In two tweets this past week President-Elect Donald Trump called Senate Democratic Minority leader Chuck Schumer a “clown.”
Many of us were troubled by Donald Trump’s unrestrained insults of his opponents during the Republican primaries. It really seemed that the old paradigm of civility had been breached. The crudeness of some of his taunts was quite stunning. His contempt for Rubio, Bush, and Cruze was open and unrestrained.
The people of our country have appropriately complained at the dysfunction of Congress. As bad as that has been, nothing has quite prepared us for this kind of taunting.
As some readers may recall from their history classes, in 1856 Senator Preston Brooks famously caned Senator Charles Sumner on the Senate floor over the issue of slavery (not surprisingly Senator Brooks was an advocate of slavery) in an ominous foreshadowing of the divisions to come in this country.
More recently, the Senate prided itself on the courtliness of its proceedings. One of the things that United States citizens could be appropriately proud of has been the respectful and courteous nature of discourse in our Senate. It seems axiomatic that this standard is essential for a democracy to function. Given the competing interests in society, the ability of representatives to transact the people’s business requires that they maintain an environment that facilitates the resolution of differences.
The public has become increasingly alarmed over the years at the coarsening of our culture in general. The freedom people take in being rude to strangers (especially on social media) let alone members of their families has seemed to be rising exponentially. What are the implications for our country that our President is a person who appears to embrace the worst of this kind of behavior?
I am in England at the moment. In this country the Queen has the role of being the embodiment of what it should mean to be English. The contentious role of Prime Minister is quite separate. In the USA the President performs the role of both the representative of our country as well as its chief executive.
Whatever any of us may feel about many of the policies President-Elect Trump espouses, surely we can agree that as the head of our country, his manner should set a standard for how we deal with one another.
In his first inaugural address Abraham Lincoln asked a bitterly split nation to find “the better angels of our nature.” Let us hope we can find our way to this path.
Mayor Joanne Yepsen made two appointments to land use boards at the Tuesday, January 3rd City Council meeting.
Yepsen appointed Amy Durland to fill the unexpired term of Howard Pinsley on the Planning Board. The term will end next year.
Ms. Durland has established herself, in my eyes, as one of the best people to have served on our land use boards. An attorney by training, Ms. Durland has a record of extraordinary thoroughness in her preparation for meetings. She has served on both the Zoning Board of Appeals and on the Planning Board. For a period she chaired the Planning Board. She has also shown herself to be fearless in her willingness to do what she believes to be right while maintaining a courteous and dignified manner. It is not easy to say no to applicants. Just on a human level, the tendency to please can be quite strong. Couple this with serving on boards that have been traditionally dominated by the real estate industry, it is particularly hard. Ms. Durland has not been afraid to be the sole dissenter as she was recently on an issue involving commercial property where the CVS pharmacy and Purdy’s Liquor are located.
I must give the Mayor a lot of credit for making this appointment. For obvious reasons, Ms. Durland is not a popular figure with the development community in our city.
This is quite the extreme reversal from Mayor Yepsen’s reappointment of Bill Moore to serve another seven years as chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In contrast to Ms. Durland, Mr. Moore appears to be oblivious to any elements of the zoning laws and the comprehensive plan that would temper his apparent passion to please the developers who come before him. Mr. Moore, who is a real estate appraiser, most notoriously recently supported the “barn conversion” on Murphy Lane and “Downton Walk.”
Some might argue that Mayor Yepsen has not merely burned her bridges with the development community but incinerated them. The whole hearted support Mayor Yepsen’s last opponent enjoyed from the Saratoga PAC demonstrated this. It is possible that she has decided to embrace what I call the “quality of life” constituency. These are the people who are more concerned about traffic congestion, green space, bike paths, etc. The demographics of this city have changed radically during the last two decades from the provincial village that was owned by the Republicans and that viewed exploitation of our land as the ultimate goal of city planning to a community dominated by people who have moved here for the city’s charm and want to protect this.
Mayor Yepsen also appointed Cheryl Grey to the Zoning Board of Appeals as a regular board member. Ms. Grey had been serving as an alternate on that board. Ms. Grey has also established a record for rigorously preparing for land use meetings. She has a long history of being involved in land use questions. I am cautiously hopeful that she will demonstrate the same independence and grit that Ms. Durland has shown.
At the City Council meeting on Tuesday, January 3, Robert Turner, chair of the Charter Review Commission, updated the Council on his commission’s work. Originally Turner had planned to bring a budget to the Council for this meeting but then postponed this.
Turner noted that his commission has spent twelve of the sixteen thousand dollars approved for 2016. $6,000.00 was spent to pay city Assistant Attorney Tony Izzo for legal help and $6,000.00 for a clerk to record the proceedings. Turner told the Council he planned to meet individually with members of the Council in the following days to discuss their 2017 plans and needs.
Mr. Turner told the Council that his commission planned to present to voters a new form of government to replace the Commission form that currently governs the city. While his commission has not yet decided on what alternative form they will present to voters, they want to schedule a vote for a special election to be held in April of 2017. His commission feels this is preferable to putting the item on the ballot for the regularly scheduled November election. He asserted that to have the referendum on charter change at the same time as a general election for City Council in November would make the process “political.” He asserted that the focus on personalities in a regular election would undermine the ability of the public to thoughtfully address the charter change issue.
He read from the state municipal law that basically requires the city to fund the Charter Commission’s work.
Under some pretty withering criticism, Mr. Turner remained composed. When the discussion was closing he promised to have a budget for 2017 by next Tuesday (January 10th). Under subsequent questioning he indicated that while he had sent out a proposed budget, no formal action had been taken by his committee yet.
The reaction from the Council was spirited.
Accounts Commissioner John Franck was extremely skeptical about the ability of the city to have a special election in April. Since the city, not the county (which is usually in charge of running elections) would be responsible for conducting a special election; the Accounts Department would play the major role in carrying this out.
Franck told Turner that he had no position on what the outcome of the referendum should be. His primary concern was over what he viewed as a problematic process. He noted that holding a vote on charter change in April would seriously “suppress” the vote and suggested that some in favor of charter change might prefer a smaller turn out.
As to Mr. Turner’s concern about “politics” confusing the outcome of a November vote, he reminded Turner that the 2006 vote on charter change lost in every district and the 2012 vote for yet a different charter change lost in all but two. Franck offered that such an overwhelming rejection seemed to undermine Turner’s arguments about the public being diverted by politics. The defeats weren’t even close, he told Turner.
Franck questioned the ability of the Charter Commission to meet the strict election regulations and timeframes required for an April vote in light of the fact that the Commission had yet to determine the most basic issue: what form a new government might take. He looked at the timeframes and speculated that in order to be on the ballot in April the charter language would have to be resolved by law at least sixty days prior to a city vote. This would mean that the Charter Commission would have to complete its work by February at the very latest. Franck then went on to discuss the enormous difficulty the city had in dealing with the ballot preparation even after the previous commissions had adopted their plans. He said the process went on for many weeks. He strongly argued that even sixty days was insufficient time to complete the many steps required. He also told the Council that the full cost of preparing the ballot and having a special election could easily cost the city $40,000.00. In an exchange with Tony Izzo they reminisced about the many hours devoted to editing and cleaning up the last two charter proposals as support for how difficult the process would be.
Franck engaged city attorney Tony Izzo in a discussion regarding the scope of the city’s financial obligation to the commission. In particular he asked Izzo whether the commission could require the city to appropriate moneys for a special election as well as moneys for its general deliberations. He said the responsibility of the city to fund the general support for the deliberations of the commission was clear but that requiring the city to fund a special April election was not. Mr. Izzo was unsure of this and said he would research it.
Public Works Commissioner Skip Scirocco was even harsher. He asserted that there was “no justification” to change the city’s commission form of government in light of the fact that “there is no more successful city” in New York. He characterized the Commission’s plan for a special election as “ludicrous.” He said they would do better to strengthen the existing charter.
Commissioner of Finance Michele Madigan, asserted that having a special election in April would be expensive and noted that the city had not budgeted for this.
Mayor Yepsen explained that she was intentionally keeping a distance from the commission to allow them to independently work on the charter. Of the fifteen members of the commission, Mayor Yepsen appointed eleven.
Commissioner Mathiesen who has publically expressed support for ending the commission form of government spoke briefly thanking the commission for its work.
To Mr. Turner’s credit, he remained positive and conciliatory throughout the entire discussion and emphasized repeatedly his commission’s desire to work with the City Council.
[JK: The following is a press release issued by the city’s Finance Department. Aside from the impressive assessment by Moody’s of the city’s finances, it means that the rate by which the city borrows money will be less]
MEDIA ANNOUNCEMENT
Commissioner of Finance, Michele Madigan Telephone: (518) 587-3550 ext 2577
Re: Moody’s Investors Service Upgrades City of Saratoga Springs Outstanding Bonds to Aa2 from Aa3
Commissioner of Finance Michele Madigan is pleased to report that Moody’s Investors Service has upgraded the City’s bond rating on its outstanding bonds from Aa3 to Aa2. The city has $52.5 million in general obligation bonds outstanding.
This is comparable to the AA+ awarded by Standard and Poors (S&P) for each of the past five years, all during Madigan’s tenure; “ratings that are exceptional for a municipality” stated Finance Commissioner Madigan.
On December 29th the City received the revised rating, a rating that Moody’s says reflects “the City’s strong fiscal management as evidenced by recent consecutive years of surplus operations, strong reserve levels, conservative budgeting, and consistent operating surpluses”. Moody’s also noted that “management set aside funds to cover contract settlements, has been proactive in exploring additional revenue sources”. Additionally Moody’s stated “the City’s healthy financial position will likely remain stable”.
In May 2016, S&P had similar observations: “The city has exhibited strong budgetary performance with positive operating results in each of the last six fiscal years.” It also expressed faith in the City’s fiscal management, stating, “we believe management will continue to make the necessary budget adjustments to maintain balanced operations. As such, we do not anticipate changing the rating during the two-year outlook horizon.”
Commissioner Madigan states: “The City and its taxpayers are benefiting from the excellent policies, practices, budgeting and fiscal management of my administration.These have a direct impact on our ability to improve City infrastructure, maintain beautiful historic buildings, provide trails, recreation and open space, and keep the City safe. The City’s financial health is a fundamental building block and it has flourished during my term.”
Moody’s outlined Credit Challenges for the City and noted that the City should look to “additional revenue sources needed to augment eventual elimination of VLT aid”, and noted the City has a “reliance on economically sensitive revenues”. Finance Commissioner Madigan is well aware of these challenges, has frequently addressed them with the public and her fellow Council members, and further states“I will continue to lead with conservative fiscal practices and sustainable City budgeting that protect the City’s ratings.”
As anticipated in my earlier blog, Mayor Yepsen appointed sitting Judge Jeff Wait to a ten year term as city judge and Francine Vero of the law firm Harris Beach to serve out Judge Wait’s current term. This may be a little confusing to readers. The New York State Office of Court Administration upgraded what had been a part time city judge position held by James Doern to a full time position in 2014. Mr. Doern who had served the city for fifteen years as a part time judge was transitioned into the full time position. Apparently, Mayor Yepsen has the authority to replace Judge Doern. I believe that the position Judge Doern held was for ten years. By appointing Judge Wait to the new judgeship the mayor spares Judge Wait having to run next November. Ms. Vero, having been appointed to complete Judge Wait’s current appointment, will run next November. The loser in all of this will be James Doern.
Wendy Liberatore reported both appointments in today’s Times Union along with what I would characterize as the usual politician blah-blah about how great a choice Ms. Vero is. Ms. Vero may very well be an excellent attorney for the job but it is unfortunate that Ms. Liberatore left out significant and less flattering aspects of this story. There is of course the maneuvers as noted above. There is also the role that Harris Beach played in representing the Mayor before the Ethics Board and the City Council. As readers may recall Mayor Yepsen was found by the Ethics Board to have violated the city’s ethics code. Harris Beach first argued before the Ethics Board that the Mayor had not violated the code. They then crafted a memo to the Council that they did not have the authority to censure the mayor.
Judge Robert Chauvin (Photo by Paul Buckowski)Melinda Wormuth with her attorney E. Stewart Jones (Photo by Paul Buckowski)
The suit by the Mouzon House against the city was originally supposed to be heard by Supreme Court Justice Thomas Nolan. Judge Nolan recused himself attributing his decision to the fact that his clerk had been appointed to the city’s Civil Service Commission.
As one who is concerned about the problems of conflict of interest in government I respect Judge Nolan’s decision. It seemed like a rather remote conflict but I will take the highest standard I can get.
There is, however, an extraordinary irony that his decision resulted in Judge Robert Chauvin taking on the case. In 2013 Brendan Lyons, investigative reporter for the Times Union, published an article which documented the sordid history of the incestuous world of developers and town officials focusing particularly on Robert Chauvin. It is important to note that in 2015, subsequent to this article, Halfmoon Supervisor Melinda Wormuth was convicted for bribery. She was caught in a sting set up by the FBI. She subsequently cooperated with the government which resulted in the conviction of a major developer in Halfmoon.
This is an excerpt from a story by Brendan Lyons in the December 11, 2015, Times Union.
The FBI’s probe also examined a $50,000 payment that Wormuth and her husband received from aHalfmoon builder and longtime financial supporter of the town Republican Committee. The builder said the $50,000 payment was a loan that the couple later repaid. Wormuth did not disclose the payment to other town officials or the public, and her husband, Larry, received the money at a time when The builder had projects pending before the Town Board.
The builder was not charged in connection with the loan, but was convicted of using his employees and business associates to illegally funnel campaign donations to Wormuth. The office of Attorney General Eric Schneiderman prosecuted the state case. The builder is Halfmoon’s most active builder and a longtime financial supporter of the town Republican Committee and state Sen. Kathy Marchione, R-Halfmoon.
This is from a Times Union article written by Brendan Lyons and published on August 12, 2013.
State Supreme Court Justice Robert J. Chauvin, who was a town attorney in Halfmoon for 25 years until 2011, took steps to conceal his financial interests in numerous large housing developments by recruiting a close friend as the “public face” of the projects in exchange for a share of the profits.
The arrangement, which was never made public or examined by the town’s ethics committee, lasted years and involved several large subdivisions built between the 1990s and mid-2000s and at least one private sewer corporation.
Gregory S. Mills, a Halfmoon attorney who was listed as the owner or applicant of the projects in public records, acknowledged that he did little or no work but received 25 percent or more of the profits to pose as the primary owner. Mills claims Chauvin, who also was a Saratoga County assistant district attorney, misled the public about his stake in the projects because of “political concerns” by town leaders and opposition from residents. “Bob did not want his name being used as part of that because we would have 50, 60 or maybe 100 people show up at these meetings and it was a decision, maybe in conjunction with others in town government, that it was best that his name not be used,” Mills said.
More Information
The secret arrangement, Mills said, may have been fueled by Chauvin’s interest in keeping his government jobs and preserving political connections.
“He built a power base in the Republican Party in the town of Halfmoon, and that’s where all his contacts were,” Mills said. “He made a significant effort to keep those positions so that he could ultimately maintain that level of influence or control, and then he later used that very effectively to get the nomination for Supreme Court.”
Mills and Chauvin met while attending Albany Law School and remained close friends for more than 30 years until their business partnership soured in 2008. The breakup led to a lawsuit that lasted five years until February, when a state appellate court issued a ruling vindicating Mills in a series of business disputes. The decision cost Chauvin about $860,000, Mills said.
The Times Union learned of the lawsuit after the appellate ruling and in March began examining Chauvin’s business dealings dating to the 1990s.
Chauvin declined to be interviewed for this story. He was an assistant district attorney for 30 years until 2011, when he was elected to the bench following a campaign buoyed by his strong political connections in Saratoga County.
In a 2009 deposition, under questioning from Mills’ attorney, G. Kimball Williams, Chauvin initially indicated his decision to give Mills a share of the projects was simply about friendship and loyalty.
“I am the person who negotiated the deals. He didn’t have any part of it,” Chauvin said. “I didn’t need him as a partner. I was doing it as a favor. I was doing it because he was my friend. He didn’t do any of the work. He didn’t do any of the producing. He didn’t go out and look for properties as I was. He was not a benefit to me. I didn’t need the money. It was a favor.”
But when pressed by Mills’ attorney, Chauvin said that having Mills serve as the face of the projects was for what he called “ease of operation” in the public planning process.
Chauvin said that by removing his name from deeds and planning applications, it made it “easier to go through the process rather than going through disclosure every time you are there.”
Chauvin’s investments in at least six major subdivisions were also tied to his long-standing partnership with builder Peter Belmonte Jr., who purchased lots and built most of the homes in Chauvin’s subdivisions, records show.
Belmonte declined a request to be interviewed.
In the lawsuit with Mills, Chauvin acknowledged that he borrowed money from Belmonte and that they were involved in “real estate ventures and other ventures” that he refused to disclose.
Records on file in the town of Halfmoon, and court records, show that Mills was listed as the owner or applicant in at least six housing projects spearheaded by Chauvin, including developments later named Prospect Meadows, Summit Hills, Christopher Glen, Halve Maen Manor and Dater Woods.
Chauvin claimed that he filed conflict-of-interest letters for the projects, although the letters were never made public or placed on the record at town meetings, according to minutes of the meetings.
“Did you explain to the public what that conflict was?” an attorney asked Chauvin during a 2009 deposition. “Not unless I was asked, no,” Chauvin said.
The town clerk’s office, citing poor recordkeeping, said it believes Chauvin filed letters for each of his projects. But a deputy clerk could locate only two letters in which Chauvin cited conflicts related to subdivisions he owned — one from 2002 involving a large subdivision off Farm To Market Road and another in 2010 related to a project called Harvest Bend.
Chauvin recused himself at town meetings where his projects were discussed. But Mills, who often attended the hearings as the applicant, said it was unclear whether all town officials voting on the projects understood Chauvin’s financial interest in the projects. He said Chauvin implied that his recusals were due to his friendship with Mills and legal work.
“He would say he represented me and we were friends,” Mills said. “I never heard him say:’I’m recusing myself because I’m an owner.'”
During his 2009 deposition, Chauvin explained it like this: “When you got to a planning board you have a number of members, then you have the public present because you have public hearings and public proceedings, and if it’s in my name then there would be questions ‘why is Bob Chauvin here?'” he said. “We never put my name on it because it would just raise more issues with the public and they would say what is going on even though we disclosed all of that. So it was for ease of operation.”
Documents filed in the lawsuit between Mills and Chauvin indicate Chauvin regularly used his town letterhead for private business dealings and to contact other town officials on personal matters.
In early 2008, Chauvin enlisted help from Councilman Walter Polak, who has been the Town Board‘s liaison to the Planning Board for years, on a plan by Chauvin and Mills to get the town to abandon and give them property next to a commercial building they owned east of the Northway on Crescent Road.
Chauvin, in a deposition, acknowledged that acquiring the property “would have made our piece substantially more valuable.” He characterized Polak’s assistance as critical: “He was the town councilman who was the liaison to the highway committee, so he was the person through whom any abandonment petition had to be cleared before it could get to the town board.”
The land acquisition, Chauvin said, would have made it easier for he and Mills to expand their commercial property, where Mills’ law office and other tenants are located.
Polak, in a Feb. 29, 2008, email, told Chauvin that other town officials assisting on the request included Supervisor Melinda Wormuth, then-assessor Ed Pearson and Highway Superintendent John Pingelski. The town informally approved the abandonment, Chauvin said, but it fell apart due to an “uproar” from neighbors at a public hearing.
Chauvin also described feeling pressured to grant Polak’s request for the town to install a “Welcome to Halfmoon” sign on their Crescent Road property. Chauvin said he did it because they needed Polak’s cooperation to expand their commercial property.
The town ethics law, which until this year had not been updated in more than 40 years, did not previously require town employees to file financial disclosure forms.
In 1995, a town ethics committee cleared Chauvin and a former town official of allegations that they violated the ethics law by working for the town and a private sewer corporation partly owned by Chauvin. It’s unclear from public records that town ethics leaders were aware that Chauvin had a financial interest in the subdivisions or the sewer corporation that served them. Mills was listed as the sewer corporation’s president.
Robert Hayes Jr., who chaired the ethics panel, said the town’s outdated ethics law at that time left town employees and the public “in a vacuum as to what is the right thing to do,” according to published reports.
In a recent interview, Hayes recalled the panel’s call to strengthen the ethics law was ignored. Chauvin was town attorney at the time.
In 2005, the city of Mechanicville unsuccessfully sued the town of Halfmoon trying to block the town from taking a 22-acre plot of city-owned land for a water distribution system. The city accused Chauvin of pushing the water project because of his interest in a housing subdivision near Route 146 that was later developed by Belmonte.
Kenneth DeCerce, who resigned as town supervisor in February 2007, said he confronted Chauvin about his land deals prior to taking office in 2000. DeCerce said he was unaware Chauvin was involved in any property transactions during his administration.
“He and I had an agreement that he wasn’t going to be involved with purchasing any further properties and I believe he stuck to that agreement,” said DeCerce, whose family owned lands that were later sold to Chauvin for at least two subdivisions. “I don’t know that he never did anything illegal or wrong. … Bob Chauvin was an extremely important person in my administration; I made sure to ask him about everything that I wasn’t sure of but he kept me straight and that was very important to me.”
Mills said the arrangement to conceal Chauvin’s interests predated DeCerce and began in the 1990s when now-state Sen. Kathleen Marchione was town supervisor. Chauvin began buying large tracts of land in central Halfmoon that were later subdivided and sold to Belmonte. When DeCerce became supervisor, Mills said, Chauvin grew more concerned about keeping a low profile. One of his projects off Farm To Market Road included land that had once been owned by DeCerce’s father.
“He was very, very concerned that there was an appearance of impropriety with the supervisor having a potential interest and the town attorney having a potential interest in a major subdivision,” Mills testified during a 2009 deposition. “It was a significant problem for the town, and although Bob had not asked me if I wanted to be a part of the project up to that point, he now needed me to be there for that purpose.”
Like other deals, Mills said, Chauvin asked him to contribute 50 percent of the development costs “but I would only get 25 percent of any profit.”
Chauvin, whose son Matthew is a deputy town attorney in Halfmoon, left his jobs with the town and district attorney’s office in 2011 to become a judge. His top salary as a town attorney was in 2005 when state records show he was paid $79,890. His top salary as a part-time prosecutor was in 2010, when he was paid $58,102, the records show.
[JK: received the following article from a source that has proven to be extremely reliable and thorough.]
The latest intrigue visited on City Hall centers on the office that, at least in theory, should be relatively immune from political machination: the City Court.
It now appears on this Christmas Eve that one of the City’s two full-time City court judges – the well regarded James Doern – will be replaced effective January 1 by a yet named appointee of Mayor Yepsen. Doern’s current term ends on December 31.
After serving 15 years as a part-time city court judge, Doern stepped into the role full-time, starting April 1, 2014, following action by the State Legislature the previous December. The legislation establishing the second full-time judgeship, for whatever reason, made it an appointive. The City’s other full-time position, currently held by Jeffrey D. Wait, is elective.
And therein is found the intrigue. You see, the mayor will appoint the other sitting judge, Jeff Wait, to the seat being vacated by Doern. This maneuver, presumably, allows Judge Wait to avoid standing for re-election when his original term would have expired at the end of 2017.
Wait will resign his current seat then be appointed by Yepsen to a full ten year term. It will be Wait’s unexpired term that the mayor will fill with a new candidate. It is reliably rumored that that that appointee may be Francine Vero from the politically connected law firm of Harris Beach. [JK: Harris Beach represented the mayor when the city’s Ethics Board found she had violated the city’s code in soliciting business from Saratoga Hospital.]
Let the community hope that whoever is appointed will be experienced, capable and independent enough to administer justice free from political influence and cognizant of the language of the original enabling statute that this court is a “gatekeeper for fragile lives held in the balance. … The court’s ability to do this wisely and creatively can often be the difference between a productive, law-abiding life and one marked by greater and more serious crimes.” The City Court is part of the State Unified Court System and under their jurisdiction. City Courts handle criminal and civil matters. They have criminal jurisdiction over misdemeanors and lesser offenses (that carry a term of imprisonment of no more than one year) and handle civil matters where the amount of money in dispute is up to $15,000. For administrative purposes, the sixty-two counties that make up the State of New York are divided into thirteen Judicial Districts and four Judicial Departments. The Saratoga Springs City Court is in the 4th JD, 3rd Department. So there you have it. A political manipulation worthy of Machiavelli or even Donald Trump. Too bad, Jim Doern is good and decent person.
In its suit against the city of Saratoga Springs, Mouzon House argued that the city’s decision to approve a lease with the City Center for land to build a parking structure was flawed in that they maintain that the vote required a super majority along with the approval of the mayor which it did not get. The city sought to have the suit dismissed on the basis that the city’s charter superseded state municipal law and that the lease was therefore properly adopted. As best I understand it, the decision by Judge Chauvin simply allows the case to continue although by rejecting the city’s claim it would appear that Judge Chauvin might be inclined to support this part of the Mouzon House’s suit. It is also my unconfirmed understanding that the city will now appeal this ruling. I believe that the appeal goes to the New York State Court of Appeals which is the highest court in New York.
Saratoga Springs Politics 