For a synopsis of the first three acts...see the last post dated Sunday, November 10, 2013
ACT FOUR...The Deposition of Frank Petrone...
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 on April 25, 2001 the deposition of Frank Petrone was taken.
Present were: Mr. Perks' attorney; Edward Yule
Ernie Stolzer; attorney with Rains and Pogrebin for the Town of Huntington
Jason Abelove; attorney for the Defendant Susan Scarpati-Reilly
James Clark; attorney for the Town of Huntington
Susan Scarpati-Reilly
William T. Perks
THE DEPOSITION OF FRANK P. PETRONE
Examination by Edward Yule
April 25, 2001
Mr. Petrone's Bona Fides.....
According to the deposition, Frank Petrone was first elected Supervisor for The Town of Huntington in November of 1993, prior to that he was chief-of-staff of the Suffolk County Legislature for two years.
Prior to that he was Director of Environmental Control for The Town of Huntington for two years (1990). Prior to that he was in the private sector for one year as Vice President of the National Design Corporation in charge of sales. Prior to that he was with the County of Suffolk as an Assistant County Executive to Patrick Halpern (one of several) for two years.
Prior to that Mr. Petrone was regional director of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) for four and a half years. In that position he was responsible at the federal government level for emergency preparation programs encompassing New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico and The Virgin Islands.
His job encompassed the entire Eastern coast of the United States from Maine to Puerto Rico.
While FEMA regional director, although he admits he was involved in the emergency preparation review for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, he denied any involvement with the shutdown of the plant. According to Mr. Petrone, "I was not in the decision-making position as to whether the plant operated or the plant was shut down." But many believe his decision that Long Island could never be evacuated safely in the event of a nuclear accident, clearly played a critical part in the decision not to operate the plant. The week he made the decision that Long Island could not be evacuated, he was fired by Ronald Regan and hired by Patrick Halpern, according to Mr. Perks.....
Prior to FEMA he was an assistant County Executive to Peter Cohalen for two years.
Prior to that he was at Suffolk County Community College as an associate professor and director of student services. He taught business classes and administered a student life program for about four or five years.
Prior to that Mr. Petrone was employed at the City University of New York as an administrator at Bronx Community College for four or five years. Prior to that he was a Graduate student obtaining an associates degree in business from what was then Staten Island Community College. He earned a bachelor's degree in business education from SUNY at Albany and a Master's of Art in Counseling in
higher education administration from the University of Denver and a Master's of Public Administration from Long Island University. He also has an honorary doctorate from Five Towns College.
After the resume housekeeping was over, Mr. Yule began asking Mr. Petrone about the Town's sexual harassment policy.
Huntington Town's Sexual Harassment Policy...
According to Mr. Petrone's testimony regarding a Resolution dated March 15, 1999 to do with the Town developing a "Sexual Harassment Policy", this was the first time he could remember a sexual harassment policy being in writing and it was distributed to all employees via a memo signed by Mr. Petrone. Mr. Petrone also said that after February 28, 1999 (the incident at the Mobil Oil Transfer Station) the two persons drafting the sexual harassment policy were Susan Scarpati-Reilly (who later was found to have sexually harassed Mr. Perks) and Steve Israel, now a Congressman (then a Town of Huntington Councilman). Mr. Israel also was involved in a personal relationship with then fellow Councilperson, Marlene Budd, (although both were married at the time) he helped Ms. Scarpati-Reilly draft the sexual-harassment policy for the Town employees. Ms. Budd and Mr. Israel eventually divorced their partners, married each other and are now divorced. Ms. Budd is now a Family Court Judge.
Mr. Petrone admitted that prior to the March 15, 1999 memo regarding the newly drafted Town sexual harassment policies, there were at least two sexual harassment complaints as far back as 1990 against a Town employee, named Dave McGovern, who worked at the Town animal shelter. The Town retained attorney, John Leo in the first case (Mr. Leo later became the Town Attorney for Huntington; he left that job recently, when he was elected to a position as an Administrative Law Judge in Suffolk County Supreme Court)
Both Nancy Bond and Phyllis Casterino worked at the animal shelter and filed sexual harassment complaints against Mr. McGovern, something Mr. Petrone reluctantly admitted he was aware of prior to 1990. Mr. McGovern was then Huntington Town Councilwoman, Ann Hurley's son-in-law and Mr. Petrone was the Director of Environmental Control and Mr. McGovern's direct supervisor.
There were never any seminars or training held for employees regarding sexual harassment in the workplace prior to February 1999, according to Mr. Petrone's deposition.
There was never a written policy established by the Town until after February, 1999, despite the fact that he was aware of issues as far back as 1990.
HARRY ACKER and BILL PERKS
Mr. Petrone said for the record that he knew Mr. Perks as far back as 1990 and he knew Mr. Harry Acker (the Town Harbormaster) just about as long and he described their relationship as involving "...major conflict between them going back from what I understood before 1990."
Describing Mr. Perks as having filed "too many" grievances against the Town of Huntington, in his deposition, Mr. Petrone could not recall how many of those grievances Mr. Perks had won, how many had been withdrawn, or the fact that the Town was ordered in 1995 to correct the personnel employment history card by an arbitrator in response to one of Mr. Perks' grievances. Mr. Petrone also said he was not aware that many of the grievances and awards filed against the Town were missing from Mr. Perks' personnel file. Mr. Perks' grievances were won by his then attorney, John Leo, who was recommended to Mr. Perks by Robert DeGregorio, an assistant Town attorney at the time. In a New York Times article Mr. Petrone called Mr. Perks' filing of grievances "criminal". Mr. Perks contends that when his memos were ignored, filing a grievance was the only proper and legal outlet for him to be heard, as evidenced by the fact that many of his grievances resulted in fines and sanctions to the Town. John Leo, then was offered the position as Huntington Town Attorney. Mr. DeGregorio admitted in depositions that he bartered and did some legal work for Mr. Perks in exchange for Mr. Perks doing tree work at his home.
SUSAN SCARPATI-REILLY
Mr. Petrone admitted knowing Ms. Scarpati-Reilly since approximately 1980, but said he knew her husband, Steve Reilly, then a New York State Trooper, now a bank "repo-man " (he handles repossession of vehicles) first. Mr. Petrone said he believed Mr. Reilly is on a disability pension from New York State for a neck or back injury as much as he could recall. Mr. Petrone also could not recall any details of an alleged fight at the American Legion Hall "Pancake Breakfast" between Mr. Reilly and then Town Councilman Donald Musnug.
Susan Scarpati-Reilly, Steve Reilly and Mr. Petrone were all active in the Republican Party at the time, according to Mr. Petrone.
Asked about accusations made by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, Mr. Petrone mentioned a criminal accusation Ms. Scarpati-Reilly made against then Town Councilman Steve Israel "...having to do with his involvement in the High Point housing project that was built by Mr. Klar and I believe there was also an accusation with Councilwoman Budd with regard to some involvement that she had, I don't recall exactly what that was." When pressed by Mr. Yule however, Mr. Petrone admitted that Councilwoman Budd had told him that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had accused her of stalking her son. There was also mention of a grievance filed against Marlene Budd to the Bar Association by Susan Scarpati-Reilly, but Mr. Petrone was unsure of the details on this issue as well.
Asked if there were any other accusations made against anyone else by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, Mr. Petrone replied, "That's all I could recall." Mr. Yule then asked if he recalled while he was supervisor, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly made allegations against assistant Town Attorney, Thelma Neira.
Answer: Yes, I do. (The allegations were of a criminal nature and had to be turned over to the Nassau DA, because of conflict of interest since both Ms. Neira and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had worked in the Suffolk's DA's office.) At first, again, fuzzy on the details, when pressed Mr. Petrone admitted to Mr. Yule that it involved her representation of the board and that the District Attorney's Office was involved, but he couldn't recall whether the Town paid for Ms. Neira's attorney during this. (They did.)
Wayne Nestor was the Town's Public Information Officer, liaison to the press for the Town Board at the time and according to Mr. Petrone, he would have to discuss things with him and other Board members before commenting to the press.
Town Hall is an Incubator for Rumors...
Asked by Mr. Yule if he knew prior to February 28, 1999 (the night of the incident at the Mobil Oil Transfer Station) that Mr. Perks and Susan Scarpati-Reilly were having an affair Mr. Petrone responded,
"Town Hall is an incubator for rumors, and certainly I recall that being said. I recall many other things being said about many, many other people and if I were to take those things to heart, I would do nothing but trail rumors all day long." (page 40 Petrone Deposition)Mr. Petrone also admitted that there was a rumor about a sexual relationship between Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and Mr. Perks, but said "Most certainly not." when asked if he talked to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly or Mr. Perks about the rumor. "I care not to remember this stuff." Mr. Petrone said when asked if there were rumors of other affairs in Town Hall.
Mr. Yule asked Mr. Petrone if he ever thought as Supervisor, it would be a good idea to have a policy relating to sexual harassment considering "the constant rumors regarding those love affairs that were prevalent at Town Hall?" Mr. Petrone responded:
"I don't think rumors would move us in any direction, because if we had to do things based on rumors, I would have to have--I would have to have a team of attorneys just doing that. There are many rumors." (page 42 Petrone Deposition)That statement would prove to be prophetic as the Town has employed a team of attorneys since 1999 right up to the present moment costing the taxpayers millions of dollars.
Mr. Petrone could not explain why no sexual harassment policy was instituted after the complaints against Mr. McGovern as far back as 1990, "I can't tell you why at the time. I don't remember what the deliberations were at the time." (page 42 Petrone Deposition)
Asked about the more recent events after February 28, 1999, Mr. Petrone's memory did not improve as he stated he could not say exactly how he heard about the incident at the Mobil Oil Transfer Station of February 28, 1999, "I can't give you the specifics, I just know I was made aware of it."
Mr. Petrone then spoke to Jim Matthews, the Town Attorney and may or may not have advised him to speak to Susan Scarpati-Reilly. "I'm not sure. I know we discussed it, I'm not sure if at that point I advised him to speak to her.", Mr. Petrone testified. He did say he did not authorize Bob DeGregorio to speak to Susan Scarpati-Reilly. When pressed by Mr. Yule, Mr. Petrone again declined to recall any details of his speaking with Mr. Matthews, but eventually said "I believe at one point I did ask him to talk to her." Mr. Petrone could not figure out when that happened however, testifying under oath, "You know it could have been the next day, it could have been a week later, I can't recall because I don't recall the--I don't recall the sequence of events and how quickly they took place."
Continuing his examination Mr. Yule then inquired about the night of February 28, 1999 and Mr. Petrone told him "The standard procedure would be for them (the Town Attorney's office) to begin to gather information and we do this primarily, whenever there is an allegation of any sort." The department head would be involved in discussions but as soon as it becomes something of "a legal nature" it would be the Town Attorney.
Mr. Petrone 's memory once again failed him when asked if Mr. Matthews went to the Police or District Attorney's Office, "I don't believe so. I think what I can vaguely remember that Mr. Matthews was going to check with the district attorney's office and ask for advice, but that's all I can recall."
Mr. De Gregorio was not authorized by the Town Attorney to go with Susan Scarpati-Reilly to the DA's Office, according to Mr. Petrone, but he could not recall if he ever received anything in writing from the DA's Office or if anyone ever contacted him from that office regarding the incident of February 28, 1999, "I don't recall." "I don't recall. Again most of these things we turn over to the town attorney and the town attorney handles them."
When discussing the police report about the incident, Mr. Petrone said, "It might have been filed, that's what I can recall.", but he did not recall ever seeing a copy of it, according to his deposition. Instead he testified he relied on "media reports" that said Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had alleged she had been assaulted by Town employee, William Perks. Mr. Petrone named, The Long Islander, as the paper he believed was responsible for the initial report of the alleged assault. When asked, "Any other newspapers?" He answered, "I can't recall." Mr. Petrone also could not recall whether or not Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was involved in any discussions regarding the adoption of the Fact-Finder Resolution, "I can't recall whether she was or not, this was--would have been discussed in executive session." Asked if she was involved in executive sessions, "I believe she has been involved in executive sessions, but I don't recall
specifically if she was there for this discussion...I can't recall whether she was specifically present at this time.", but he admitted that she usually was present at the workshops.
Editor's note: Up to the time of the Town Board Resolution there were no media reports of an assault.
"Outside of executive session did you ever hear councilwoman (Scarpati-Reilly) say to you that she was assaulted, the word "assaulted" by Mr. Perks?" Mr. Yule asked Mr. Petrone.
"I don't recall.", Mr. Petrone answered. Questioned by Mr. Yule, "Do you recall if you ever heard her say the word assaulted by Mr. Perks to any other board members who were not in executive session?" Mr. Petrone answered, "I don't recall." He also answered, "I don't recall, honestly", when asked if he ever heard the word "harassment" from Susan Scarpati-Reilly.
Mr. Petrone was not sure if Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was was acting in her capacity as liaison to the Town Board, when she went to the Mobil Oil Transfer Station that evening in February, "I can't recall whether or not, other than she was a councilwoman and she was liaison to the oil spill board, she was council liaison."
Mr. Petrone could not recall whether the media reports used the word "assault", "I can't recall offhand. But--" "I couldn't tell you offhand. I don't remember what the media report said today."
Even after the Fact-Finder Report was issued, no disciplinary action was ever taken against Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, because according to Mr. Petrone, the Town had still not concluded its' investigation of that incident of February 28, 1999. Mr. Matthews had recommended Gerald Labush, according to Mr. Petrone, but he could not recall what he said about Mr. Labush. No one else was considered for the Fact-Finder job, according to Mr. Petrone and Mr. Labush was hired by Resolution at a rate of $250/hour.
Mr. Petrone said he never read the depositions nor looked at the videotapes of the depositions that Mr. Labush and his team used to make their final report and recommendations. Asked if it was Mr. Labush's idea that the depositions should be videotaped, Mr. Petrone said, "I don't recall, I don't."
Mr. Petrone also was not sure who wrote the draft of the resolution and could not give a number when asked how much the Fact-Finder, Mr. Labush and the investigator Kenneth Kelly cost the Town.
He believed it was less than $90,000 dollars but insisted he did not remember the exact number.
WHO'S IMPERSONATING WHO...or ...YOU CAN DRESS 'EM UP BUT...
Mr. Yule switched gears and asked if Mr. Petrone had come to learn that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had blamed Mr. George Hoffman, another Town employee for filing the police complaint. He answered, "From what I understand, I recall that it was reported that way in the press." He said he had spoken to Mr. Hoffman who had told him it "was not factual." He could not recall whether it was said that Mr. Hoffman dressed up like Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and impersonated her, but Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had claimed that "it was an impostor that went to the police station..." The media reports and newspaper clippings responsible for the drafting of the Resolution would usually have been attached to the Resolution identified as Budd E, for the court case, but according to Mr. Petrone, they never were attached.
Mr. Petrone later stated, "I attempted on many occasions, not to get into discussions with regard to Mr. Perks."
TOTAL RECALL???? NOT EXACTLY...........
On page 65 of the roughly 150 page deposition, Mr. Petrone said, "I can't paraphrase.", "I can't remember the exact words." and "I don't remember what I would say, or what I said." when asked if Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had told him she was afraid of Mr. Perks. Asked if he told her to go to the police he answered, "I don't recall. I don't really recall. I don't believe so." Asked if he had discussions with Mr. DeGregorio where he had expressed fears for his life from Mr. Perks, he answered, "I don't recall having a discussion with Mr. DeGregorio." Mr. Petrone also did not know whether to take Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's allegations of fearing for her life seriously, according to his statements and could not recall the time frame of her comments, whether they were before or after the Fact-Finder's Report was released and he could not recall what he did as a result of her allegations. Saying he referred Ms. Scarpati-Reilly to the Town Attorney's Office, "wherever there was a concern like that." Mr. Yule then asked if he knew if she went to the Town Attorney's Office, he answered, "I don't recall."
Q. (by Mr. Yule) "Did Mr. Matthews ever tell you after you had this conversation with Susan Scarpati-Reilly where she said that Perks was threatening her life and she was in fear and you directed her to the Town Attorney's Office, did the Town Attorney ever come to you and discuss what he did?"
A. (by Mr. Petrone) "I don't recall, I really don't."
Q. "Do you know if he did anything?"
A. "I don't know."
Again Mr. Yule changes lanes and asks about Bill Naughton, the Superintendent of Highways. Allegedly Ms. Scarpat-Reilly had a meeting with Mr. Naughton in a Smithtown restaurant, where he told her he was part of a discussion in Town Hall where there was a conspiracy to get the councilwoman. Mr. Petrone said this was the first he had heard of that and that although they had differences, he had worked with Mr. Naughton, who had filed a lawsuit against the Town relating to authority of personnel.
Mr. Petrone admitted for the record that in all the years he had known Mr. Perks, "I don't recall of another incident where that was ever brought to my attention of him threatening some one's life."
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was appointed liaison to the Board for the Oil Spill Board in 1998 at her own request, according to Frank Petrone and generally the liaisons do not become involved in the day to day dealings with the Town employees. Normally, they would deal with the directors of the department and they would never authorize overtime for any Town employee. It is not proper for a Town councilperson to authorize overtime for employees without first going to the department head.
Although once more, Mr. Petrone could not recall the specifics, he did believe the Town ordered Mr. Perks to turn over his firearms.
Q. (by Mr. Yule) "Do you recall them specifically ordering him or did they give him a choice?"
A. (by Mr. Petrone) "I don't recall. I recall there was a situation of his firearm being turned in, but I don't recall the exact specifics."
Q. "You don't know if it were voluntary or involuntary?"
A. "I don't remember."
On June 2, 1999, Mr. Petrone wrote a memo to Susan Scarpati-Reilly, relieving her of her duties as Oil and Toxic Spillage Committee liaison and he assumed the duties himself.
Mr. Petrone also attached a second page to the memo outlining for the first time the role of liaisons and their specific roles in regard to the department heads. For the next several pages of the deposition, Mr. Petrone discusses the truck that was approved for the Oil Spill Response Unit and the recommendation of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly for the Town to buy it.
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly said in her deposition for the Fact-Finder that "In order to get my vote on the budget in the reorganization meeting, they said I could have the truck even though we had money in the account, I said alright. So we got the truck. It was eight months and I had given the supervisor my vote on another resolution for the truck in April and he had agreed to give it to me."Mr. Petrone said again, "I don't recall specifics, but I recall negotiating, we always negotiated on budget issues." Mr. Petrone said the truck was a big issue and concern for Ms. Scarpati-Reilly. She also advocated on behalf of Mr. Perks in his grievances against the Town, something Mr. Petrone admitted was not appropriate.
Only Mr. Perks had two persons sign his payroll checks, something Mr. Petrone could not recall being done for anyone else off the top of his head, but he claimed it was probably done in the past when a person worked for two directors or was on loan to another department. Mr . Petrone said it would not be appropriate if a town attorney provided legal counsel in exchange for a town employee working at their home, but was not sure if it could be considered an ethics violation or a crime. He did admit to seeing Mr. Perks and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly together in Town Hall, but could not say how often or whether it was frequently. "I have a hard time qualifying frequent." was his response.
Mr. Petrone's office was on the opposite side of the building and one floor below, so he only noticed Mr. Perks being in Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's office a few times. Mr. Nolan was Mr. Perks' Department head, according to Mr. Petrone, not Joseph (Jody) Anastasia, at the time of the February 28th incident and Mr. Perks was both harbormaster and oil spill response manager for spills both on land and in the water.
According to the Fact-Finders report, Mr. Perks was responsible for overseeing the oil transfer and was doing his job on Feb 28, 1999. Mr. Petrone could not remember if that was the case when questioned directly about it, "I can't remember, specifically.", he responded.
Mr. Perks was also a licensed Peace Officer with a gun permit, something Mr. Petrone said he was aware of at the time.
Mr. Petrone could not recall at first, whether it was a Board decision, or a Town Attorney decision to bring the Fact-Finder's report to the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office. "I don't recall, Board action, or just the Town Attorney. I don't recall." When pressed however he capitulated when asked by Mr. Yule, "Did the Board authorize the Town Attorney's office to give that report to the Suffolk County District Attorney's office for their review?", he answered, "I believe so." They also authorized the Town Attorney to give a copy of the report to the State Attorney General's Office and the Ethics Board, according to Mr. Petrone.
The harbormaster gets transferred to the landfill...
When asked if he knew that Mr. Perks was transferred to the Town Incinerator, Ogden Martin (now Covanta) after the February 28th incident, Mr. Petrone said he was aware that Mr. Perks was transferred there, but he was not sure if this move of Mr. Perks had been discussed by the Town Board and he was definitely unaware that the Town had installed a radiation detector at the incinerator at that time.
Q. (by Mr. Yule) "Are you aware that the Town installed a radiation detector at that landfill?"
A. (by Mr. Petrone) "I'm not aware at this point, no." (page 90 Petrone Deposition)
Then Mr. Petrone testified that Mr. Perks (the Harbormaster) requested to be transferred to the landfill and he knew that through discussions with the department head and the Town attorney.
Asked how he knew for sure that Mr. Perks requested the transfer:
A. "Obviously, I learned it through discussions with the department head and perhaps the Town attorney because every move and every issue here was all subject to litigation, it was always discussed."
Q. "Do you recall Mr. Perks requesting to be returned back to the Harbormaster's office, instead of Town Hall?"
A. "I don't recall."
Q. "Do you know why Mr. Perks if, in fact, he did request to be transferred to the landfill, why he requested the transfer?"
A. "I don't recall, currently the exact reason why, but I know---I just remember he did request."
Q. "Did you ever try to inquire what the reason that he wanted to be transferred?"
A. "I am sure I did, but I just don't recall it right now." (page 91, Petrone deposition)
According to Mr. Perks he wanted out of Town Hall because his office was too close to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's office and he feared more incidents, but the Town refused to allow him to go back to the Harbormaster's office with Harry Acker, who used to work under Mr. Perks, but was now his boss. Mr. Perks agreed reluctantly to go to the landfill, but he filed a complaint with the Suffolk County Civil Service requesting a desk audit as he was the only harbormaster in New York State working in a landfill. Three years later, as he had been working out-of-title, Mr. Perks' complaint was sustained and he was reclassified as the Hazardous Materials Coordinator, an appointment he refused. Eventually the Town was forced to return Mr. Perks to the harbormaster's office, in order to certify their payroll.
Radiation at the landfill....
Mr. Yule began to ask Mr. Petrone about radiation at the Town landfill.
Q. " Do you think it's proper for employees assigned to that landfill where there is a radiation detector
to ask his boss what he should do in the event it goes off, would that be proper for an employee to make that request?"
A. "You know I'm not familiar with that situation and I'm not familiar with it in terms of--but it would be--it wouldn't be unusual for an employee to make a request of their employer."
Q. "It wouldn't be unusual?"
A. "No."
Q. "But in the issue of radiation, you were involved for a long time with--"
A. "Right."
Q. "--and evacuation and what would those evacuations would be for?"
A. "Those are nuclear power plants, this is not a nuclear power plant."
Q. "A radiation detector, to your knowledge is installed at the Ogden Martin plant?"
A. "I understand there is one installed there."
Q. "Do you know with all your experience, there is a reason why it is installed there, right?"
A. "There would be reasons for many things to be installed at that plant, that would be environmental detectors."
Q. "To protect not only the town employees that worked there but also the people that lived around there, right, you were the liaison to that department, you took it over from the councilwoman?"
A. "I'm the liaison to all the departments." (pages 91-93 Petrone Deposition)
The questions continued...
Q. "Did you become aware that Mr. Perks complained to one of his department heads, Mr. Nolan, about the fact that the radiation detector went off; do you recall hearing that?"
A. "I don't recall that specifically."
Q. "What do you recall about Mr. Perks' complaints to Mr. Nolan regarding--
A. "Aren't we getting into another legal arena now?"
Then a discussion was held regarding how Mr. Petrone heard about Mr. Perks' complaints to Mr. Nolan...
Mr. Stolzer (attorney for the Town) noted the distinction was whether he had heard it directly from Mr. Nolan or from one of the Town attorneys in context of litigation...Mr. Petrone answered directly,
A. "I didn't hear it from Mr. Nolan."
Q. "Let me ask you this one: Drawing your attention back into 1995, '96, were you aware of a request by Ogden Martin for the Town of Huntington to install a radiation detector at the East Northport Resources Recovery Facility?"
A. "Vaguely."
Q. "Do you know why the Town refused to do it?"
A. "I don't, I don't remember."
Q. "Do you remember the Town refused to install one?"
A. " I don't recall, I really don't."
Q. "Do you know who was responsible for notification to the Town of Huntington if the radiation detector goes off?"
A. "I would assume it would be Ogden Martin."
Q. "Does the Town of Huntington currently have an emergency response plan in its final form?"
A. "Emergency response plans are never in their final form, they are always ongoing plans that are consistently modified from one incident to the next."
Q. " Does the Town of Huntington have one in operation?"
A. "Yes, they do."
Q. "When did it go into effect?"
A. "It was in effect from the day it was begun to be drafted that would be six, seven years ago."
(pages 94-96 Petrone deposition)
Over the next few questions it was finally ascertained from Mr. Petrone, that the emergency plan was always a draft plan and that the Town Board had never actually approved of the plan and that Mr. Petrone had never asked the Town Board to approve an emergency plan.
Mr. Perks had filed a complaint with the New York State Department of Labor about the draft plan that was filled with blank pages and missing information, including such information as contact names and phone numbers, medical monitoring and policy and procedures. Mr. Perks called it "The Emperor's New Clothes Draft Plan, as it wasn't really there. As a result, the Town of Huntington was cited for no emergency response plan and a host of other major safety violations.
Mr. Petrone also said he was aware that Mr. Nolan had brought Mr. Perks up on charges, but insisted he did not know anything else about it, "I 'm aware that Mr. Nolan has brought him up on charges, but I can't give you the specifics."
According to Mr. Perks the charges Mr. Petrone referred to here, were brought by Mr. Nolan against him when he complained to Mr. Nolan about his refusal to respond to his critical memorandums with regard to the radiation situation. Mr. Nolan said he took his concerns about the radiation detector alarm going off continuously "under advisement" and when Mr. Perks continued to press the matter, he brought him up on disciplinary charges, because he would not drop the issue of radiation exposure at the plant. The charges resulted in a letter of reprimand in Mr. Perks' file.
Patty Caruso becomes Susan Scarpati-Reilly's assistant...
The next few pages find Mr. Petrone discussing a disagreement between Patty Caruso, Susan Scarpati-Reilly's new assistant and the assistant of Councilman Steve Israel, a woman named Joyce Conklin. Although Mr. Petrone said he heard there was a dispute between them, that they were disagreeing on certain procedures regarding mail or letters, he added, "I don't get involved in the council office disputes among themselves and their personnel, that's their business."
Mr. Petrone was then asked if he heard about a letter written by Ms. Conklin to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, where she said she felt physically threatened by her. "I believe I have heard something along those lines." he answered but when asked if he ever made any direct inquiries regarding that to the Town attorney he replied, "I don't think so."
Something here is a little crazy...
The next questions to Mr. Petrone related to his opinion of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and remarks he may have made about her "sanity"...
Q. "Have you ever told anyone in Town Hall that you thought the Councilwoman was quote, unquote, crazy?"
A. "I have told her that I thought that I was crazy at times."
Q. "With regards to specifically, did you ever refer to her to other town employees, as crazy?"
A. "I don't remember if I --if I ever did or I used that terminology or what."
Q. "You're not ruling it out, though?"
A. "I'm not going to rule anything out at this point. I also said perhaps maybe that she was a nice lady."
Q. "When did you say that?"
A. "I don't know, I'm saying I might have said that too."
Not admitting if he was in the process of re-election or about to announce his bid for re-election at the time, Mr. Petrone said for the record, "I am going to become a lawyer." (He never did.)
Ms. Scarpati-Reilly asks for a daily log of Mr. Perks' whereabouts...
Q. "Did you ever have a discussion with Phil Nolan regarding Susan Scarpati-Reilly's request that Mr. Perks give him a daily log of his whereabouts from the period of December '98 through February 1999?"
A. " Mr. Nolan mentioned briefly that he requested the Councilwoman to do that."
Q. "What was your response to this?"
A. "That's up to the department head to deal with."
Q. "Do you think it is appropriate for a Councilperson to be that involved in the day-to-day overseeing of an employee?"
A. "I think they can make suggestions but to make a requirement of the department head would not be appropriate." (pages 103-104 Petrone Deposition)
As the examination of Mr. Petrone by Mr. Yule came to a close, Mr. Petrone said that the department head would be responsible for providing a uniform to Mr. Perks. However, it was determined to be an undisputed fact by the Fact-Finder that there never was a uniform requirement for Mr. Perks' position.
Editor's Note: In these first 104 pages of Mr. Petrone's deposition; to this point he has answered with the following exact phrases over 140 times:
"I don't recall.", " I don't recall exactly.", "I couldn't recall.", I can't recall.", "I'm trying to recall.", "Not that I could recall.", "I just can't recall offhand.", "I don't know.", "I'm not aware of that.", "I don't recall the specifics.", "No, I couldn't recall.", "I just can't recall.", "I don't recall what it was all about.", "I'm trying to recall, I can't remember exactly, but I know there was talk.", "I'm not sure.", "That's all I could recall.", "...beyond that, I don't recall.", "No, not that I could recall.", "No, I don't know.", "I actually can't recall the figure.", " I can't recall of anything specific.", "I couldn't qualify that.", "Not off the top of my head, no.", "I care not to remember this stuff.", "I can't tell you why at this time. I don't remember what our deliberations were at the time.", "I don't even remember.", "I can't give you the specifics. I just know I was made aware of it.", "No, I can't tell you.", "I can't recall because I don't recall the--I don't recall the sequence of events and how quickly they took place.", "From what I could recall.", "I don't believe so." (when asked about the Town attorney's involvement with the DA's office, if he was informed about it......when asked the same thing about involving the police, he answered, "I don't recall."), "That might have been filed, I don't know." (asked about the Police Report), Do you remember seeing a copy of the police report, "No." "But I don't recall specifically.", "I don't recall, honestly.", "I can't recall offhand.", "I don't remember what the media reports said today.", "To my knowledge, no.", "I don't remember the list.", When asked "Do you recall, he often answered, "No, I don't", or "I don't believe so.", "I don't recall, I don't.", "No, not off the top of my head.", "I don't think so. I don't remember.", "From what I understand.", "I don't recall specifically, what I said.", "I don't recall when, but she mentioned it.", "I can't paraphrase.", "I don't remember what I would say, or what I said.", "I don't recall. I don't really recall. I don't believe so.", "I don't recall that.", "I don't recall having a discussion with Mr. DeGregorio.", "Quite honestly, with this entire situation, I don't know what to take seriously, and I didn't know then and I don't know today.", "I don't recall the exact date.", "I don't recall of another incident where that was ever brought to my attention of him threatening someone's life.", "I don't recall the specifics, but I believe they did.", "I don't remember.", "I can't remember.", "I don't even remember his name.", "To my knowledge, specifics I can't give you, but there are policies, I believe (regarding vehicles)", "I don't recall specifics, but I recall negotiating (with Ms. Scarpati-Reilly about the truck for Perks) on budget items.", "I can't qualify that.", "I don't remember his duties exactly, I just remember we moved him into that oil spill response.", "I can't give you the specifics.", "I can't recall that.", "I can't remember specifically.", "I would assume it was Phil Nolan, the department head at the time.",
"I don't recall board action.", "I'm assuming it was done.", "I don't recall joking.", "I don't recall if it was discussed by the Town Board.", "I'm not aware at this point, no.", "I don't recall the exact reason why, but I know--I just remember, he did request it.", "But I just don't recall it right now.", (Regarding the radiation detector)..."You know I'm not familiar with that situation and I'm not familiar at all in terms of---but it would be---it wouldn't be unusual for an employee to make a request of their employer.", "I don't recall that specifically.", "Vaguely.", "I don't, I don't remember.", "I don't recall, I really don't.", "I would assume it would be Ogden Martin." ( when he was asked who is responsible for notification to the Town if the radiation detector goes off), "I am not aware of any specifics such as that.", "I don't think so.", "I don't remember if I--if I ever did or I used that terminology or what ( asked if he called Ms. Scarpati-Reilly crazy), "I'm not going to rule anything out at this point.", "I don't know, I'm saying I might have said that too.", or "I'm not sure.".
These answers were made by the man who started this still ongoing multi-million dollar criminal investigation by Town Board Resolution.
EXAMINATION of FRANK PETRONE BY JASON ABELOVE
(Councilwoman Susan Scarpati-Reilly's attorney)
As Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's attorney, his line of questioning went down a different path. First he asked Mr. Petrone about some of the other accusations by his client, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, relating to Mr. Israel, Ms. Budd, Thelma Neira and Mr. Klar. Mr. Petrone said he had no firsthand or direct knowledge of those accusations or incidents. Mr. Petrone further insisted he never read a complaint, but heard about complaints being filed.
Saw No Evil, Heard No Evil...Speak No Evil...?
When asked about whether prior to February 28, 1999, if he had heard any rumors about Mr. Perks being sexually harassed by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, if he saw any sexual activity between Mr. Perks and Ms. Scarapati-Reilly, or if he heard any noises coming out of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's office when they were in there together. In response to all those queries, Mr. Petrone answered "No."
Town Seal of Approval....?
The topic then shifted to the Town of Huntington's official seal and whether Mr. Petrone knew he was designated with the seal..he did not. He rightly referred all true knowledge of the seal to Joanne Raia, the Town Clerk and the discussion was steered to when and if Town Councilpersons can use the Town seal or masthead, who exactly owns it and was it copyrighted. (It is owned by the Town and it was not copyrighted). This was clearly in response to the issue of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly writing a letter to a local newspaper in which she included the Town Seal as part of her letterhead. Whether this was a proper use of the Town seal was debated and rulings or statutes related to this were not immediately found.
The discussion focused next on an Exhibit produced for Mr. Petrone's observation. It was a letter with the Town Seal as the Masthead for an "official" letter signed by Mr. Petrone, to the editor of Suffolk Life newspapers. (dated Wednesday, October 27, 1999; Budd Exhibit D) Mr. Abelove made the point that his letter may very well have been published and Mr. Petrone did not disagree about that. Since the prior line of questioning centered on whether or not Ms. Scarpati-Reilly needed to ask for permission from the board to use the seal in a letter to a newspaper, Mr. Abelove asked Mr. Petrone whether or not he went to the board for formal authorization to use the seal on his letter to the editor.
Q. "Was there a resolution passed authorizing you to use the Town seal in this letter?"
A. "No."
Q. "Was there any formal notice given to the Town prior to publishing this letter?"
A. "No."
Mr. Petrone did note that it was signed by four Town Board members and they used their official titles, so if they had been sued for the letter's contents, they would expect to be indemnified.
Mr. Abelove then showed another letter as an exhibit, that had a political content relating to affordable housing in Huntington. The letter was sent to Newsday and was meant originally to be an Op-Ed piece. Newsday asked for a letter instead and it was published and had the seal and masthead of the Town, although again, there was no authorization acquired from the Town before Mr. Petrone sent it.
The Town of Huntington had pursued a cause of action against Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, according to Mr. Abelove and he asked Mr. Petrone if he was aware of that fact. "Yes." was his reply.
Mr. Petrone then tried to say that it was not so much the Councilwoman's use of the seal, as it was the letter and it's contents being a problem because of "threatening litigation." After an off the record discussion...
Q. (by Mr. Abelove) "Would it be fair to say that the letter had issues of town concern?"
A. (by Mr. Petrone) "They had issues of Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's concern."
Further questions about Mr. Petrone's possible use of the paper with the Town's seal and masthead continued, with Mr. Petrone saying he probably used it to send a congratulatory note, but not to write or scribble a note to his wife or children.
END OF QUESTIONS BY MR. ABELOVE
FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS BY EDWARD YULE
Mr. Yule pointed to the letter Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had written to the newspaper, on which she used the Town seal and in which she accused Mr. Perks of stealing a receipt to a hotel from the glove box of her and her husband's car. Asked about the liability for the Town of her making a false accusation against a Town employee, using the town seal and publishing it in a local newspaper, Mr. Petrone admitted,
"Anything that has the potential liability where there is potential litigation that sets the town--for the town would perhaps be inappropriate."
Mr. Yule pressed the issue:
Q. "Forgetting the litigation part, is it proper for a councilperson to accuse a town employee of stealing and publish that letter in the newspaper using the town seal. Is that proper use of the seal?"
A. "I would say that is not proper."
And a few lines later:
Q. "Prior to the incident of February 28, 1999 did you ever know Mr. Perks to be a thief?"
A. "No."
Q. "Did you ask for a formal investigation to be conducted by the town after this letter where she accused him of stealing a receipt out of her glove compartment?"
A. " I don't recall."
...
Q. "Do you of any situation that you can think of, of your personal knowledge, where Mr. Perks turned to violence against a woman?"
A. "No, I know of no fact."
Q. " Is that proper for a town councilperson to write that in an open letter using the town seal?"
A. "I differ with that letter."
Q. "Do you think it's proper for her to say that?"
A. "No, I don't think it's proper."
Q. "Did Susan Scarpati-Reilly ever tell you that she filed a police report against Perks solely to protect her family and herself from the threats of Mr. Perks?"
A. " Not that I recall."
Q. Regarding the radiation at Ogden Martin where Mr. Perks was assigned after he left Town Hall, who in the Town of Huntington is responsible to be notified in the event that the radiation detector goes off at the facility?"
A. "I can't give you that specifically, at this point, but I would assume it's Ogden Martin would notify the department head."
Q. "Which would be?"
A. "Mr. Nolan."
Q. "That's your assumption?"
A. "Yes, that's my assumption at this point."
Mr. Yule then asked to get a copy of the draft plan Mr. Petrone said Mr. Naughton had given to the Board. "Does the town have a copy of that?" Mr. Petrone, "Yes."
The next few pages of dialogue of the deposition refer to the protocols that were or were not set up to deal with radiation detectors going off at the plant in Huntington Town. Mr. Petrone for his part insisted that he did not know if Mr. Perks or any other employees were ever given a copy of protocols or notification procedures and it was not clear whether they were even in compliance with state or federal standards for dealing with exposure to radiation. Mr. Petrone did say he believed the owner of the land, namely the Town of Huntington, should be notified if there is an alarm going off because of radiation at the landfill. "I don't know offhand what the protocols are, there would be a notification procedure depending upon what protocols were set up and probably they were either state or federal in terms of standard."
Q. "Do you know if Mr. Perks was ever given a copy--"
A. "I don't know."
Q"--of that when he was assigned there?"
A. "I don't know."
Q. "Do you know if any other town employees were given documentation or materials explaining to them about radiation and what to do if the radiation was to be discovered?"
A. "I don't know."
Q. "To your knowledge, do you if part of your draft emergency response plan that we have been referring to addresses who in the Town of Huntington, gets notified in what order, like the chain of command?"
A. "There are notifications for various types of emergency responses."
Q. "When you read this letter Budd D., did you ever go and talk to Susan Scarpati-Reilly about this?"
A. "No."
Q. "Did you ever ask her if any of this stuff is true?"
A. "No." I told you earlier that I made it a habit not to get into discussions with either party about this."
Mr. Petrone added he believed others in the Town "also did not want to get involved".
END OF QUESTIONS BY MR. YULE
FURTHER EXAMINATION by MR. ABELOVE
Going back to the topic of the Town seal for which his client, Susan Scapati-Reilly was currently under litigation by the Town for alleged misuse, Mr. Abelove asked about Mr. Petrone's understanding of the proper use of the town seal.
Q. "My understanding of your testimony is the main problem with the use of the town seal is that it had potential litigation impact to the Town of Huntington; is that correct?"
A. "Correct."
Q. " Is there any kind of document that lets the Town Board members know they should be really careful using the Town seal when it has potential litigation or liability of the Town of Huntington?"
A. "Not that I am aware of."
Mr. Abelove then asked Mr. Petrone about his earlier testimony about an arrest involving Mr. Perks in the 1970's. Mr. Petrone corrected Mr. Abelove saying, "I testified that I wasn't really aware of an arrest involving Mr. Perks."
Q. (by Mr. Abelove) "You don't know of any arrest in the '70's?"
A. (by Mr. Petrone) "No."
Q. "Are you aware if he was ever arrested of anything having to do with theft?"
A. "I'm not aware."
Q. "Did you ever attend a wedding that was held at Mr. Perks' home?
A. "Yes."
Q. "When was that?"
A. "Last summer."
END OF QUESTIONS BY MR. ABELOVE
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. YULE
After quickly debating whether or not use of the Town seal and masthead gives a letter more credibility, Mr. Petrone said, "Well, I think the use of the masthead perhaps would signify it being more of an official--" .."More authoritative?" Mr. Yule asked. ""--official document that would be coming from the Town itself." "More official? More believable?" Mr. Yule pressed him..."I don't know if it's more believable, but I think it is more official."
"Okay, thank you." And with that the deposition of Mr. Frank Petrone was over.
Editor's note: From pages 105 through 139, when Mr. Petrone was questioned by both Mr. Abelove and Mr. Yule, he used the following phrases at least 38 times in answer to questions by both attorneys.
When asked if he had any first hand knowledge of accusations regarding Mr. Israel and Mr. Klar, Mr. Petrone answered, "No." asked if he heard the councilwoman accuse Councilwoman Budd of any wrong doing directly, "No, I did not directly." Other responses: "I can't remember whether it was wrongful conduct or what, but I know she was displeased." (Any firsthand knowledge of accusations specifically against Thelma Neira, he was asked) Answer: "She was just displeased with the way she was representing herself and representing Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and a specific type of incident, I don't remember that incident." (Ever hear Scarpati-Reilly accuse Thelma Neira of some misconduct dealing with the DA's office was the question) Answer: "Directly hear no, no. I never read a complaint, I have never seen a complaint, but I have heard that she filed a complaint against her." (he believed he heard it from Ms. Neira)...In response to questions about the seal and proper procedures and use of the masthead, ""Not that I recall, not that I am aware of...not that I am aware of... no knowledge that I am aware of..."Not aware of any copyright on the seal, standard of care for use of the seal? "Not that I can recall." It is on his letterhead...used in political advertisements? "Not that I am aware of." Recall seeking authorization to use it? "Not that I am aware of.", "Not that I remember.", "Not that I can recall." "I can't give you specifics, but I remember referring at least one or two to the town attorney for a decision." Asked if he recalled when, "I can't remember exactly what the situation was surrounding the request but..." any documentation to his referral to the town attorney? "No."
Q. "Do you know what the Town attorney did?
A. "I can't recall, because I don't remember the situation, but I know I did speak--at the time the town attorney was Larry Creegan and I did speak with him."
Q. "You don't know the resolution or circumstances or anything regarding that?"
A. "No."
Regarding the Petrone Exhibit 3, a letter dated January 28, 2000:
Q: "Do you know who drafted it?"
A. "No"
Q: "Did you draft it?"
A. "No."
Mr. Petrone did not recall whether his letter was printed in Suffolk Life, he could not recall whether there was a vote prior to four board members signing a letter hoping for it to be published in the local paper and he did not believe there was any formal notice given to the town prior to publication of the letter. He couldn't remember who drafted the letter of August 24, 2000 to the editor of Newsday, but agreed he signed it. He could not recall if he asked for a formal investigation to be conducted by the Town after Ms. Scarpati-Reilly accused Mr. Perks in a letter with the Town seal of stealing a receipt out of her glove compartment. He could not recall if Ms. Scarpati-Reilly ever told him directly that she had filed a police report and most significantly of all...
Mr. Petrone could not say who in Huntington should have been notified of a radiation emergency in the Town.
Q. "Regarding the radiation at Ogden Martin where Mr. Perks was assigned after he left Town Hall, who in the Town of Huntington is responsible to be notified in the event that the radiation detector goes off at the facility?"
A. " I can't give you that specifically at this point, but I would assume it's Ogden Martin would notify the department head...Mr. Nolan."
Q. "That's your assumption?"
A. "Yes, that's my assumption at this point."
Mr. Petrone testified further that he did not know if Mr. Perks was ever given a copy of protocols for radiation exposure, he did not know if any other Town employees were given materials or documents regarding the protocols and what to do if the radiation detector goes off.
Mr. Petrone said he never went to speak with Ms. Scarpati-Reilly about the letter (Exhibit Budd D) and never asked her if any of it were true. "No. I told you earlier that I made it a habit not to get into discussion with either party about this." He also said he was unaware of any document explaining to board members potential liabilities relating to their use of the town seal and masthead. He testified he was unaware of any arrests of Mr. Perks and went to a wedding at his home, the previous summer.
Mr. Petrone's testimony ended, the final five pages dealt with the subpoena of Robert DeGregorio, the former assistant town attorney, who had faxed a letter to Mr. Yule, the afternoon he was supposed to be deposed. Because he was not a party to the action and no longer worked for the Town of Huntington and because he was represented by his own attorney, who was out of town and because he also had a prior legal engagement as he was an attorney in his own practice, for all those reasons, he declined to be deposed that day. Mr. Yule agreed none of this had anything to do with the testimony of Mr. Petrone, but Mr. Yule did reserve Mr. Perks' right under federal rules of evidence regarding Mr. DeGregorio's failure to appear.
ERNIE STOLZER FOR THE TOWN...
For his part in the deposition on behalf of the Town, Mr. Ernie Stolzer (at the time working as an attorney at Rains & Pogrebin) asked no direct questions of Mr. Petrone.
On page 39 he said to Mr. Yule, "I think it might be a little more familiar to the supervisor if you identify February 28, 1999 as the Mobil Oil Transfer incident."
On page 43 he said ""We were going...you can answer." to Mr. Petrone when asked if Mr. Matthews the Town Attorney spoke to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly at that point.
On page 52 he said, "We are going to object to that." with regard to the question posed by Mr. Yule about whether Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was part of the discussions in executive session. On the next page he said, "I want to clarify. If you can break that question into executive session versus outside because we will object to executive session discussions." They waited for a ruling and rephrased the question to exclude the executive session in the meantime.
On page 85, Mr. Stolzer said "That's not a question." when Mr. Yule made a comment about Mr. Petrone probably being happy his office was on the floor below Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's.
On page 94, Mr. Stolzer asks Mr. Yule to restate a question for clarification.
On pages 102 and 103 Mr. Stolzer objected when he thought Mr. Yule was straying outside the parameters of the lawsuit when he asked Mr. Petrone questions about his politics and his political aspirations for the future.
On page 109, Mr. Stolzer asked Mr. Yule to define "analogous" when asked if he was a member of any board that's analogous to the oil spill control board.
On page 125, Mr. Stolzer identified the letter sent from Susan Scarpati-Reilly to Suffolk County Life, (Wednesday, October 27, 1999) as Exhibit Budd D and asked for the letter to be shown to Frank Petrone.
On page 128, Mr. Stolzer asked Mr. Abelove to define "personal" and to give an example of personal use of the letterhead with relation to the town seal.
On pages 141 and 143 Mr. Stolzer discussed the DeGregorio subpoena. That is the total interaction of Mr. Stolzer in the Petrone deposition.
In the entire deposition by Mr. Petrone, 145 pages long, Mr. Petrone testified he does not recall or does not know in some form at least 178 times...
In April 2001, Huntington paid Rains & Pogrebin for 87.3 hours of work for a total of $13,599.50.
Ernie Stolzer and James Clark as well as Mark Reinharz and Julie Torrey all worked on the Perks case.
In 2001 Huntington paid Rains and Pogrebin for a total of 539 hours for a total of $88,500 dollars.
Between 1999 and 2004 Huntington Town paid Rains & Pogrebin for over 1000 hours of legal work for a total of nearly $200,000 dollars.
On April 26, 2001 Jason Abelove billed Huntington Town $26,974 dollars.
According to a check browse provided by the Town after a Freedom of Information request by Freelance Investigations it revealed Mr. Abelove has been paid over $282,926.32 between February 2001 and the present .
Bills provided by the Town are often missing key pieces of information, including hours, dates, services provided by the law firms and even the names of the cases being billed for, in some instances. According to the Town Attorney's office, Freelance Investigations should have considered ourselves lucky we even got as much of the billing documents as we did because they only had what was pulled out for someone else's past FOI request and the rest of the files are somehow missing according to them. Several years of billing seem to be missing from what was provided by the Town.
Since the legal fees are currently being disputed in Appellate Court, after having insisted they bifurcate the trial to separate the issue of legal fees, the Town lost an arbitration case and then Judge Farneti upheld the decision of the arbitrator. The fact that the Town is now claiming they are missing many of the legal bills should prove to be a real legal quagmire if that is true, according to attorneys who looked at the facts of the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment