Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2022 04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2022
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2021
12/16/2022 04:04
04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 775
1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2021
12/16/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
___.._______________________--____------.. . .. X
ALICIA M ARUNDEL; SUZANNE SCHULMAN, AS
ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BRI TTNEY M. Index No. 611214/15
SCHULMAN, DECEASED; OLGA LlPETS; MINDY
GRABINA, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE RESPONSE TO
OF AMY GRABINA, AND MINDY GRABINA, PLAINTIFF'S REVISED
INDIVIDUALLY; STEVEN BARUCH, AS INTERROGATORIES
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LAUREN
BARUCH, DECEASED, AND STEVEN BARUCH
INDIVIDUALLY; JOELLE DIMONTE; MELISSA A.
CRAI; ARTHUR A. BELLI JR., AS PARENT AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN OF STEPHANIE BELL1,
DECEASED, AND AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ESTATE OF STEPHANIE BELLI,
Plaintiff,
-against-
ULTIMATE CLASS LIMOUSINE, INC., CARLOS PINO,
ROMEO DIMON MARINE SERVICE, INC., STEVEN D.
ROMEO, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF
SUFFOLK, CABOT COACH BUILDERS, INC., d/b/a
1-5"
ROYALE LIMOUSINE and "XYZ COMPANIES
name being fictitious but intended to be the rernanufacturers,
distributors and/or sellers of the 2007 Lincoln Town Car
stretch limousine involved in the collision,
Defendants.
-------- -- ---X
Town"
Defendant, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ("the or "Defendant"), by their attorneys,
THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS M. VOLZ, PLLC, hereby respond to Plaintiff's Revised
Interrogatories, as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each response is subject to
all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety and admissibility, and any and
all other objections and grounds which would require the exclusion of any statement herein if the
interrogatories were asked of, or any statement contained herein were made by, a witness present
1 of 30
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2021
12/16/2022 04:04
04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 775
1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2021
12/16/2022
and testifying in court, allof which objections and grounds are reserved and may be interposed at
the time of trial.
Defendant reserves the right to make any changes in these answers if it appears that
omissions or errors have been made herein, or that further and/or more accurate information is
available.
Defendant's investigation of the facts relating and material to this action is ongoing and
Defendant has not completed preparation for trial. The following answers are based on
information presently available and are made without prejudice to defendant's right to utilize
subsequently discovered facts,
Except for explicit facts admitted herein, no incidental or implied admissions are intended
hereby. The fact that defendant has answered any interrogatory should not be taken as an
admission that defandant accepts or admits the existence of any facts set forth or assumed by such
interrogatory, or that such answer constitutes admissible evidence. The fact that the defendant has
answered any or all of any interrogatory is not intended and shall not be construed to be a waiver
by the defendant of all or part of any objection to any interrogatory.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The defendant generally objects to the interrogatories upon the ground that many of the
terms are vague, ambiguous and/or susceptible to different interpretations, and in view of the fact
that itcannot generally be ascertained from the context thereof what the plaintiff meant by the use
of a particular undefined term, the responding defendant reserves the right to modify, amend and/or
supplement these responses at such time as precisely defined interrogatory definitions terms are
furnished.
Moreover, defendant objects to these interrogatories on the grounds that they are not
compliant with the Protective Order of Justice Rouse, dated December 10, 2020, in that they
2
\TS3210DCOlAshare\Tokio
MarineHCC\Town of SoutholdArundel 17593618-19-10\Townof Southold-Amndel\CONSOLlDATEDACTION\Discovery\DRAFF
Responselo Interrogatories2.19.2021.doex
2 of 30
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2021
12/16/2022 04:04
04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 775
1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2021
12/16/2022
exceed the scope of permissible discovery as set forth in said Order. Specifically, Justice Rouse's
Order made no reference to document demands, but rather made clear that the scope of discovery
was limited to Interrogatories. Despite this directive, the demands served upon Supervisor Russell
include not only Interrogatories, but also demands for documents.
Additionally, the scope of the Interrogatories and Document deniands far exceed the
limited purpose of making an inquiry into the comments attributed to the Supervisor in a press
release regarding complaints and comments received regarding Route 48 and their referral to the
County of Suffolk, the stated reason for seeking the deposition of Supervisor Russell which
resulted in the aforementioned Protective Order. Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof as to their
claims regarding the applicable statutory law and the Supervisor's opinions as to legal matters
sought throughout these Interrogatories is manifestly improper and should be stricken.
Accordingly, Defendant objects to the Interrogatories as being in violation of the Court Order,
neither material nor necessary and thus patently improper.
INTERROGATORIES
1. State your full name.
RESPONSE: Scott A.. Russell.
2. How long have you been Town Supervisor of the Town of Southold?
RESPONSE: Since January 1, 2006.
3. What are the duties and responsibilities of the Town Supervisor of the Town of
Southold?
RESPONSE: Objection. The duties and responsibilities of the Town Supervisor are defined in the
Public Officer's law to which plaintiffs are referred. Notwithstanding the objection, the Supervisor
is the Chief Executive Officer of the Town and is responsible for the day-to-day management and
supervision of the Town. Supervisor Russell also serves as the one of the six Town legislators.
Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response if and when any additional information
or documentation is discovered.
4. Was a no U-turn area established by the Town of Southold in local law 18-2019,
and codified in the Town Code as section 260-3. 1 of the Southold Town Code?
3
MarineHCC\Townof SoutholdArundel 175936I 8-19-10\Townof Southold-Arundel\CONSOLIDATEDACTION\Discovery DRAFT
\\TS3210DCOE\shareiTokio
Responseto Interrogatories2.19.2021.docx
3 of 30
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2021
12/16/2022 04:04
04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 775
1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2021
12/16/2022
RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, the question is
unintelligible as phrased. The plaintiffs are referred to the specific code provision referenced which
provision speaks for itself.
5. What was the basis of the Town's to adopt local law 18-2019?
authority
RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, defendant objects to
this Interrogatory as itcalls for a legal conclusion as to legal which is a question
authority authority
of law and which is not posed to the Town's Supervisor.
properly
6. Did the Town issue an opinion, oral or written, whether the
Attorney concerning
Town of Southold had authority to adopt local law 18-2019?
RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, defendant objects to
this Interrogatory as it seeks information protected the attorney-client privilege, which is not
by
subject to disclosure.
7. At any Town Board meeting, between 1997 and 2015, did resident express
any
complaints or concerns about limousines, stretch limousines or buses making U-turns from the
eastbound lane of County Road 48 to the westbound lane at Depot Lane?
a. If the answer is yes, please describe in detail allactions taken the Town Board
by
in response to the complaints or concerns expressed at the meeting(s).
b. If the answer is yes, but no action was taken by the Town Board, state why no action
was taken.
RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, plaintiffs are referred
to the Town Board Meeting Minutes which are available on the Town of Southold
publicly
website. Notwithstanding the objection, complaints the subject intersection and
regarding
Vineyard 48 were made during board meetings, some of which representatives from the County
of Suffolk were present. Scott Russell did not become Supervisor of the Town until 2006, by
which time the Town had requested the conduct a traffic of the subject intersection.
County study
As such, in 2006, when Mr. Russell became Supervisor, he was aware that the Town had already
requested study of the intersection, which the Supervisor understood to include all traffic safety
issues associated thereto. Additionally, in late 2012 or 2013, the Supervisor spoke with a
representative from the County's Engineering Department regarding the subject intersection as
well as two other intersections Route 48 and was advised that the was
along County County
planning on conducting studies of all of the intersection Route 48. Defendant
along County
reserves the right to supplement this response if and when additional information or
any
documentation is discovered.
8. To your did the Town Board ever consider or discuss no U-
knowledge, placing
turn signs in the eastbound lane of Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane?
County
RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, defendant objects to
this Interrogatory as it seeks information protected the deliberative process privilege and not
by
subject to disclosure.
4
\\TS3210DCOEishare\Tokio
Marine HCC\Townof SoutholdArundel 175936184940\Town of Southold-Arundel\CONSOL1DATED
ACTION\Discovery\DRAFT
Responseto unerrogatories2.19.202Ldoex
4 of 30
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2021
12/16/2022 04:04
04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 775
1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2021
12/16/2022
9, Did the Town Board ever determine to place no U-turn signs in the eastbound lane
of County Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane?
RESPONSE: Objection. The Interrogatory as phrased is unintelligible. Notwithstanding the
general objections stated above, the Town Board did not determine to place a no U-turn sign
governing eastbound traffic on County Road 48. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this
response ifand when any additional information or documentation is discovered.
10. Was it your understanding that, in order to place no U-turn signs in the eastbound
lane of County Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane, the Town Board had to consult with
officials from the County of Suffolk?
a. If the answer is yes, what is the basis of that understanding?
b. Document Demand: If a written opinion was rendered by the Town
Attorney with respect to this issue, attach a copy to the answers to these
interrogatories.
"understanding"
RESPONSE: Objection. The Town's Supervisor's is of no legal moment as to
the legality of placement no U-Turn signs on Country Roads and is therefore neither material, nor
necessary to the prosecution of this matter. Moreover, defendant objects to the Document Demand
buried within this Interrogatory on the grounds itexceeds the permissible discovery authorized by
Judge Rouse's Protective Order.
11. Did the Town Board ever make a request to any official with the County of Suffolk
"recommend"
that the County approve or the installation of no U-turn signs in the eastbound lane
of County Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane?
a. If the answer is yes, was that request in writing?
b. Document Demand: If a request was made in writing to the County of
Suffolk that the County approve the installation of no U-turn signs in the
eastbound lane of County Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane,
attach a copy of the request (or requests, if more than one) to the answers to
these interrogatories.
c. If such a request was oral, please provide the details.
d. If the answer is no, why was such a request not made?
RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, defendant objects to
this interrogatory as unintelligible as phrased. Defendant further objects to the Document Demand
contained within this Interrogatory on the grounds itexceeds the permissible discovery authorized
by Judge Rouse's Protective Order. Notwithstanding the objection, the Town had requested the
County study the subject intersection as early as 1999 with the understanding that the County
would conduct any and all necessary and relevant studies thereto. The Supervisor has no
knowledge of what the Town Board requested of the County prior to 2006 before he was the Town
Supervisor and has no knowledge as to whether Town Boards prior to that time requested approval
"recommendation"
or from any County official for the installation of no U-turn signs. Defendant
reserves the right to supplement this response if and when any additional information or
documentation is discovered.
12. Daniel Dresch, who, in 2015, was the director of traffic engineering and highway
work permits for the County of Suffolk, gave sworn testimony as a witness in this case at an
examination before trialconducted on July 17, 2019. At his deposition, Mr. Dresch was asked:
5
WES321ODC.OE\share\Tokio
MarineHCC\Townof SoutholdAnmdel 17593618-19-10\Townof Southokl-Arundel\CONSOLlDATEDACTION\Discovery\DRAFT
Responseto Interrogatories2.19.202).docx
5 of 30
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2021
12/16/2022 04:04
04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 775
1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2021
12/16/2022
Q: Does the Town of Southold have authority to install traffic control
devices such as no U turns on a county road?
A: In the strictest sense, they likely do, because any regulatory sign that
w e put on County Road 48 except for speed limit signs are as a result
of a town board action, like the parking signs that we referred to
earlier.
Page 212, lines 9-16.
a. Do you agree with the statement in Mr. Dresch's testimony?
b. If you disagree with Mr. Dresch, explain how you disagree and on what
basis you disagree.
RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, the Interrogatory
requests a legal and/or technical opinion, and the Supervisor is neither an attorney nor a traffic
"agreement" "disagreement"
engineer and therefore his or with Mr. Dresch's is neither
testimony
material nor necessary to the prosecution of this matter.
13. At his deposition, Mr. Dresch was also asked:
G: So if the town wanted to install a no U-turn sign, you're saying that they
would have the authority to do so?
A: In the strictest sense. It would be highly unusual for them to move ahead
without a recommendation fï^om the county.
Page 212, lines 17-22.
a. Do you agree with the statement in Mr. Dresch's testimony?
b. If you disagree with Mr. Dresch, explain how you disagree and on what
basis you disagree.
RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, the Interrogatory
requests a legal and/or technical opinion, and the Supervisor is neither an attorney nor a traffic
"agreement" "disagreement"
engineer and therefore his or with Mr. Dresch's is neither
testimony
material nor necessary to the prosecution of this matter.
14. With respect to the authority of a town to install no U-turn signs on a Suffolk
County road, Mr. Dresch testified as follows:
A. They would be the typical action would be they are as a result of an
ordinance passed by the local town or village, and that the local town or
village forces would install and maintain the sign.
Page 213, lines 3-16
6
\\TS3210DCOE\share\Tokio
MarineHCC\Townof SoutholdArundel 17593618-1940\Townof Southold-ArundchCONSOL1DATED
ACTION\Discovery\DRAFT
Responseto Interrogatories2.19 2021.doex
6 of 30
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2021
12/16/2022 04:04
04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 775
1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2021
12/16/2022
a. Do you agree with the statement in Mr. Dresch's testimony?
b. If you disagree with Mr, Dresch, explain how you disagree and on what
basis you disagree.
RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, the Interrogatory
requests a legal and/or technical opinion, and the Supervisor is neither an attorney nor a traffic
"agreement" "disagreement"
engineer and therefore his or with Mr. Dresch's testimony is neither
material nor necessary to the prosecution of this matter.
15. Were you aware, prior to 2015, of any legal impediment to placing or installing no
U-turn signs in the eastbound lane of County Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane?
a. If the answer is yes, describe in detail your understanding of the legal
impediment to placing or installing no U-turn signs in the eastbound lane of
County Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane.
RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, defendant objects to
this Interrogatory as unintelligible as phrased, calling for a legal conclusion and neither material
nor necessary to the prosecution of this matter. Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof as to their claims
regarding the applicable statutory law and the Supervisor's opinions as sought throughout these
Interrogatories is manifestly improper.
16. Did you or, to your knowledge, did any Town of Southold official or employee,
have oral communications with any official of the County of Suffolk, from 1997 through 2015,
which advised the County of Suffolk that stretch limousines were making dangerous U-turns from
the eastbound lane of County Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane?
a. If the answer is yes, please provide the details including the dates (or
approximate dates) and the person or persons involved in the
communication.
b. If the answer is no, what was the reason this information was not provided
to the County of Suffolk?
RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, Mr. Russell did not
become the Town Supervisor until 2006. Notwithstanding the objection, the Supervisor does not
recall any specific conversation he had with Suffolk County officials regarding dangerous U-Turns
stretched limousines were making at the subject intersection. Defendant reserves the right to
supplement this response if and when any additional information or documentation is discovered.
17. Did the Town of Southold ever undertake a study, on itsown, to determine whether
a no U-turn sign was warranted at the intersection of the eastbound lane of County Road 48 with
Depot Lane?
a. If the answer is yes, please provide the details about the study, including
who conducted it, when it was conducted, how itwas documented and
whether the results were ever reported.
b. Document Demand: Ifthere was such a study resulting in a report, please
provide a copy annexed to the answers to these interrogatories.
c. If the answer is no, set forth the reason why no such study was undertaken.
7
WrS3210DCCEshare\TokioMarineHCC\Townof SoutholdArundel 17593618-19-10\Townof Southold-Arundel\CONSOLlDATEDACTION\Discovery\DRAFT
Responseto Interrogatories2 19.2021.doex
7 of 30
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2021
12/16/2022 04:04
04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 775
1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2021
12/16/2022
RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, defendants object to
this Interrogatory as it contains no specified time period. Mr. Russell did not become the Town
Supervisor until 2006 and therefore would have no knowledge of studies performed prior to 2006.
Notwithstanding the objection, the Town Supervisor has no knowledge of any studies undertaken
by the Town to determine whether a no U-turn sign was warranted on County Route 48.
18. In July of 2020, did you make the following statement (whether verbatim or in sum
and substance) to a Newsday reporter: "All complaints and comments we receive regarding Route
48 are automatically referred to Suffolk County, which owns the road."?
RESPONSE: Yes.
a. Ifthe answer is yes, was your statement true?
RESPONSE: Yes.
"automatically"
b. What, specifically, was the mechanism for referring all
complains and comments received to Suffolk County?
"mechanism"
RESPONSE: Objection. Defendants object to the term as
such is not adequately defined and vague. Notwithstanding the objection,
complaints and comments were sent via written correspondence or over the
phone, or in person conversations to the Acting County Legislator, which
during the Supervisor tenure had been Ed Romaine and Albert Krupski, and
the Suffolk County Department of Public Works. If the nature of the
complaint or comment was redundant or repetitive, the County would not
have been advised each time itwas reiterated.
comment"
c. Did the Town of Southold ever "refer a complaint or to Suffolk
County that stretch limousines were making dangerous U-turns from the
eastbound lane of County Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane?
RESPONSE: The Supervisor does not recall the nature of each specific
comments"
complaint or that was made or referred to the County. As stated,
the County was asked to study the intersection for any unsafe or hazardous
traffic conditions.
d. What other complains or comments regarding Route 48 have been referred
to Suffolk County since you became the Town Supervisor.
RESPONSE: The Supervisor does not recall the nature of each "complaint
comment"
or referred to the County of Suffolk. Those that were referred
and memorialized in writing have previously been produced.
e. D6camêñt Demand: If any of the complaints or comments identified in the
answers to this interrogatory were submitted to the County of Suffolk in
writing, annex copies to the answers to these interrogatories.
RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Document Demand on
the grounds it exceeds the permissible discovery authorized by Judge
Rouse's Protective Order.
19. In July of 2020, did you make the following statement (whether verbatim or in sum
and substance) to a Suffolk Times Reporter: "All complaints 1 receive regarding Route 48 get
referred to Suffolk County, which owns the road."?
8
\\TS3210DCOE\share\Tokio
Marine HCC\Townof SoutholdArundel 17593618-19-10YTown
of Southold-Anmdel\CONSOLIDATEDACTION\Discovery\DRAFT
Responseto interrogatories2 19.2021.doex
8 of 30
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2021
12/16/2022 04:04
04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 775
1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2021
12/16/2022
"I"
RESPONSE: Yes, the use of the pronoun in the above quote was used as the Supervisor sees
his official actions as the Supervisor as synonymous to the actions of the Town. Therefore, the use
"I"
of the term connotes the Town in that context.
a. If the answer is yes, was your statement true?
RESPONSE: Yes.
b. What, specifically, was the mechanism for referring all complaints and comments
received by you to Suffolk County?
"mechanism"
RESPONSE: Objection. Defendants object to the term as such is not
adequately defined and vague. Notwithstanding the objection, complaints and
comments were sent via written correspondence or over the phone, or in person
conversations to the Acting County Legislator, which during the Supervisor tenure had
been Ed Romaine and Albert Krupski, and the Suffolk County Department of Public
Works. If the nature of the complaint or comment was redundant or repetitive, the
County would not have been advised each time itwas reiterated.
c. Did you ever refer a complaint or comment to Suffolk County that stretch
limousines were making dangerous U-turns from the eastbound lane of County
Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane?
RESPONSE: The Supervisor does not recall the nature of each specific complaint or
comments that was made or referred to the County. As stated, the County was asked to
study the intersection for any unsafe or hazardous traffic conditions.
d. What other complaints or comments regarding with 48 have been referred to
Suffolk County since you became the Town supervisor?
RESPONSE: The Supervisor does not recall the nature of each "complaint or comment
referred to the County of Suffolk Those that were referred and memorialized in writing
have previously been produced.
e. Document Demand: If any of the complaints or comments identified in the
answers to this interrogatory were submitted to the County of Suffolk in writing,
annex copies to the answers to these interrogatories.
RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Document Demand on the
grounds it exceeds the permissible discovery authorized by Judge Rouse's Protective
Order.
20. OMITTED BY PLAINTIFF IN DEMANDS.
21. To your knowledge, in July of 2020, did Town Attorney William Duffy make the
following statement (whether verbatim or in sum and substance) to a Suffolk Times reporter: "In
addition the supervisor's office forwarding complaints about the intersection to county, since 1998
the Town Board has made several requests that the county study the intersection based on
constituent complaints.
a. If the answer is yes, is the statement true?
b. Do you agree that, as the Supervisor of the Town of Southold, you had a duty to
forward those complaints to the County of Suffolk?
9
\\TS3210DCOE\share\Tokio
ManneHCC\Townof SoutholdArundel 17593
Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 12/16/2022 04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2022 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2021 12/16/2022 04:04 04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 775 1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2021 12/16/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ___.._______________________--____------.. . .. X ALICIA M ARUNDEL; SUZANNE SCHULMAN, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BRI TTNEY M. Index No. 611214/15 SCHULMAN, DECEASED; OLGA LlPETS; MINDY GRABINA, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE RESPONSE TO OF AMY GRABINA, AND MINDY GRABINA, PLAINTIFF'S REVISED INDIVIDUALLY; STEVEN BARUCH, AS INTERROGATORIES ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LAUREN BARUCH, DECEASED, AND STEVEN BARUCH INDIVIDUALLY; JOELLE DIMONTE; MELISSA A. CRAI; ARTHUR A. BELLI JR., AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF STEPHANIE BELL1, DECEASED, AND AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF STEPHANIE BELLI, Plaintiff, -against- ULTIMATE CLASS LIMOUSINE, INC., CARLOS PINO, ROMEO DIMON MARINE SERVICE, INC., STEVEN D. ROMEO, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, CABOT COACH BUILDERS, INC., d/b/a 1-5" ROYALE LIMOUSINE and "XYZ COMPANIES name being fictitious but intended to be the rernanufacturers, distributors and/or sellers of the 2007 Lincoln Town Car stretch limousine involved in the collision, Defendants. -------- -- ---X Town" Defendant, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ("the or "Defendant"), by their attorneys, THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS M. VOLZ, PLLC, hereby respond to Plaintiff's Revised Interrogatories, as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each response is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety and admissibility, and any and all other objections and grounds which would require the exclusion of any statement herein if the interrogatories were asked of, or any statement contained herein were made by, a witness present 1 of 30 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2021 12/16/2022 04:04 04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 775 1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2021 12/16/2022 and testifying in court, allof which objections and grounds are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial. Defendant reserves the right to make any changes in these answers if it appears that omissions or errors have been made herein, or that further and/or more accurate information is available. Defendant's investigation of the facts relating and material to this action is ongoing and Defendant has not completed preparation for trial. The following answers are based on information presently available and are made without prejudice to defendant's right to utilize subsequently discovered facts, Except for explicit facts admitted herein, no incidental or implied admissions are intended hereby. The fact that defendant has answered any interrogatory should not be taken as an admission that defandant accepts or admits the existence of any facts set forth or assumed by such interrogatory, or that such answer constitutes admissible evidence. The fact that the defendant has answered any or all of any interrogatory is not intended and shall not be construed to be a waiver by the defendant of all or part of any objection to any interrogatory. GENERAL OBJECTIONS The defendant generally objects to the interrogatories upon the ground that many of the terms are vague, ambiguous and/or susceptible to different interpretations, and in view of the fact that itcannot generally be ascertained from the context thereof what the plaintiff meant by the use of a particular undefined term, the responding defendant reserves the right to modify, amend and/or supplement these responses at such time as precisely defined interrogatory definitions terms are furnished. Moreover, defendant objects to these interrogatories on the grounds that they are not compliant with the Protective Order of Justice Rouse, dated December 10, 2020, in that they 2 \TS3210DCOlAshare\Tokio MarineHCC\Town of SoutholdArundel 17593618-19-10\Townof Southold-Amndel\CONSOLlDATEDACTION\Discovery\DRAFF Responselo Interrogatories2.19.2021.doex 2 of 30 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2021 12/16/2022 04:04 04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 775 1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2021 12/16/2022 exceed the scope of permissible discovery as set forth in said Order. Specifically, Justice Rouse's Order made no reference to document demands, but rather made clear that the scope of discovery was limited to Interrogatories. Despite this directive, the demands served upon Supervisor Russell include not only Interrogatories, but also demands for documents. Additionally, the scope of the Interrogatories and Document deniands far exceed the limited purpose of making an inquiry into the comments attributed to the Supervisor in a press release regarding complaints and comments received regarding Route 48 and their referral to the County of Suffolk, the stated reason for seeking the deposition of Supervisor Russell which resulted in the aforementioned Protective Order. Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof as to their claims regarding the applicable statutory law and the Supervisor's opinions as to legal matters sought throughout these Interrogatories is manifestly improper and should be stricken. Accordingly, Defendant objects to the Interrogatories as being in violation of the Court Order, neither material nor necessary and thus patently improper. INTERROGATORIES 1. State your full name. RESPONSE: Scott A.. Russell. 2. How long have you been Town Supervisor of the Town of Southold? RESPONSE: Since January 1, 2006. 3. What are the duties and responsibilities of the Town Supervisor of the Town of Southold? RESPONSE: Objection. The duties and responsibilities of the Town Supervisor are defined in the Public Officer's law to which plaintiffs are referred. Notwithstanding the objection, the Supervisor is the Chief Executive Officer of the Town and is responsible for the day-to-day management and supervision of the Town. Supervisor Russell also serves as the one of the six Town legislators. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response if and when any additional information or documentation is discovered. 4. Was a no U-turn area established by the Town of Southold in local law 18-2019, and codified in the Town Code as section 260-3. 1 of the Southold Town Code? 3 MarineHCC\Townof SoutholdArundel 175936I 8-19-10\Townof Southold-Arundel\CONSOLIDATEDACTION\Discovery DRAFT \\TS3210DCOE\shareiTokio Responseto Interrogatories2.19.2021.docx 3 of 30 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2021 12/16/2022 04:04 04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 775 1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2021 12/16/2022 RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, the question is unintelligible as phrased. The plaintiffs are referred to the specific code provision referenced which provision speaks for itself. 5. What was the basis of the Town's to adopt local law 18-2019? authority RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, defendant objects to this Interrogatory as itcalls for a legal conclusion as to legal which is a question authority authority of law and which is not posed to the Town's Supervisor. properly 6. Did the Town issue an opinion, oral or written, whether the Attorney concerning Town of Southold had authority to adopt local law 18-2019? RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, defendant objects to this Interrogatory as it seeks information protected the attorney-client privilege, which is not by subject to disclosure. 7. At any Town Board meeting, between 1997 and 2015, did resident express any complaints or concerns about limousines, stretch limousines or buses making U-turns from the eastbound lane of County Road 48 to the westbound lane at Depot Lane? a. If the answer is yes, please describe in detail allactions taken the Town Board by in response to the complaints or concerns expressed at the meeting(s). b. If the answer is yes, but no action was taken by the Town Board, state why no action was taken. RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, plaintiffs are referred to the Town Board Meeting Minutes which are available on the Town of Southold publicly website. Notwithstanding the objection, complaints the subject intersection and regarding Vineyard 48 were made during board meetings, some of which representatives from the County of Suffolk were present. Scott Russell did not become Supervisor of the Town until 2006, by which time the Town had requested the conduct a traffic of the subject intersection. County study As such, in 2006, when Mr. Russell became Supervisor, he was aware that the Town had already requested study of the intersection, which the Supervisor understood to include all traffic safety issues associated thereto. Additionally, in late 2012 or 2013, the Supervisor spoke with a representative from the County's Engineering Department regarding the subject intersection as well as two other intersections Route 48 and was advised that the was along County County planning on conducting studies of all of the intersection Route 48. Defendant along County reserves the right to supplement this response if and when additional information or any documentation is discovered. 8. To your did the Town Board ever consider or discuss no U- knowledge, placing turn signs in the eastbound lane of Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane? County RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, defendant objects to this Interrogatory as it seeks information protected the deliberative process privilege and not by subject to disclosure. 4 \\TS3210DCOEishare\Tokio Marine HCC\Townof SoutholdArundel 175936184940\Town of Southold-Arundel\CONSOL1DATED ACTION\Discovery\DRAFT Responseto unerrogatories2.19.202Ldoex 4 of 30 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2021 12/16/2022 04:04 04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 775 1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2021 12/16/2022 9, Did the Town Board ever determine to place no U-turn signs in the eastbound lane of County Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane? RESPONSE: Objection. The Interrogatory as phrased is unintelligible. Notwithstanding the general objections stated above, the Town Board did not determine to place a no U-turn sign governing eastbound traffic on County Road 48. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response ifand when any additional information or documentation is discovered. 10. Was it your understanding that, in order to place no U-turn signs in the eastbound lane of County Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane, the Town Board had to consult with officials from the County of Suffolk? a. If the answer is yes, what is the basis of that understanding? b. Document Demand: If a written opinion was rendered by the Town Attorney with respect to this issue, attach a copy to the answers to these interrogatories. "understanding" RESPONSE: Objection. The Town's Supervisor's is of no legal moment as to the legality of placement no U-Turn signs on Country Roads and is therefore neither material, nor necessary to the prosecution of this matter. Moreover, defendant objects to the Document Demand buried within this Interrogatory on the grounds itexceeds the permissible discovery authorized by Judge Rouse's Protective Order. 11. Did the Town Board ever make a request to any official with the County of Suffolk "recommend" that the County approve or the installation of no U-turn signs in the eastbound lane of County Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane? a. If the answer is yes, was that request in writing? b. Document Demand: If a request was made in writing to the County of Suffolk that the County approve the installation of no U-turn signs in the eastbound lane of County Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane, attach a copy of the request (or requests, if more than one) to the answers to these interrogatories. c. If such a request was oral, please provide the details. d. If the answer is no, why was such a request not made? RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, defendant objects to this interrogatory as unintelligible as phrased. Defendant further objects to the Document Demand contained within this Interrogatory on the grounds itexceeds the permissible discovery authorized by Judge Rouse's Protective Order. Notwithstanding the objection, the Town had requested the County study the subject intersection as early as 1999 with the understanding that the County would conduct any and all necessary and relevant studies thereto. The Supervisor has no knowledge of what the Town Board requested of the County prior to 2006 before he was the Town Supervisor and has no knowledge as to whether Town Boards prior to that time requested approval "recommendation" or from any County official for the installation of no U-turn signs. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response if and when any additional information or documentation is discovered. 12. Daniel Dresch, who, in 2015, was the director of traffic engineering and highway work permits for the County of Suffolk, gave sworn testimony as a witness in this case at an examination before trialconducted on July 17, 2019. At his deposition, Mr. Dresch was asked: 5 WES321ODC.OE\share\Tokio MarineHCC\Townof SoutholdAnmdel 17593618-19-10\Townof Southokl-Arundel\CONSOLlDATEDACTION\Discovery\DRAFT Responseto Interrogatories2.19.202).docx 5 of 30 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2021 12/16/2022 04:04 04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 775 1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2021 12/16/2022 Q: Does the Town of Southold have authority to install traffic control devices such as no U turns on a county road? A: In the strictest sense, they likely do, because any regulatory sign that w e put on County Road 48 except for speed limit signs are as a result of a town board action, like the parking signs that we referred to earlier. Page 212, lines 9-16. a. Do you agree with the statement in Mr. Dresch's testimony? b. If you disagree with Mr. Dresch, explain how you disagree and on what basis you disagree. RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, the Interrogatory requests a legal and/or technical opinion, and the Supervisor is neither an attorney nor a traffic "agreement" "disagreement" engineer and therefore his or with Mr. Dresch's is neither testimony material nor necessary to the prosecution of this matter. 13. At his deposition, Mr. Dresch was also asked: G: So if the town wanted to install a no U-turn sign, you're saying that they would have the authority to do so? A: In the strictest sense. It would be highly unusual for them to move ahead without a recommendation fï^om the county. Page 212, lines 17-22. a. Do you agree with the statement in Mr. Dresch's testimony? b. If you disagree with Mr. Dresch, explain how you disagree and on what basis you disagree. RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, the Interrogatory requests a legal and/or technical opinion, and the Supervisor is neither an attorney nor a traffic "agreement" "disagreement" engineer and therefore his or with Mr. Dresch's is neither testimony material nor necessary to the prosecution of this matter. 14. With respect to the authority of a town to install no U-turn signs on a Suffolk County road, Mr. Dresch testified as follows: A. They would be the typical action would be they are as a result of an ordinance passed by the local town or village, and that the local town or village forces would install and maintain the sign. Page 213, lines 3-16 6 \\TS3210DCOE\share\Tokio MarineHCC\Townof SoutholdArundel 17593618-1940\Townof Southold-ArundchCONSOL1DATED ACTION\Discovery\DRAFT Responseto Interrogatories2.19 2021.doex 6 of 30 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2021 12/16/2022 04:04 04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 775 1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2021 12/16/2022 a. Do you agree with the statement in Mr. Dresch's testimony? b. If you disagree with Mr, Dresch, explain how you disagree and on what basis you disagree. RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, the Interrogatory requests a legal and/or technical opinion, and the Supervisor is neither an attorney nor a traffic "agreement" "disagreement" engineer and therefore his or with Mr. Dresch's testimony is neither material nor necessary to the prosecution of this matter. 15. Were you aware, prior to 2015, of any legal impediment to placing or installing no U-turn signs in the eastbound lane of County Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane? a. If the answer is yes, describe in detail your understanding of the legal impediment to placing or installing no U-turn signs in the eastbound lane of County Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane. RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, defendant objects to this Interrogatory as unintelligible as phrased, calling for a legal conclusion and neither material nor necessary to the prosecution of this matter. Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof as to their claims regarding the applicable statutory law and the Supervisor's opinions as sought throughout these Interrogatories is manifestly improper. 16. Did you or, to your knowledge, did any Town of Southold official or employee, have oral communications with any official of the County of Suffolk, from 1997 through 2015, which advised the County of Suffolk that stretch limousines were making dangerous U-turns from the eastbound lane of County Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane? a. If the answer is yes, please provide the details including the dates (or approximate dates) and the person or persons involved in the communication. b. If the answer is no, what was the reason this information was not provided to the County of Suffolk? RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, Mr. Russell did not become the Town Supervisor until 2006. Notwithstanding the objection, the Supervisor does not recall any specific conversation he had with Suffolk County officials regarding dangerous U-Turns stretched limousines were making at the subject intersection. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response if and when any additional information or documentation is discovered. 17. Did the Town of Southold ever undertake a study, on itsown, to determine whether a no U-turn sign was warranted at the intersection of the eastbound lane of County Road 48 with Depot Lane? a. If the answer is yes, please provide the details about the study, including who conducted it, when it was conducted, how itwas documented and whether the results were ever reported. b. Document Demand: Ifthere was such a study resulting in a report, please provide a copy annexed to the answers to these interrogatories. c. If the answer is no, set forth the reason why no such study was undertaken. 7 WrS3210DCCEshare\TokioMarineHCC\Townof SoutholdArundel 17593618-19-10\Townof Southold-Arundel\CONSOLlDATEDACTION\Discovery\DRAFT Responseto Interrogatories2 19.2021.doex 7 of 30 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2021 12/16/2022 04:04 04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 775 1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2021 12/16/2022 RESPONSE: Objection. In addition to the general objections stated above, defendants object to this Interrogatory as it contains no specified time period. Mr. Russell did not become the Town Supervisor until 2006 and therefore would have no knowledge of studies performed prior to 2006. Notwithstanding the objection, the Town Supervisor has no knowledge of any studies undertaken by the Town to determine whether a no U-turn sign was warranted on County Route 48. 18. In July of 2020, did you make the following statement (whether verbatim or in sum and substance) to a Newsday reporter: "All complaints and comments we receive regarding Route 48 are automatically referred to Suffolk County, which owns the road."? RESPONSE: Yes. a. Ifthe answer is yes, was your statement true? RESPONSE: Yes. "automatically" b. What, specifically, was the mechanism for referring all complains and comments received to Suffolk County? "mechanism" RESPONSE: Objection. Defendants object to the term as such is not adequately defined and vague. Notwithstanding the objection, complaints and comments were sent via written correspondence or over the phone, or in person conversations to the Acting County Legislator, which during the Supervisor tenure had been Ed Romaine and Albert Krupski, and the Suffolk County Department of Public Works. If the nature of the complaint or comment was redundant or repetitive, the County would not have been advised each time itwas reiterated. comment" c. Did the Town of Southold ever "refer a complaint or to Suffolk County that stretch limousines were making dangerous U-turns from the eastbound lane of County Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane? RESPONSE: The Supervisor does not recall the nature of each specific comments" complaint or that was made or referred to the County. As stated, the County was asked to study the intersection for any unsafe or hazardous traffic conditions. d. What other complains or comments regarding Route 48 have been referred to Suffolk County since you became the Town Supervisor. RESPONSE: The Supervisor does not recall the nature of each "complaint comment" or referred to the County of Suffolk. Those that were referred and memorialized in writing have previously been produced. e. D6camêñt Demand: If any of the complaints or comments identified in the answers to this interrogatory were submitted to the County of Suffolk in writing, annex copies to the answers to these interrogatories. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Document Demand on the grounds it exceeds the permissible discovery authorized by Judge Rouse's Protective Order. 19. In July of 2020, did you make the following statement (whether verbatim or in sum and substance) to a Suffolk Times Reporter: "All complaints 1 receive regarding Route 48 get referred to Suffolk County, which owns the road."? 8 \\TS3210DCOE\share\Tokio Marine HCC\Townof SoutholdArundel 17593618-19-10YTown of Southold-Anmdel\CONSOLIDATEDACTION\Discovery\DRAFT Responseto interrogatories2 19.2021.doex 8 of 30 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/2021 12/16/2022 04:04 04:43 PM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 775 1274 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2021 12/16/2022 "I" RESPONSE: Yes, the use of the pronoun in the above quote was used as the Supervisor sees his official actions as the Supervisor as synonymous to the actions of the Town. Therefore, the use "I" of the term connotes the Town in that context. a. If the answer is yes, was your statement true? RESPONSE: Yes. b. What, specifically, was the mechanism for referring all complaints and comments received by you to Suffolk County? "mechanism" RESPONSE: Objection. Defendants object to the term as such is not adequately defined and vague. Notwithstanding the objection, complaints and comments were sent via written correspondence or over the phone, or in person conversations to the Acting County Legislator, which during the Supervisor tenure had been Ed Romaine and Albert Krupski, and the Suffolk County Department of Public Works. If the nature of the complaint or comment was redundant or repetitive, the County would not have been advised each time itwas reiterated. c. Did you ever refer a complaint or comment to Suffolk County that stretch limousines were making dangerous U-turns from the eastbound lane of County Road 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane? RESPONSE: The Supervisor does not recall the nature of each specific complaint or comments that was made or referred to the County. As stated, the County was asked to study the intersection for any unsafe or hazardous traffic conditions. d. What other complaints or comments regarding with 48 have been referred to Suffolk County since you became the Town supervisor? RESPONSE: The Supervisor does not recall the nature of each "complaint or comment referred to the County of Suffolk Those that were referred and memorialized in writing have previously been produced. e. Document Demand: If any of the complaints or comments identified in the answers to this interrogatory were submitted to the County of Suffolk in writing, annex copies to the answers to these interrogatories. RESPONSE: Objection. Defendant objects to this Document Demand on the grounds it exceeds the permissible discovery authorized by Judge Rouse's Protective Order. 20. OMITTED BY PLAINTIFF IN DEMANDS. 21. To your knowledge, in July of 2020, did Town Attorney William Duffy make the following statement (whether verbatim or in sum and substance) to a Suffolk Times reporter: "In addition the supervisor's office forwarding complaints about the intersection to county, since 1998 the Town Board has made several requests that the county study the intersection based on constituent complaints. a. If the answer is yes, is the statement true? b. Do you agree that, as the Supervisor of the Town of Southold, you had a duty to forward those complaints to the County of Suffolk? 9 \\TS3210DCOE\share\Tokio ManneHCC\Townof SoutholdArundel 17593