tell Kenneth Kelly (the Fact-Finder's investigator) you had a change of heart?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever tell James Matthews about the extortion, blackmail and death threats?
A: Um--Mr. Matthews didn't want me to go into too many specifics.
Mr. Perks said he could not believe that "Now in addition to : being out of uniform, having no Town truck, slapping her in the head, then on the arm (that slid off because it was raining and she had on a slicker, then harassment, then assault, then threat of suicide on side of road, then attempted murder of her and her children, then extortion and coercion and now blackmail has been added to the list of allegation against me. To this day no one from the Police or the District Attorney's Office or the Town Ethic's Board has ever contacted me to discuss her allegations." Clifford Bart, the Town's outside counsel in this matter admitted twice on the record that the Town did not dispute Mr. Perks' version of events that night.
Questions about her conversations with Mr. Matthews and questions about off the record statements to the Fact-Finder were not answered with Mr. Abelove claiming privilege.
Q: You talked in your last deposition about Tuohey having the proxies on the vote for the republican party. Do you remember that? There was some talk of that?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you find yourself being in a difficult position, you being in fact Tuohey's superior, being elected Councilwoman and him having the authority over you in a sense as a republican by having proxies?
A: I find an extreme conflict of interest for the republican party, as well as the conservative party, to have employees of the Town judge you when you go to stand before them, but that is the system.
Q: Do you think it is illegal to trade proxies for a job?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you that was done in the Town of Huntington?
A: Yes.
Q: You think it involved Mr. Tuohey and the republican party?
A: It involved Mr. Tuohey and the supervisor.
Q: Petrone?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you believe Petrone by condoning that or being involved in that, participated in something that was illegal?
A: I guess the people will judge that fact.
Q: Did Tuohey trade his vote with the supervisor?
A: I can't answer that question like that.
Q: Did Tuohey trade his proxies to go along with what Supervisor Petrone had wanted in order to settle his grievances?
A: To get more than what he had requested to settle his grievances.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she didn't go to the Public Integrity Unit of the DA's Office about this.
"Unfortunately in Town government, I see a lot of things that I think are very questionable. I don't go running to the police department or the District Attorney's Office to report every single thing that I see.
If it hurts the public, yes, I would. Did it hurt the public in this fashion, no."
Previously Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified that radiation being burned in the Ogden Martin Facility was discussed in secret Executive Session meetings as far back as '94/95. They "took care of it" she stated, but never informed employees or members of the public that may have been exposed to deadly radiation, because the Town was worried about "Litigation."
Q: As a result of those proxies that Tuohey traded, did Mr. Tuohey earn more money as a result of that working for the Town?
MR. ABELOVE: She said she believes that he traded. It's her opinion.
MR. YULE: Yes, understood.
A: He had gone from a grade 10 to a foreman 3.
(That is a huge jump from a blue collar employee into the supervisory unit which was only one position from the top.) Mr. Perks said, "Everyone was aware of what had transpired and it set a terrible precedent again."
Several questions later:
Q: Do you believe Brian Tuohey and George Hoffman were in conspiracy together to get you around the time of the Mobil Station?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever get Perks a laptop?
A: Did I ever get him a laptop? I never got him one personally.
Q: Did you use your influence in any way to get Perks a laptop for his job as oil spill response manager?
A: Pat Del Col asked me to look into it and I did it for her.
Q: So you got it for Pat Del Col at her request for Perks?
Apparently General Services had gotten an extra one and instead of sending it back, Pat Del Col asked if they could purchase the second one and so Susan Scarpati-Reilly approached Bob LaBower (really Labua) and asked if they could purchase it for use by the Oil Spill Control Board.
Up to that point Mr. Perks typed at least 500 memo's by himself, without any support staff, so the laptop would be very helpful, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly testified. She had turned all those memos over during discovery and had received a copy of all of Mr. Perks' grievance through discovery as well.
She saw his personnel file through discovery and reviewed it with her attorney in advance of the litigation.
THE TRUCK...
Mr. Yule directed Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's attention to January of 1998 and a reorganization meeting regarding the budget and a statement she had made about it to the Fact-Finder...
"They said I could have the truck, even though we had the money in the account."
The "they" was the Town Board and the money was in the Trust & Agency account.
Q: Is it fair to say that you sided with Frank Petrone on the rest of the vote, the rest of the Town vote, and then they voted to get the truck?
A: No.
Q: How did it come about that you compromised your vote, not compromised, but that you gave them a little something and did they give you something back in return, which included the truck for the oil spill response manager?
(After a brief objection to form...Ms. Scarpati-Reilly answered)
In the course of business, when the resolution came up, we discussed in an executive session, the reorganization with a new administration coming in. They wanted to put in 200,000 plus in jobs for various people that they wanted to appoint and bring into Town Hall and to establish a whole brand new constituent service unit.
As a result of that, knowing how I felt about adding more jobs, they said to me in negotiations, you know, what--what would you like to add to this because I know the supervisor had some things he added. I believe the democrats, themselves, had decided amongst themselves what they really had wanted.
As a result of that, I negotiated for equipment at the park in East Northport. I negotiated for some seed money for the commercial fishing marina. I negotiated for some money for the nature center in Crab Meadow Beach and at the end of that, that session, they agreed to have the controller sign off on the purchase order for the oil spill response emergency vehicle, which had been pending for a couple of months, but that didn't require any kind of vote because that was something Pat Del Col had requested for about eight months and Frank and the controller's office had some discussions about it and they wouldn't sign off on it until such time as after the resolution passed. They agreed to let Mike Fabiano sign off on the purchase order.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly denied giving her vote to the supervisor in order to get the truck, saying, "No. There was no vote for an oil spill response emergency vehicle." The Fact-Finder mentioned in his report that selling a vote would be considered criminal activity and for that reason and others forwarded the report to the Suffolk County District Attorney's and State Attorney General's offices.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said she had to file an Article 78 in order to get a copy of the transcript of her deposition with the Fact-Finder, because even after "Foil"-ing for it, they refused to give it to her.
Mr. DeGregorio had stopped by her home just the day before this testimony and she said had spoken with him concerning his upcoming EBT that he had been subpoenaed for. They also discussed the fact that he had gotten a position working for the Town "of counsel" and that he would be handling bank closings and such.
Denying that she discussed what he was going to say, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said, "I think I may have said something to him in the very beginning, at least a month ago, I may have said something."
Q: You haven't said anything to him regarding what kind of questions I was asking you.
A: No. I usually described your demeanor to him.
Calling Mr. DeGregorio a good friend, but not her best friend she said she did not know if Mr. DeGregorio was going to show up for his EBT but he told her he had discussed the timing of it with Dave Besso. (Another attorney, representing Mr. DeGregorio).
Editor's question: Did the Town pay for Besso too?
Questions reverted back to topics already covered as Mr. Yule began to wind the deposition down to a close...
Q: What other Town employees, to your knowledge, submit daily logs as to where they plan to be each day?
A: I have no idea.
Q: Do you think it was proper for you as a Councilwoman to lobby on behalf of Perks' grievances with the union?
A: I lobbied on behalf of all the employees in the Town of Huntington, with the union.
The website she had first published around February or March of 2000, she said, but had changed it subsequently.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was then asked about the Town's sexual harassment policy and when she had first received a copy of it. She could not recall if she had received one in 1993, when she first was elected, but testified that she herself used to give lectures to the professors and assistant professors in sexual harassment policy at SUNY at Farmingdale; which she arranged through the Dean's office there. She did that either between '87-'89 or '88-'90, she wasn't sure, but it was for at least two years, she testified.
Q: Are you familiar with Sexual Harassment Law Title 7?
A: At this stage, no.
Q: No. Back then when you taught it?
A: At that point yes.
Q: From that point to now you lost your familiarity with Title 7?
A: I'm no longer doing civil--writing violations and such with the County. That was kind of an offshoot of that.
Lisa Baisley usually took complaints of that nature, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said, but she herself, was writing a draft sexual harassment policy in conjunction with their attorneys.
Q: Did there come a time when it was formally voted on and adopted?
A: Pursuant to a consent decree, yes.
Q: You heard everyone here, Councilwoman, that they never--they testified that they never received any policy until sometime after this incident. There was a lot of testimony to that.
MR. ABELOVE: Objection.
Q: Do you disagree? In other words, did the Town distribute it's current sexual harassment policy that's in existence now, was it distributed prior to February 28, 1999?
MR. ABELOVE: Objection.
A: No. Not that one.
Q: Why didn't you correct the depositions if there were errors in the deposition of the Fact-Finder when you finally did see it?
A: Who was I going to correct and submit to?
Q: You could write a letter to the Fact-Finder.
A: It was a political document. The Fact-Finder got his pay and that's what he was supposed to do. He was no longer employed by the Town.
Editor's Question: Why didn't Ms. Scarpati-Reilly bring these allegations to the Public Integrity Division at the Suffolk District Attorney's Office?
The final questions referenced a NEWSDAY article dated Sunday, April 2, 2000 and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly underlined what she thought was wrong with it. She said she did contact NEWSDAY about the inaccuracies, but they never published a correction.
At that point Mr. Yule ended his deposition of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly.
THE TOWN CUTS ABELOVE LOOSE...
Mr. Abelove continued to represent Ms. Scarpati-Reilly in this and several other legal cases started by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and the Town continued to pay his fees until 2002. The Town even paid his legal fees for a defamation lawsuit initiated against Mr. perks on behalf of herself and her family. This suit was dismissed when she refused on several occasions to comply with a court order to provide DNA to compare with samples Mr. Perks said he retrieved from his houseboat, when they had their liaisons there.
Editor's Question: Why would the Town pay for a personal lawsuit initiated by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly without knowledge or resolution by the Town Board?
On September 3, 2003 Mr. Abelove wrote a letter to Judge Joanna Seybert (USDC) who had been presiding over the federal court case brought by Mr. Perks against the Town of Huntington et-al and Susan Scarpati-Reilly for sexual harassment. (99Civ, 481 (JS) (MLO)
In this letter Mr. Abelove asks to be removed as counsel for Ms. Scarpati-Reilly because:
The instant matter had over 60 names on the witness list and over 10,000 pages of documents were involved and his client (Susan Scarpati-Reilly) had submitted papers to the court in which Mr. Abelove wrote,
"...she (Scarpati-Reilly) admits she has no intention of paying legal bills incurred. When I have brought this matter up to her she has started screaming at me, hung up the phone on me and has not spoken to me since November, 2002. The Town of Huntington (hereinafter "Town"), who by resolution agreed to pay Scarpati-Reilly's legal bills have proven, by their words and their actions, that they have no intention of paying any legal fees. Frank Petrone, the Supervisor of the Town, has unabashedly stated in a quote to NEWSDAY, "He's not getting another nickel, Town Supervisor said of Abelove, "I don't care how unfair it is." I have been advised by Thelma Neira, Esq., that the Town has advised her not to pay any more legal bills. Further as is detailed below and in the papers before this Court, the Town's actions illustrate they have no intention of paying any legal bills.'
"If Magistrate Judge Orenstein's Report and Recommendation (that he stay on as her counsel) is upheld, I will be in a position where: (i) my relationship with my client is irreparably damaged as, even if she begins to return phone calls, she will yell and scream at me when I raise the issue of payment; and (ii) I am forced to try a case without being fully able to prepare as there is no money to subpoena witnesses, copy exhibits, retain experts, etc. These are clearly grounds for relief."The Town had paid all the legal bills from November 1, 1999 through May 1, 2002. The Town had paid every bill submitted monthly by Mr. Abelove for the Scarpati-Reilly legal representation. Each bill was apporoved by Thelma Neira and paid within 150 days and on the rare occasion she had a problem with an invoice she would simply phone Mr. Abelove's office and it was resolved amicably, he wrote.
Then after May 1, 2002 at the conclusion of discovery and following the filing of a separate and lengthy complex Summary Judgement motion by the Town and Scarpati-Reilly, the Town initiated settlement discussions with Mr. Perks' attorney. The Town's proposal was rejected by both Mr. Perks and Susan Scarpati-Reilly. Right after the rejection, on or about May 31, 2002, Mr. Abelove received a letter from Thelma Neira stating he did not notify the Town in a "timely manner" that he had hired Charles Weintraub Esq. to be "of counsel" and that not only were they not going to pay for time spent by Mr. Weintraub, but that the Town was "claiming credit" for over $30,000 dollars of work that had already been approved and paid for by the Town. Ms. Neira also wrote that "The Town would not pay any future bills on certain items without descriptions that would violate the attorney-client work product privileges."
Mr. Abelove argued further:
It can be of no coincidence that the first time the Town objected to pay any part of my legal bills is after Plaintiff and Scarpati-Reilly rejected the Town's settlement proposal. It was only after such a rejection that my bills were re-reviewed with a new perspective, and the Town sought credit for items which had already been approved and paid for. Clearly the Town is seeking to gain legal advantage in federal action by refusing to provide Scarpati-Reilly with a defense.
Mr. Abelove said Judge Orenstein was wrong when he said the Town had not authorized the retention of a second attorney because the Town had paid bills for the second attorney as far back 2000, where the bills for two lawyers had been submitted and approved and paid for by the Town as far back as February 3, 2002 and they did not deny that fact.
Mr. Abelove noted that the Town waited months and in some cases years to question unauthorized and inappropriate charges and only did so "...at a time they seek to pressure Defendant Scarpati-Reilly to accept their settlement proposal."
Mr. Abelove also indicated Ms. Neira was now requiring him to divulge specifics of research, telephone calls and meetings in violation of the attorney-client and attorney-work product privileges.
Claiming he had not communicated with his client, Susan Scarpati-Reilly except for one time since November 2002, he said that phone call ended with her screaming at him and hanging up when he brought up the topic of legal fees.
Magistrate Orenstein noted "the staggering cost to the Town to bring in new counsel at this point in the litigation." Mr. Abelove countered, "The problem has been created by the Town, as they retaliate against Susan Scarpati-Reilly for not accepting their settlement proposal."
Finally, Mr. Abelove wrote to Judge Seybert that he had offered to reduce his future fees by 10% after the filing of his Article 78 Petition in exchange for the payment in full of the balance of legal fees owed (this as long as there would be a neutral third party to review future entries the Town might object to.)
The Town rejected that offer outright, offered no counter offer and advised Mr. Abelove's attorney that "...they would never pay any more legal fees to my office."
Editor's Note: But they did pay his fees and they are still paying....and there is no end in sight after 15 years.
NEXT: THE MEDIA MISSES THE MARK
No comments:
Post a Comment