Hoff v. Goyer

Justia.com Opinion Summary: Eliot Hoff appealed a circuit court order that remanded the administration of the conservatorship of his grandmother, Susan Bibb Kidd, to the Jefferson Probate Court. In 2006, the probate court adjudged Kidd to be an incapacitated person and appointed Mark Goolsby as conservator of her estate. Sometime in August 2008, Goolsby sold some personal property in Kidd's estate to Anita Kidd Goyer, one of Kidd's three daughters. When another of Kidd's daughters, Susan Louis Hoff, and her son Hoff found out about the sale, they filed an objection in the probate court. Meanwhile, on September 29, 2009, Kidd died. On February 21, 2011, the probate court issued an order that, among other things, approved the August 2008 sale of Kidd's personal property to Goyer. The Hoffs promptly moved the probate court to reconsider. An initial hearing on their motion was held on June 8, 2011; however, the matter was continued and another hearing scheduled for September 15, 2011. On June 24, 2011, Goolsby petitioned the probate court to be appointed administrator of Kidd's estate because he could not conduct business as conservator after her death. The Hoffs thereafter also filed a motion to continue the hearing scheduled for September 15, 2011. The probate court ruled on those motions, setting the hearing on the Hoffs' motion to reconsider and denying Goolsby's motion to be appointed administrator of Kidd's estate. Instead, the probate court, on its own motion, appointed attorney Elizabeth W. McElroy, the general administrator for Jefferson County, as administrator of Kidd's estate. Hoff appealed the order entered by the circuit court remanding the administration of the conservatorship of his grandmother to the probate court, arguing that he had properly petitioned for removal. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded Hoff did not have standing to seek removal, that the circuit court's order of remand was properly entered.

PDF decision

Findlaw 

Westchester D.A. Janet DiFiore Covers Up "Nanny Gate"

From Editor Betsy Combier

The Question I have is: who is going to do something about making Ms. Di Fiore accountable for her actions? Answer: No one.

What is your response, Governor Cuomo?  LINKWednesday, August 22, 2012

WESTCHESTER D.A. JANET DIFIORE COVERS UP CAR THEFT FOR PEDOPHILE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Pedophile
1st Deputy Commissioner
Phil "Sandusky" Gille  

Ready. Set. Go…… The cover up is now in full swing to deflect all media attention away from “Nanny Gate”, the scandal on the part of Westchester District attorney Janet DiFiore.  Mount Vernon Exposed has gained more insight into the cover up and who the alleged players are.  Mount Vernon Exposed will continue to cover this event and bring you news not found anywhere else.  No holds barred. 

           

           A few weeks ago we have all read he coverage courtesy of the Journal News regarding the recording with 1^st Deputy Commissioner Phil Gille and Westchester Independence

           party chairman Guilio Cavallo.

Gille can be heard on tape admitting that Janet DiFiore sent her team of rogue 

investigators to investigate a "trumped up" complaint filed by Human Resources Director 

Valerie Raynor, wife of Terrence Raynor, Chief Criminal Investigator for Janet DFiore. Terrence 

Raynor was recently sued for bilking Westchester County taxpayers out of more than $40K for 

claiming S.T.A. R. exemptions on three different properties at the same time.

Corrupt D.A. 
Janet DiFiore

Mount Vernon Exposed has recently reported that 1^stDeputy Commissioner Phil Gille is a known pedophile and has been preying on young boys for more than 20 years.  Gille is Westchester’s own Jerry Sandusky, the disgraced Penn State football recently convicted of raping and molesting young boys at Penn State University.  After our coverage on Gille, Mount Vernon Exposed was inundated with calls and emails seeking to know how Gille was involved in the “Nanny Gate” cover up and how did/does Gille benefit from such a cover up.  We will now explain detail for detail Gille’s motives and reasoning for covering up the “Nanny Gate” scandal.

Approximately two weeks ago, Gille’s Westchester County issued car was stolen by one of his young male lovers.  Gille reported the theft to his superiors in the County Executive Rob Astorino’s administration. While Astorino’s administration was frustrated and angered at Gille’s negligence, Gille was assured that the incident would be covered and made to look as if it never occurred.  If the public became aware of Gille’s activity it would be damaging for Astorino and his administration.

 The Astorino administration then sent detectives from the Westchester County Police to Gille’s residence at 21 Fairfield Place in Yonkers, NY.  To date, there is no evidence or records on file to suggest or indicate that Gille was ever issued a county vehicle even though most employees would confirm same.  No police report was ever filed at any police department, anywhere in Westchester County or the State of New York. 

Corrupt Chief Investigator
Terrence Raynor

When detectives arrived at the residence and rang the doorbell, they were greeted by a 15 year male, dressed in only a tank top and underwear.  When questioned by the detectives the 15 year male told detectives that he was an acquaintance of Gille’s and that they just returned from shopping and having dinner.  When detectives tried to get further information regarding the minor, the minor told the detectives to ask Gille about the extent of their relationship.  According to sources, Gille and the minor are sexually involved, and have been for some time now. Gille has also hired numerous of his “boy toys” to various positions in the Department of Social Services.  The Astorino administration is fully aware of Gille’s conduct and his pedophilia hobby. 

Westchester County detectives then took this information back to Terrence Raynor, Janet’s crooked Chief Investigator.  DiFiore then instructed Raynor and her 1^st Deputy John George to pay Mr. Gille a visit and tell him that if he didn’t cover up and squash the “Nanny Gate” investigation they would prosecute him for having sex with a minor and statutory rape.  Raynor and Janet’s deputy also paid a visit to Kevin Plunkett and advise him of same.  Raynor and George told Plunkett that they would arrest Gille in the Department of Social Services and would say that he was the source of the “Nanny Gate” leak and his reasons for doing so was to damage Janet’s reputation and to clear the path for Plunkett to run for Westchester District Attorney.  Plunkett can be seen on almost a daily basis going in and out of Janet DiFiore’s office. 

Plunkett and Janet are now on the same team.  Plunkett was promised a Supreme Court Judgeship position and the endorsement for Westchester D.A. in the event Janet doesn’t survive politically. All Plunkett has to do in Janet’s own words is to “fire that bitch Vasquez and get rid of whatever she was working on.  She is dangerous and can bring us all down.”

To be continued……..

Bronx NYPD Officer Craig Matthews' Complaint of Alleged Quotas Is Dismissed In Southern District

From Expose Corrupt Courts:

LINK

Suit by Officer Who Complained of Alleged Quotas Is Rejected
The New York Law Journal by Mark Hamblett - April 16, 2012

A Bronx police officer who alleged he was punished for complaining to his superiors that his precinct maintained a quota system for arrests has lost his First Amendment lawsuit. Southern District Judge Barbara Jones ruled that Craig Matthews did not engage in constitutionally protected speech when he alleged that the 42nd Precinct had a strict quota system mandating a target number of arrests, summons and stop-and-frisks. Matthews said he brought the quota system to the attention of commanding officers on four occasions, only to be given "punitive assignments" such as foot patrols and prisoner transport. He also claimed he was denied overtime and leave; was separated from his longtime partner; and was "targeted for humiliating treatment." The New York Police Department denied the use of the system and moved to dismiss his action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Judge Jones granted the motion in a 12-page decision released on April 12, finding that Matthews was not speaking as a citizen when he complained, but was speaking pursuant to his duties as an officer. Christopher Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union is expected to file an appeal on Matthews' behalf. William Fraenkel, of counsel to the city's Law Department, represented the defense in Matthews v. City of New York, 12 CV 1354.
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE FEDERAL COMPLAINT, Matthews v. City of New York(SDNY 12civ1354)

Related Story:

U.S. Judge Rejects Officer’s Lawsuit on Quotas
The New York Times by Matt Flegenheimer - April 12, 2012

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit that accused a Bronx police precinct of using a strict quota system for arrests and of punishing an officer who complained about it, rejecting the officer’s argument that he was protected under the First Amendment. The lawsuit, filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the officer, Craig Matthews, contended that officers were required to produce a minimum number of arrests, summonses and street stops each month. Officer Matthews, a 14-year veteran from the 42nd Precinct, said that the system, which included color-coded charts to track the performance of officers, created divisions within the precinct and that his complaints about it led to punishments, like undesirable assignments and the loss of overtime hours. On Thursday, a United States district judge, Barbara S. Jones of the Southern District of New York, said Officer Matthews’s complaint “was made pursuant to his job duties and is therefore not protected by the First Amendment.” The civil liberties group plans to appeal. Its associate legal director, Christopher T. Dunn, said, “The court’s ruling that police officers have no First Amendment protection when they disclose serious police misconduct not only betrays the Constitution, but is also disastrous for the public’s ability to learn about hidden police scandals.” Paul J. Browne, the chief spokesman for the New York Police Department, said in an e-mail that the ruling “speaks for itself.” The case turned in large part on a question of “citizen versus employee speech,” Judge Jones wrote. The city argued that Officer Matthews had spoken “pursuant to his duties as a police officer” and as a public employee, Judge Jones said, noting that Officer Matthews was voicing concern about executing his duties properly; that he spoke only to his superiors, in the workplace itself; and that the discussions concerned only the substance of his job. Officer Matthews, who sought in the suit to end the retaliation and to be awarded money, contended that his speech was more nuanced. He said he was complaining not only that arrests and summonses were being executed illegally, Judge Jones wrote, but also about the quota system itself and its “impact on the management of other officers, the precinct and the community.” But, Judge Jones wrote, even accepting Officer Matthews’s characterization, his speech was still job-related and not subject to First Amendment protection. For years, police officials have denied the existence of strict quota systems, but they have said that supervisors can establish minimum productivity goals for officers. Mr. Browne has said that the color-coded charts in the precinct were an indicator of enforcement activity, not of a quota system. Al Baker contributed reporting.

Related Story:

Judge shoots down Bx. 'quota cop' 1st Amendment lawsuit
The New York Post by Jamie Schram, Police Bureau Chief - April 13, 2012

A judge has shot down a federal lawsuit by a Bronx cop claiming that his First Amendment rights were violated because his superiors retaliated against him for complaining about quotas. Southern District Judge Barbara Jones ruled that veteran officer Craig Matthew’s speech was not protected by the First Amendment because he was discussing job-related issues as a public employee and not a private citizen. “The judge made a well-reasoned decision, and we are pleased the court dismissed the lawsuit,” NYC Law Dept. Senior Counsel William Fraenkel. Matthews was assigned to the 42nd Precinct in Tremont, which he claimed required quotas for arrests, summonses and street stops. On four occasions, he notified commanding officers about the quota system being used by mid-level superiors, according to court documents. He also whined that his First Amendment rights were trampled on by his supervisors, who allegedly retaliated against him by giving him punitive assignments and cutting his overtime. Matthews was even the subject of “humiliating treatment by supervisors” and was handed negative performance evaluations for complaining about alleged quotas, the papers charge.

Background Story:

Bronx Police Precinct Accused of Using Quota System
The New York Times by Al Baker - February 23, 2012

A police station house in the Bronx has a strict quota system that requires officers to produce a minimum number of arrests, summonses and street stops each month, a civil rights group claims in a federal lawsuit that contends the system has turned officers against one another. So regimented are the demands for numbers that supervisors in the 42nd Precinct began keeping color-coded charts to track officers’ productivity, according to the lawsuit, which was filed Thursday in Federal District Court in Manhattan. Black ink used on those charts — known as officer activity reports — means that an officer is meeting quotas; silver ink means that only some of the quotas are being met; and red ink denotes officers’ meeting no quotas at all, according to the lawsuit, which the New York Civil Liberties Union filed on behalf of Officer Craig Matthews, a 14-year veteran. Officer Matthews contends that the quota system has created animosity among officers at the station house. Since December, an officer has been posted at the locker room to keep officers who oppose the system from damaging the lockers of those who hew to it. This assignment is among the odder ones. And it is often a busy one, according to the complaint. Lockers have been flipped and plastered shut, said Christopher T. Dunn, of the civil liberties group. Some, he said, have been dislodged and hauled off to the showers, where they have been drenched in water. Police officials have consistently denied the existence of a quota system in the department, but have said supervisors can establish minimum productivity goals for officers. Paul J. Browne, the chief spokesman for the New York Police Department, said the color codes did not represent a quota system but were an indicator of enforcement activity in three areas — arrests, criminal summonses and stops for suspicious activity — used to measure police productivity. “Police managers are doing what their jobs demand and the public expects, supervising employees,” he said in an e-mail. The suit claims that Officer Matthews was subjected to a campaign of retaliation and harassment after he first told his precinct commanders in 2009 of the pressure that the quota system placed on officers. The system was honed so that, according to Mr. Dunn, Officer Matthews said supervisors made clear what minimum numbers were expected of each officer in a given 30-day period: 15 summonses, 1 arrest and 2 street stops. “Officers in the precinct are constantly pressured to meet the quotas,” according to the suit, “and those that do not meet them are subject to punishment including undesirable assignments, the loss of overtime, denial of leave, separation from partners and poor evaluation.”Officer Matthews, the lawsuit says, was subjected to those penalties and given risky assignments after his complaints met resistance from higher-ups. Officer Matthews is seeking to end the retaliation for speaking out about the quota system, as well as to be awarded money.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE FEDERAL COMPLAINT, Matthews v. City of New York (SDNY 12civ1354)

Kevin Patrick Brady Is Forbidden From Filing Any Papers With The Court of Claims

Brady v State of New York, Inc.

2012 NY Slip Op 51560(U)

Decided on June 28, 2012

Ct Cl

Sise, J.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 28, 2012 

Ct Cl

Kevin Patrick Brady, Claimant,  against The State of New York, Inc., COUNTY OF MONROE, INC., VILLAGE OF EAST ROCHESTER, INC., and other john doe, defendants, Defendants.

M-80869 



For Claimant: 

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, PRO SE 

For Defendants: 

HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY:Th 

Richard E. Sise, J.

The following papers were read on Movant's motion for permission to file a claim: 

1."Notice of Claim/Affidavit of Service" of Kevin Patrick Brady, pro se; 

2.Affirmation in Opposition of Thomas G. Ramsay, AAG; 

3.Letter brief captioned "Re: Affirmation in Opposition by Assistant Attorney General Thomas G Ramsay" of Kevin Patrick Brady, pro se; and 

4."Notice of Continuing Defaults" of Kevin Patrick Brady, pro se. 

Filed papers: None

Because of earlier events and rulings that were set forth, in detail, in a previous decision, Movant is required to obtain permission of the Supervising Judge or his designee before he can commence an action in this Court. (Brady v State of New York, et al., UID No.2007-028-559, [Ct Cl, Sise, P.J., July 16, 2007]). Consequently, his initial submission, captioned "Notice of Claim/Affidavit of Service", was accepted by the Chief Clerk as commencing a motion for permission to file a claim. [*2]

In his submission, Movant demands money damages in the sum of $1,000,000.00 from the several named Defendants to compensate for harm that, it is alleged, he has suffered because his several prior claims were dismissed and because they were dismissed in such a manner that precludes appeal to a higher court. Movant also asks that the Court suspend and abate all taxes owed on his real and personal property. Finally, he alleges that his rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, specifically "free access to an uncorrupted forum, due process and equal protection under the law" have been violated.

Certain portions of the proposed claim must be stricken at the outset. The Court of Claims has jurisdiction over claims brought against the State of New York, its subdivisions and certain public authorities. It does not have jurisdiction to hear claims brought against any of the other Defendants who are named in the caption of the proposed claim: the County of Monroe, the Village of East Rochester, Inc., or "other john doe defendants". Also, with certain limited exceptions not relevant here, the Court of Claims does not have the power to grant equitable relief and thus could not, under any circumstances, suspend the imposition of taxes on an individual's personal and real property. Finally, no cause of action against the State of New York exists for alleged violations of an individual's rights secured by the United States Constitution (Matter of Thomas v New York Temporary State Commn. on Regulation of Lobbying, 83 AD2d 723 [3d Dept 1981], affd 56 NY2d 656), nor is the State a "person" amenable to suit under 42 USC § 1983 (Will v Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 US 58 [1989]; Welch v State of New York, 286 AD2d 496, 498 [2d Dept 2001]; Zagarella v State of New York, 149 AD2d 503 [2d Dept 1989]; Davis v State of New York, 124 AD2d 420, 423 [3d Dept 1986]). Thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear actions based on allegations that an individual's rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment have been violated.

What remains is a proposed claim for money damages based on allegations that the Court of Claims has wrongfully dismissed previous claims that Movant has sought to file and that they were dismissed in such a way that those rulings could not be appealed. As a technical matter, the previous "dismissals" of which Movant complains were actually denials of motions for permission to file those claims.

There can be no dispute that in ruling on the prior motions for permission to file a claim, this Court was exercising its judicial function. The validity and viability of a cause of action based on allegations that such actions were wrongful, or even malicious, are well-settled and has been addressed on a number of previous occasions in connection with this movant's attempts to file claims in this Court. For example, in Brady v State of New York, et al., (UID No. 2008-028-507 [Ct Cl, Sise, P.J., Jan. 15, 2008]), the Court stated: 

The actions of judicial officers in carrying out their judicial function are entitled to absolute immunity from liability (Salzano v Town of Poughkeepsie, 300 AD2d 716 [2002]; Bardascini v Reedy, 51 AD2d 271, 272 [3d Dept 1976], lv denied 40 NY2d 803 [1976]). 

If an action is immune from liability, then there can be no award of money damages for any harm it may have caused. Consequently, the claim or proposed claim based on such allegations does not set forth a cause of action on which this Court can grant relief.

If the Court were to permit it to be filed, such a claim would be subject to immediate dismissal, with the only result being an additional waste of the Court's, the State's and Movant's [*3]own resources. It must be noted that filing claims in this Court requires payment of a $50.00 filing fee, whereas there is no fee for commencing a motion. Because Movant's attempts to file claims have been deemed to be motions for permission to file, he has actually realized considerable savings over the last several years.

Movant also objects that his claims have been dismissed "without requiring answers from the Department of Law attorneys" ("Notice of Claim," p 3). While it is true that the State has not had to file a document captioned "Answer," the Attorney General has nevertheless responded to each motion and to each proposed claim. In response to the instant motion, for example, Defendant sets forth clearly its several objections to the proposed claim, informing the Court and Movant of the affirmative defenses that would be raised if an answer were to be required. If a claim were to be filed, however, it is far more likely that these same defenses would be raised in a pre-answer motion to dismiss, because they are well-founded in settled law and jurisdictional in nature. For example, the defense based on judicial immunity is the same, and is equally determinative, whether it is raised in an answer, in a pre-answer motion, or in response to a motion for permission to file a claim: 

The doctrine of Judicial Immunity bars claims against Judges for their Judicial Acts, as well as claims against the State arising out of any alleged errors made by its Judges in a Judicial capacity. See Fuller v State of New York, Claim No. 107726, Motion M-75521, CM-7553, Schaewe, J., 1/20/09)], citing Murray v Brancato, 290 NY 52 [1943]; Jamieson v State [of New York], 7 AD2d 944 [3d Dept 1959; Kopeppe v City of Hudson, 276 App Div 443 [3d Dept 1950]; Harley v State [of New York], 186 AD2d 324 [3d Dept 1992], app dsm [sic] 81 NY2d 781 [1993]; Rossman v State [of New York, 40 AD2d 1046 [3d Dept 1972]. 

(Ramsay Affirmation, ¶ 7)

In short, Movant's problem is not that the Court will not permit a claim to be filed. His problem is that the causes of action he has sought to assert simply have no legal merit. The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction, and it has the power to grant only a certain type of relief. It may hear only certain types of actions (see Court of Claims Act §§ 9[2], [2-a], [3], [3-a], [9-a], [12], [13]). The powers of the Court of Claims include those necessary to carry out its functions, powers such as rule-making and perpetuating testimony, but it has only a limited and specific power to grant relief to a claimant: it may "render judgment in favor of the claimant or the state for such sum as should be paid by or to the state" (id., § 9[4]). In other words, this Court may only award money damages, and as a result its jurisdiction is limited to cases where such an award is a recognized remedy. Unless and until Movant submits a proposed claim that sets forth a cause of action for which money damages are an appropriate and permitted remedy, his efforts to file a claim in this Court will inevitably be unsuccessful.

In his papers, Movant asserts that this Court lacks discretion to deny (more accurately, to refuse to permit Movant to file) a "facially meritorious" claim. That statement is accurate. The claims Movant is attempting to file, however, are meritless. Furthermore, his conduct in repeatedly attempting to litigate the same issue is frivolous. For a definition of frivolity, Movant himself cites to the regulation governing costs and sanctions (22 NYCRR § 130-1.1[c][1]) which states that conduct is frivolous if it is "completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law." This Court [*4]has followed well-established precedent in holding that actions for money damages against the State that are based on allegations of wrongdoing on the part of judicial officers who are engaged in carrying out their judicial functions are completely lacking in legal merit. It further concludes that Movant has made no "reasonable argument" for modifying or changing that existing law. If Movant disagrees with these holdings, his proper recourse is to appeal this order to a higher court.

Turning to that issue, Movant contends that the manner in which the Court has dismissed his earlier claims (more accurately, denied his motions for permission to file a claim) makes those rulings non-final and non-appealable: "Pro se Claimant has never been provided the means to make said dismissals appealable" (Notice of Claim, p 2). He cites no authority for this proposition, and the Court is not aware of anything that would prevent him from appealing this or any of the other motion decisions to the Appellate Division. CPLR 5501 provides that the Appellate Division "shall review questions of law and questions of fact on an appeal from a judgment or order of a court of original instance." This Decision and Order of the Court and the orders denying previous, similar motions are analogous to orders denying applications to file an untimely claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6), and those orders are certainly appealable (see e.g. Matter of Magee v State of New York, 54 AD3d 1117 [3d Dept 2008]; Matter of Best v State of New York, 42 AD3d 699 [3d Dept 2007]). Most significantly, Movant himself has, on at least one occasion, appealed an order of this Court that denied him permission to file a claim. In Brady v State of New York (58 AD3d 992 [3d Dept 2009]) the Appellate Division, Third Department heard Movant's appeal of several of this Court's orders, one of which was a denial of a motion for permission to file a claim. The appellate court ruled on the appeal, affirming the orders on the opinions below. The Court finds no basis, therefore, for Movant's contention that he is somehow prohibited from appealing this order and orders similar to it.

Finally, although this issue has been discussed at length in earlier opinions, the Court will again address Movant's contention that by requiring him to obtain judicial permission before commencing an action, this Court is without authority and improperly interferes with his right to freely access the judicial system.

It is well-settled in both State and Federal practice that courts are not powerless to defend themselves from litigants who misuse the judicial system to wage their own personal, quixotic campaigns: "The court may enjoin a litigant who exhibits a history of vexatious litigation from filing further actions without leave of the court, where it determines that the litigant is likely to continue to abuse the judicial process and harass other parties'" (Green v McLaughlin, 374 Fed Appx 173, 175 [2d Cir 2010], quoting Safir v United States Lines, Inc., 792 F2d 19, 24 [2d Cir 1986]). In the view of some, courts actually have an "obligation to protect the public and the efficient administration of justice from individuals who have a history of litigation entailing "vexation, harassment and needless expense to [other parties]" and "an unnecessary burden on the courts and their supporting personnel" ' " (Lau v Meddaugh, 229 F3d 121, 123 [2d Cir 2000][emphasis supplied]).

In New York, as well, litigation may be enjoined when a litigant is "abusing the judicial process by hagriding individuals solely out of ill will or spite" (Sassower v Signorelli, 99 AD2d 358, 359 [2d Dept 1984]). The central inquiry is whether the individual is abusing the judicial process through vexatious litigation (Deshpande v Medisys Health Network, Inc., 70 AD3d 760, [*5]763 [2d Dept 2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 713 [2010]; see also IRB-Brasil Resseguros S.A. v Portobello Intl Ltd., 59 AD3d 366 [1st Dept 2009]; Miller v Lanzisera, 273 AD2d 866, 869 [4th Dept 2000]) and whether the litigation restrictions imposed are "not so burdensome as [to] deny the litigant meaningful access to the courts" (Fitzgerald v Field, 1999 WL 1021568, at *6 [SD NY 1999]). Where, as here, the only restriction being placed on Movant is that he allege a viable cause of action over which this Court has jurisdiction, one that would not be subject to immediate dismissal, the threshold he is required to meet is extremely low. As a practical matter, in fact, there is only minimal interference, if any, with Movant's access to the court. He is able to make his allegations, to obtain a response from the Defendant, to have the allegations considered and ruled upon by the Court, and to have appellate review of that decision. If the cause of action that he is asserting has no legal merit, then it is immaterial whether those steps occur in connection with a motion for permission to file a claim or a motion to dismiss a claim which has been filed. The result is the same.

Because the document accepted as his proposed claims fails to set forth a viable cause of action over which this Court has jurisdiction, Movant's motion for permission to file a claim is denied. RICHARD E. SISE Presiding Judge of the Court of Claims

Albany, New York June 28, 2012

NET DIFIORE'S TOP COP ORCHESTRATED NANNY GATE SCANDAL

Following up on the previous story from Mount Vernon Exposed:

Terrence Raynor, Janet DiFiore's Chief Investigator, Charged With two Felonies

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

JA

 

Terrence Raynor, 2nd from Left

Janet DiFiore the District Attorney of the County of Westchester continues to play politics with the voters of Westchester County.  She refuses to take interviews on camera  regarding the Nanny Gate scandal and only releases statements on paper to the media.

LINK

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

JANET DIFIORE'S TOP COP ORCHESTRATED NNANNY GATE SCANDAL

Chief of Investigations Terrance Raynor has also been caught with his hand in the cookie jar and just like just like his boss, took steps to try to cover up this criminal activity.  Mount Vernon Exposed has also learned that Raynor was also in involved in what has become known nationwide as “Nanny Gate”. 

We will now break down Raynor’s involvement in “Nanny Gate”.  According to a confidential source in the Westchester District Attorney’s office and the Department of Social Services, Raynor was fully aware the DiFiore’s nanny had been rejected in the past for Medicare.  Janet would become frustrated and make comments in the office about her nanny’s declining health and how it was costing her so much money. Janet became increasingly frustrated when The Department of Social Services rejected Marina Buchannan for welfare benefits. 

Raynor then approached Janet DiFiore and offered his help.  Raynor informed DiFiore that his wife worked in the Department of Social Services and could get her nanny approved for welfare benefits.  Terrence Raynor is married to Valerie Raynor aka Valerie Woodbine.  Valerie Woodbine is the sister is Shoshanna Woodbine.  Shoshanna Woodbine is married to Nashon Halevi.  Nashon Halevi is the brother of Naomi Halevi and the son of Serepher Halevi.  Naomi Halevi was recently convicted of defrauding the Federal government’s Section 8 program by receiving section 8 while owning a house located at 10 California Road.  The house at 10 California Road is valued at over $800,000. 

Valerie Raynor then went to her boss at the time, Diane Atkins and informed her of Janet’s nanny situation brought to her attention by her husband Terrance.  Atkins then opened a case in the Central office where she was 1^st Deputy Commissioner. Janet’s nanny previously was denied welfare in the Yonkers district office just a few short blocks from where she resided.  Atkins got the job done and earned herself a permanent get out of jail free card from Janet DiFiore.  For the reasons stated herein, Janet has refused to investigate any allegations of corruption within the Department of Social Services.  Instead she has sent her “Hit Squad” to destroy any evidence that threatens to bring down her “Power Circle”. 

According to sources, Valerie Raynor was the one who typed the “trumped up” letter to DiFiore’s office about fraud investigator Dhyalma Vazquez.  When DiFiore’s office came to investigate Valerie illegally turned over Vazquez' personnel file.  Philippe Gille, currently the 1^st Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Social Services, was recently caught on tape discussing DiFiore’s underhanded behavior regarding DiFiore’s criminal cover up. 

According to an investigator in DiFiore’s office, Terrence was promised that he will be made the Westchester County Police Commissioner in 2014 if Tim Idoni or Ken Jenkins is elected County Executive.  According to the Investigator, Janet said “In this business, it is very important that you never forgot who your friends are”. 

Terrence Raynor was eager to depart Janet’s office for some time now and has been seeking other law enforcement positions outside New York State, specifically down south. Just recently, he was spotted meeting with Mount Vernon Mayor Ernest Davis about becoming Mount Vernon’s top cop.

Terrence has brought disgrace to his badge and should be thoroughly investigated for his role in “Nanny Gate”.  As the Chief of Investigations for DiFiore every investigation by that office headed by him and his rogue unit of investigstors should be re-opened and investigated by outside agencies. Raynor and DiFiore have left a black eye on the District Attorney’s office that will take decades to wipe away. 

However there is light at the end of the tunnel for Terrence, he can avoid prosecution by turning State’s evidence against his boss Janet DiFiore and hopefully get no prison sentence for the crimes he committed.  To be continued.....

Bronx Assemblywoman Naomi Rivera and Her Secret Life

Bronx pol’s secret Facebook page with staffer boytoy

By CANDICE M. GIOVE

Last Updated:11:14 AM, August 12, 2012

Posted:12:13 AM, August 12, 2012

LINK

Assemblywoman Naomi Rivera and Friend

She’s a real swing voter.

To constituents, she’s Naomi D. Rivera, a mild-mannered, bespectacled Bronx assemblywoman whose social-media page is dotted with her accomplishments, thoughtful sayings and the latest neighborhood news.

But on another, secretFacebookpage, she’s Daniela Rivera, a sultry single 47-year-old who shows off her curves, her dance moves and, in one photo accessible to the public, the top of her lacy red bra.

But more than anything, the lawmaker’s Internet alter-ego is devoted toTommy Torres, a fellow Democrat eight years her junior whom she has been dating for at least two years — and whom she put on her government payroll.

Dozens of photos on Daniela’s page show Rivera with her hunky “babe” in various poses — locking lips, nuzzling his cheek and dirty dancing.

Naomi Rivera and Toomy Torres

The legislator began posting romantic photos of Torres in 2009, when she created the page under “Daniela,” her middle name, and a year before she hired him or finalized her divorce from husband Antonio Rodriguez.

Torres pulled down $18,123 in taxpayer-funded salary while working out of Rivera’s Morris Park district office for four months in 2010, records show.

But exactly what he did for his $1,100-a-week rate remains unclear — as does the question of how it was even possible for him to work for Rivera when he was already working full time as a gym teacher and high-school sports coach.

According to state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli’s office and Assembly records, Torres was listed as a “full-time” community-relations director for Rivera from Aug. 30, 2010, until Jan. 1, 2011.

At the same time, city Department of Education records indicate, he worked full time at Brooklyn’s PS 157 and made extra money coaching after class. In 2010, he earned a total of $89,550 from the DOE, records show.

Now, after hooking up with the daughter of one of The Bronx’s most powerful political families, he’s aiming for a new job — the open City Council seat in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.

Torres did not return repeated calls for comment.

Rivera denies Torres had a no-show job in her office.

“Mr. Torres did work part time for my district office,” Rivera told The Post through a message via Naomi’s Facebook page.

“It was for a period of four months ending in 2010. Because of his background in education, during those four months he was actively involved representing me in educational and at community events.”

She did not respond to requests for a detailed log of his hours or events he handled.

While not denying they were an item, she refused to answer questions about their relationship.

“The Facebook page you are referring to is my own personal page, having nothing to do with my professional career, and I wish you would respect my privacy,” she said.

Her Facebook photos and comments make it clear that romance is in the air.

She shows off1-carat diamondearrings he purchased her for Valentine’s Day, in one photo.

In another, Torres kisses her atop a snow-capped Poconos mountain. She writes underneath: “And then he kissed her...what does it all mean??? He loves her...he loves her not.....He loves her...he loves her not...”

Rivera writes under another photo showing them hugging at a Mets game, “[Heart] Ya Babe!” two months before Rivera hired him.

They are seen on his Facebook page attending the governor’s State of the State Address in 2010.

But long before Torres entered the Facebook picture, “Daniela” was posting racy comments and photos. In one, she’s hugging a hairdresser suggestively, over the comment, “My Floridian stud.”

After Post inquiries, she took down the Daniela page.

Rivera’s father is former Bronx Democratic Party boss and Assemblyman José Rivera, who in 2008 lost control of the borough machine amid charges of nepotism. Her brother is Joel Rivera, a city councilman.

cgiove@nypost.com