On August 17, 2014 a
Letter,Correspondence
was filed
involving a dispute between
New York State Department Of Environmental Conservation,
State Of New York,
and
James C. Stevens Iii,
for Tort
in the District Court of Cortland County.
Preview
09/14/2017 10:06 FAX 6077721678 0002/0003
LAW OFFICE OF RONALD R. BENJAMIN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Ronald R. Benjamin*
*
Marya C. Young 126 Riverside Drive
P.O. Box 607
Binghamton, NY 13902
“Also Admuted in the District of Columbia
Phone: (607) 772-1442 ~ Fax (607) 772-1678 Email: ronbenjaminlaw@stny.rr_com
September 14, 2017
By Facsimile Only
(607) 240-5827
Hon. Jeffrey A. Tait
Broome/Cortland County Supreme Court
92 Court Street, P.O. Box 1766
Binghamton, New York 13902-1766
Re: New York v. James C. Stevens. III
Index No.: EF14-553
Dear Judge Tait:
Please let this letter serve as a response to the September 13, 2017 letter by Mr. Kowalczyk.
I want to begin by reminding Mr. Kowalczyk that making a frivolous request for sanctions may well
result in imposition of sanctions against him. S. Blvd v. Felix Storch, Inc:, 165 Misc. 2d 341, 629
N.Y.S. 2d 635 (NY Cty 1995) where the court noted, “ Defendant's counsel was reminded at oral
argument that a frivolous sanctions motion is itself sanctionable, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c
)”. He is not merely an officer of the court but a government official as well and should be mindful of
those responsibilities. In any event I now address the merits or rather the lack of merit in the
contentions he has made before the Court.
I would note at the outset it appears Mr. Kowalczyk is more interested in exalting form over
substance. Judge Rumsey was appointed to the Appellate Division Third Department May 26, 2017
and is obviously not going to be presiding as a trial court in the future. The recent hearing this Court
held makes clear the Court has already devoted significant judicial resources toward understanding
the issues in the case and simply as a matter of judicial economy, wholly aside from Judge Rumsey’s
appointment to the Third Department, it would make sense for Your Honor to hear this motion.
Talso believe that Judge Rumsey would recuse given the possibility of the Town of Cortlandville
becoming a defendant for activities or conduct that likely occurred during the time he was acting as
attorney for the town. Judge Rumsey was the attorney for the town of Cortlandville from 1983 to
1993. At this juncture | respectfully submit that collateral matter should not swallow up the merits of
this case particularly since Mr. Stevens remains incarcerated.
In this regard if Mr. Kowalczyk would consent to his being released pending further proceedings
given the merits arguments made in the order to show cause, that would alleviate at least the urgency
EF14-553
09/14/2017 12:15:27 PM
Pages 2
LETTER / CORRESPONDENCE To JUDG|
Eizabeth Larkin, County Clerk09/14/2017 10:06 FAX 6077721678 0003/0003
Page 2 of 2
with which this motion should be heard.
The Court should reject Mr. Kowalczyk’s arguments regarding CPLR 2214 (c ) as bordering on
frivolous in that he has no business trying to determine what papers are necessary for consideration of
the questions involved from movant’s standpoint, and while he is free to put in any opposition papers
he deems necessary to decide the motion. It is respectfully submitted that the moving papers are
sufficient to entitle Mr. Stevens to the relief sought here.
If Mr. Kowalczyk is implying that there is some other pending action involved here, he does not
mention the same, and it is quite clear the order Stevens is seeking to vacate is under the same index
number as the instant order to show cause. If he agrees then it will be interesting to see how the Loeb
case he cites in his letter has any bearing on the motion before the Court.
Tn conclusion, I would hope the Court can act quickly in light of Mr. Stevens incarceration and while I
have no objection to Judge Rumsey hearing the case, that would obviously delay matters since the
first thing that would be before Judge Rumsey would be my motion to have him recuse. I respectfully
submit that going down that avenue would be a gross waste of judicial resources and should not be
considered unless Mr. Kowalczyk consents to have Mr. Stevens immediately released.
Parenthetically, I note Mr. Kowalczyk has copied Mr. Hill, who is not a party, as well as some former
counsel, and I do not intend to put them on notice either of this motion or any further proceedings,
absent some legal basis to do so.
Thank you for your consideration regarding the above.
Very truly ypurs,
~. Benjamin
RRB/dw
cc: Joseph M. Kowalczyk, Esq.
Assistant Attomey General
By Fax: (518) 650-9363
Document Filed Date
September 14, 2017
Case Filing Date
August 17, 2014
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
09/14/2017 10:06 FAX 6077721678 0002/0003 LAW OFFICE OF RONALD R. BENJAMIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ronald R. Benjamin* * Marya C. Young 126 Riverside Drive P.O. Box 607 Binghamton, NY 13902 “Also Admuted in the District of Columbia Phone: (607) 772-1442 ~ Fax (607) 772-1678 Email: ronbenjaminlaw@stny.rr_com September 14, 2017 By Facsimile Only (607) 240-5827 Hon. Jeffrey A. Tait Broome/Cortland County Supreme Court 92 Court Street, P.O. Box 1766 Binghamton, New York 13902-1766 Re: New York v. James C. Stevens. III Index No.: EF14-553 Dear Judge Tait: Please let this letter serve as a response to the September 13, 2017 letter by Mr. Kowalczyk. I want to begin by reminding Mr. Kowalczyk that making a frivolous request for sanctions may well result in imposition of sanctions against him. S. Blvd v. Felix Storch, Inc:, 165 Misc. 2d 341, 629 N.Y.S. 2d 635 (NY Cty 1995) where the court noted, “ Defendant's counsel was reminded at oral argument that a frivolous sanctions motion is itself sanctionable, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c )”. He is not merely an officer of the court but a government official as well and should be mindful of those responsibilities. In any event I now address the merits or rather the lack of merit in the contentions he has made before the Court. I would note at the outset it appears Mr. Kowalczyk is more interested in exalting form over substance. Judge Rumsey was appointed to the Appellate Division Third Department May 26, 2017 and is obviously not going to be presiding as a trial court in the future. The recent hearing this Court held makes clear the Court has already devoted significant judicial resources toward understanding the issues in the case and simply as a matter of judicial economy, wholly aside from Judge Rumsey’s appointment to the Third Department, it would make sense for Your Honor to hear this motion. Talso believe that Judge Rumsey would recuse given the possibility of the Town of Cortlandville becoming a defendant for activities or conduct that likely occurred during the time he was acting as attorney for the town. Judge Rumsey was the attorney for the town of Cortlandville from 1983 to 1993. At this juncture | respectfully submit that collateral matter should not swallow up the merits of this case particularly since Mr. Stevens remains incarcerated. In this regard if Mr. Kowalczyk would consent to his being released pending further proceedings given the merits arguments made in the order to show cause, that would alleviate at least the urgency EF14-553 09/14/2017 12:15:27 PM Pages 2 LETTER / CORRESPONDENCE To JUDG| Eizabeth Larkin, County Clerk09/14/2017 10:06 FAX 6077721678 0003/0003 Page 2 of 2 with which this motion should be heard. The Court should reject Mr. Kowalczyk’s arguments regarding CPLR 2214 (c ) as bordering on frivolous in that he has no business trying to determine what papers are necessary for consideration of the questions involved from movant’s standpoint, and while he is free to put in any opposition papers he deems necessary to decide the motion. It is respectfully submitted that the moving papers are sufficient to entitle Mr. Stevens to the relief sought here. If Mr. Kowalczyk is implying that there is some other pending action involved here, he does not mention the same, and it is quite clear the order Stevens is seeking to vacate is under the same index number as the instant order to show cause. If he agrees then it will be interesting to see how the Loeb case he cites in his letter has any bearing on the motion before the Court. Tn conclusion, I would hope the Court can act quickly in light of Mr. Stevens incarceration and while I have no objection to Judge Rumsey hearing the case, that would obviously delay matters since the first thing that would be before Judge Rumsey would be my motion to have him recuse. I respectfully submit that going down that avenue would be a gross waste of judicial resources and should not be considered unless Mr. Kowalczyk consents to have Mr. Stevens immediately released. Parenthetically, I note Mr. Kowalczyk has copied Mr. Hill, who is not a party, as well as some former counsel, and I do not intend to put them on notice either of this motion or any further proceedings, absent some legal basis to do so. Thank you for your consideration regarding the above. Very truly ypurs, ~. Benjamin RRB/dw cc: Joseph M. Kowalczyk, Esq. Assistant Attomey General By Fax: (518) 650-9363