PALADIUM

Government Officers and Other People                     https://paladium.nfshost.com


Justice Christine M. Clark, AD3, NYS

Justice Christine M. Clark
AD3, Albany, NY
source: nycourts.gov/ad3/Bios/clarkBios.html

NEW YORK STATE COURT OFFICERS

ALBANY OFFICE OF LIPPES MATHIAS WEXLER FRIEDMAN LLP

LITIGATION CLIENTS S.Z


Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP
and
Sheehan Greene Golderman & Jacques


  1. Litigation clients S-Z 2022aug29
    1. Scarano: Scarano Boat Builders, Inc.
    2. Shafer: HOWARD A. SHAFER
    3. Staley: Michal (not "Michael") Staley
    4. Stevens: DWAYNE P. STEVENS
    5. Wilson: CHARLES R. WILSON, JR.

  2. Names of clients and brief descriptions of their cases
    1. Scarano: Scarano Boat Builders, Inc.
      1. Introduction 2013nov10 Chamber of Commerce Scarano Boat Builders 194 S Port Rd Albany, New York 12202 (518) 463-3401 Facebook
      2. NYS DoS Division of Corporations SCARANO BOAT BUILDING, INC. NYS Department of State Division of Corporations Entity Information Current Entity Name: SCARANO BOAT BUILDING, INC. DOS ID #: 1059805 Initial DOS Filing Date: FEBRUARY 24, 1986 County: ALBANY Jurisdiction: NEW YORK Entity Type: DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION Current Entity Status: ACTIVE ... Selected Entity Address Information DOS Process (Address) SCARANO BOAT BUILDING, INC. 194 S. PORT ROAD ALBANY, NEW YORK, 12202 Chief Executive Officer JOHN S SCARANO 194 S PORT RD PORT OF ALBANY ALBANY, NEW YORK, 12202 Principal Executive Office RICHARD S SCARANO [Is Richard an office?] 194 S PORT RD PORT OF ALBANY ALBANY, NEW YORK, 12202 ... Registered Agent NONE
      3. Court Cases
        1. cbca.gsa.gov [This is a Lawrence H. Schaefer case against part of the U.S. federal government.] DISMISSED: May 15, 2013 CBCA 3219 SCARANO BOAT BUILDERS, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR [part of the U.S. federal government], Respondent. Ryan T. Donovan of Harris, Conway & Donovan PLLC, Albany, NY; and Lawrence H. Schaefer of Sheehan Greene Golderman & Jacques LLP, Albany, NY, appearing for Appellant. James E. Epstein, Office of the Northeast Regional Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Newton, MA, counsel for Respondent. BORWICK, Board Judge. ORDER the parties moved to dismiss the appeal DISMISSED. _________________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge
        2. Ethan Allen Jul 3, 2006, 9:22am EDT UPDATED: Jul 3, 2006, 9:22am EDT Ethan Allen lawsuit seeks $12M The New York City law firm of Kreindler & Kreindler has filed a wrongful death suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in Albany on behalf of Perry's family against Scarano Boat Building Inc., the maintainer and modifier of the Ethan Allen.
        3. Kahuna Group KAHUNA GROUP, INC. v. SCARANO BOAT BLDG., INC. NO. 95-CV-955. 984 F.Supp. 109 (1997) KAHUNA GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. SCARANO BOAT BUILDING, INC., Richard Scarano and John Scarano, individually, Port Welding Services, Inc., a/k/a Port Welding Fabricating and Machining, and Steven B. Barber, individually, Defendants. United States District Court, N.D. New York. September 17, 1997. Sherrin & Glasel Law Firm, Albany, NY (Jeffrey J. Sherrin, of counsel), for Plaintiff. Offices Of Charles R. Harding, Glenville, NY (Charles R. Harding, of counsel), for Defendants Scarano Boat Bldg., Inc., John Scarano and Richard Scarano. MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER McAVOY, Chief Judge. I. BACKGROUND This case is essentially an action for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement to contract arising out of an agreement to construct a 149 passenger excursion vessel
      4. Officers John and Richard Scarano
        1. Introduction We guess that they are brothers.
        2. John S. Scarano
          1. Radaris for John John S Scarano, 61 [in 2013] Cohoes, NY Lived in: Cohoes, NY Albany, NY Addresses & Phones
            1. 130 Riverwalk, Cohoes, NY 12047 (518) 233-1039 Reverse Lookups of this Telephone Number
              1. (518) 233-1039 Summer Ahl 9 5Th St, Waterford, NY 12188 (518) 233-1039
              2. (518) 233-1039 APRIL E PHILLIPS Phone: (518) 233-1039 18 N 2nd St, Cohoes, Albany County, NY-12047
            2. 4 Cheshire, Loudonville, NY 12211 [Sames address as Richard S. Scarano's Radaris address.] (518) 250-5404 [(518) 250-5404 Dunn Scarano, Dunn L Scarano 4 Cheshire, Loudonville, NY 12211 (518) 783-6963, (518) 785-6887, (518) 250-5404]
          2. John's Birth JOHN S SCARANO 1952-01-07 Albany NY
          3. John's Facebook John Scarano Places Lived Saratoga Springs, New York Current City Albany, New York Hometown ... Favorites Scarano Boat Building
          4. John's Lead411 John Scarano President Phone: 518-463-3401
        3. Richard S. Scarano
          1. Richard's Radaris Richard S Scarano, 60 [in 2013] Cohoes, NY Known also: Robert J Scarano Lived in: Cohoes, NY Glenmont, NY Albany, NY Latham, NY [New England] Cambridge, MA Arlington, MA Newport, RI Loudonville, NY Related to: ... From open sources possibly related Addresses & Phones
            1. 15 Skyview, Cohoes, NY 12047 (518) 785-8195
            2. 4 Cheshire Way, Albany, NY 12211 [Sames address as John S. Scarano's Radaris address. (518) 783-6963 [518-783-6963 4 Cheshire Way Albany, NY 12211 Scarano Dunn LLP is at 4 Cheshire Way, Albany, NY. This business specializes in Engineers.]
          2. Richard's Birth RICHARD S SCARANO 1953-08-11 Cohoes NY

    2. Shafer: Howard A. Shafer
      1. Introduction Howard A. Shafer's lawyer was Lawrence Henry Schaefer.
      2. Court fired firefighter Howard A. Shafer State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Calendar Date: April 26, 2013 In the Matter of HOWARD A. SHAFER, Petitioner, v BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS, SELKIRK FIRE DISTRICT, Respondent. Before: Stein, J.P., Spain, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ. 515923 MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT Sheehan, Greene, Golderman & Jacques, LLP, Albany (Lawrence H. Shafer [sic: should be "Schaefer"] of counsel), for petitioner. John J. Ciavardoni, Latham, for respondent. ... respondent expelled petitioner from membership in the Selkirk Fire Department. Petitioner has been a member of the Selkirk Fire Department, in the Town of Bethlehem, Albany County, since 2001 and became the treasurer of Company No. 1 respondent issued a notice of charges against petitioner alleging misconduct violations of the Fire Department's bylaws and code of conduct. Hearing Officer recommended that petitioner be expelled from membership in the Fire Department and as treasurer of Company No. 1. ... ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed. [Firefighter lost.]
      3. WhitePages Howard A Shafer 65+ years old Selkirk, NY Was in Selkirk, NY and 1 other city Howard A Shafer 68 years old Selkirk, NY Howard Schaffer Albany, NY
      4. Radaris Howard A Shafer, 68 [in 2013, born ~1945] Albany, NY Known also as: Howard E Shafer Lived in: Albany, NY Selkirk, NY Berne, NY Related to: Addresses & Phones
        1. 346 Maple, Selkirk, NY 12158 [(518) 767-0404 City: Bethlehem State: NY County: Albany Carrier: Verizon New York, Inc. Type: Landline] (518) 767-0808 [(518) 767-0808 Howard Shafer 346 Maple Ave Selkirk, NY 12158 Carrier: Landline from Verizon New York, Inc.] (518) 767-0838 [518) 767-0838 Phone Type: Landline Location: Selkirk, NY]
        2. Berne, NY

    3. Staley: Michal (not "Michael") Staley
      1. Introduction 2022jun15 main source: Justia Staley had been a DoCCS sergeant. He was accused of sexual misconduct. He was demoted. He filed a grievance. He and DoCCS settled the dispute. Later, he tried to become a sergeant again. He took the sergeant exam. He did spectacularly well on the exam. DoCCS reneged on the settlement. DoCCS refused to promote him. He sued but lost. He appealed but lost.
      2. C.O. Staley in 2020 source: seethroughny.net Staley, Michal P DoCCS $140,363 Greene Correctional Facility Corr Officer (not sergeant) Annual Base $75,563 2020
      3. State court case in 2016 Appeal Below is an M&O (MEMORANDUM AND ORDER) by AD3 (Appellate Division, Third Department) in response to Staley's appeal. ______________________ Matter of Staley v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision 2016 NY Slip Op 08146 Decided on December 1, 2016 Appellate Division, Third Department Originally published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431 Decided and Entered December 1, 2016 522628 In the Matter of MICHAL STALEY et al., Appellants, v NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION et al., Respondents. Calendar Date October 21, 2016 Before McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Aarons, JJ. Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP Albany (William F. Sheehan of counsel), for appellants. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Julie M. Sheridan of counsel), for respondents. Clark, J. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Platkin, J.), entered May 27, 2015 in Albany County. That judgment dismissed petitioners' application. The application was for court review of a determination by respondents. The determination denied petitioner Michal Staley a promotion to correction sergeant. ----------- In 1997, petitioner Michal Staley began working for DOCCS as a correction officer. In 2006, he was promoted to correction sergeant. While Staley was at Coxsackie Correctional Facility, DOCCS issued Staley a notice of discipline. DoCCS charged him with making inappropriate sexual advances toward a female subordinate. McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Aarons, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
      4. Result of appeal A.G.'s Julie M. Sheridan defeated Lippes's William F. Sheehan. The government employer defeated the union. The respondents defeated the appellants. Staley lost. He did not become a sergeant.
      5. Justices
        1. Introduction 2022sep4 An appeal court judge is often called "justice," not "judge." Clark wrote the M&O. All of the other, five justices concurred (agreed) with Clark.
        2. Aarons 2022sep4 Sharon A.M. Aarons In 2016, she was an "Adjunct Asst Professo" in New York City and an "Asc Jus Ap Div Temp" in Albany. Aarons, Sharon A M gross $222,200 Supreme Court Asc Jus, Ap Div annual base pay $222,200 2021 Aarons, Sharon A M gross $196,548 Supreme Court Asc Jus Ap Div Temp annual base $203,400 2016 Aarons, Sharon A M CUNY annual base $18,565 Lehman College Adjunct Asst Professo annual base $6,172 2021 Aarons, Sharon A M CUNY $13,094 Lehman College Adjunct Adjunct Asst Professo annual base $9,165 2016 ..... opengovny.com campaign-candidate-committee COMMITTEE TO ELECT SHARON AARONS Inactive, Sup. Court Justice, 1067 Allerton Avenue, Bronx, NY 10469, HILLARY SHEIOWITZ.
        3. Clark Christine M. Clark She wrote Staley's M&O. Clark, Christine M gross $222,200 Supreme Court 2021? Clark, Christine M gross $198,073 Supreme Court Asc Jus Ap Div Temp annual base $203,400 2016
        4. Egan Jr. John C. Egan Jr. Egan, John C, Jr gross $222,200 Supreme Court Asc Jus, Ap Div annual base $222,200 2021 Egan, John C, Jr gross $198,073 Supreme Court Asc Jus Ap Div annual base $203,400 2016 related to the justice? Egan, John C gross $724 Albany County Airport Authority Summer Help $724 2008
        5. Lynch Michael C. Lynch Lynch, Michael C Supreme Court Lynch, Michael C gross $198,073 Supreme Court Asc Jus Ap Div annual base $203,400 2016 Lynch, Michael C gross $154,398 Supreme Court Sup Ct Jus Dst 3 annual base $160,000 2012
        6. McCarthy William E. McCarthy Mccarthy, William E gross $198,073 Supreme Court Asc Jus Ap Div annual base $203,400 2016
        7. Sources 2022sep4 The M&O has the justices' last names. To get their full names, we went to https://nycourts.gov/ad3/Bios/ExampleBios.html using the surname instead of "Example." This system usually works. For justice Aarons, we used "Aaron": https://nycourts.gov/ad3/Bios/AaronBios.html. To learn the pay of a justice whose full name we knew, we went to payrolls at seethroughny.net.

      6. Summary of appeal court's chronology of events
      7. DOCCS suspended Staley without pay. Perhaps this was part of the discipline (punishment) done to him. Later, Staley and DoCCS settled the dispute about whether he should be disciplined. As part of that settlement, Staley agreed to a 12-month disciplinary evaluation period. Later (February 27, 2012), Staley returned to work. The twelve months seem to have started then. (Notice that February 2012 is before January 2013.) In January 2013 (not 2012), DOCCS issued Staley a notice of discipline (in other words, a notice of punishment). The court's chronology claims that he returned to work about eleven months before he got the notice of discipline. In October 2013 (about nine months after Staley got the notice of discipline), he took the promotional examination. The M&O includes the following sentence: "In January 2013, while Staley was assigned to the Coxsackie Correctional Facility, DOCCS issued Staley a notice of discipline charging him with making inappropriate sexual advances toward a female subordinate in violation of certain provisions of DOCCS's employee manual, as well as DOCCS Directive No. 2605, entitled 'Sexual Harassment in the Work Place,' and proposed a penalty of dismissal from service and loss of any accrued annual leave." Clark wrote the M&O. Every other justice concurred, all five.
      8. Our Comments
        1. Appeal Court AD3 The court's chronology above seems to have a factual error. According to the dates in the M&O, Staley received a notice of discipline in 2013, which was long after he had returned to work in 2012. If the court is right, DoCCS acted illegally. We guess that Staley received the notice, was suspended from work at about that time, then later returned to work. We guess that he got the notice of discipline in 2012, not 2013. All six justices (the one who wrote the M&O and the five who concurred) were wrong.
        2. Second Appeal? Perhaps Staley should have appealed from AD3 to a higher court. Staley was entitled to appellate justices who were not confused and mistaken about the facts. The sequence of events is important. According to he M&O, Clark wrote it and the other justices concurred. If all of the justices had read the M&O, at least one would have noticed the wrong date of the NoD (notice of Discipline). Probably, none of the justices read the M&O, not even the one (Clark) who supposedly wrote it. A justice lies if he claims to concur with a document he did not read. One must read a document to know if one concurs with it. Staley was entitled to an M&O which all of the justices had read. If all of the judges had read the M&O, the wrong date would have been noticed by at least one of them. The two ideas above (the justices were confused and mistaken about the facts, not all judges read the M&O) are compatible with each other. Both might be true. Should justices be prosecuted or impeached for signing an M&O without reading it? We don't know the details of how an AD3 justice communicates that he concurs with an M&O. Perhaps there is a form which a justice uses. It has boxes. He checks a box marked "concur without comment." Then he signs and dates the form. In New York State, is it a crime for a state government employee, while on the job, to knowingly write false information while filling out a state government form? If six justices read an M&O but all fail to notice a wrong date, are they incompetent to be justices? In future cases, it should be possible for a lawyer to object for cause to all six because all of them are likely again to be too lazy to read an M&O or too incompetent to notice a factual mistake in an M&O. The wrong NoD issuance date in the M&O is obvious to any expert in DoCCS disciplinary procedure. It is highly unlikely that DoCCS issued it about a year too late. It is highly likely that the five "concurring" justices did not read the M&O. It is unlikely that any of the six justices read the papers mailed to the court by the litigants' lawyers. There is a widespread custom of justices deciding cases, not on the basis od documents mailed to the court, but on the basus of clerk-wrizzen summaries of those documents.. If the summaries did not include the correct NoD issuance date, the justices would have not known that the date in the M&O was wrong. Perhaps the cause of the wrong date in the M&O is that the summary written for Clark had the wrong date. How did she write the M&O? Was any of the M&O copied from a clerk-written summary? AD3 did not lawfully handle Staley's appeal. We are not certain why Clark wrote the wrong date, or why every other justice concurred. We are not certain that none of the justices read the papers mailed to the court by the lawyers.
        3. Effect of 2013 NoD Above, we discuss possible causes of AD3's having attributed the NoD to 2013. Below, we discuss the effects of the 2013 date. DoCCS must give an employee an NoD before punishing the employee. A court should look through the form of things to their underlying reality. The reality of Staley's experience is that DoCCS disciplined him in 2012 by, among other things, causing his demotion to C.O. However, according to the M&O, DoCCS issued the NoD in 2013. It is a matter of law that the year was 2013. It was illegal to discipline him before giving him an NoD. The 2012 demotion should be ended, and it should be ended retroactively to when it began.
        4. Background info about New York State judges in general most common ways lawyers become judges in New York State The page linked to above does not necessarily apply to the appeal judges in this Staley case. Were any of the judges in Staley's appeal case candidates of both the Democratic and Republican parties?
        5. Help Staley in 2022 or 2023? We are ignorant of much in the appeal case and in the prior, trial court case. We may not know some of the law related to DoCCS's discipline of Staley. What if Staley again takes a promotional exam? Perhaps again he will do well on the exam, but DoCCS will again refuse to promote. Perhaps he could then sue, in response to the second refusal (the one in 2022 or 2023):
          1. for a promotion,
          2. to be paid a sergeant's wage even if he doesn't get the promotion,
          3. perhaps for other remedies.
          In the 2TTC (second trial court case, the one in 2022 or 2023), he would have more causes of action, and seek more remedies, than in the first, trial court case (decided in 2015). Perhaps, the 2CTT should not be in the Third Department. Are there other departments in which he may sue? If so, are their appellate divisions as better than the Third's? What if, in the 2CTT, there is a dispute about: whether the 2012 Staley-DoCCS settlement bars DoCCS from refusing to promote because of Staley's supposed misconduct? If there were a dispute, that issue would have to be re-litigated. Collateral estoppel often applies when an identical issue is in two cases, both cases have identical parties, and both cases are highly similar to each other. In the second case, any litigant may ask the judge to prevent re-litigation of that issue by adopting, in the second case, the decision made on that issue in the first case. What if DoCCS tries to use collateral estoppel to get the trial judge, in the 2CTT, to adopt the first case's decision on that issue (the issue of whether the 2012 Staley-DoCCS settlement bars DoCCS from refusing to promote because of Staley's supposed misconduct)? The two cases would be much too different from each other for collateral estoppel to be used, we think. Collateral estoppel only applies when the cases are highly similar to each other, almost identical. What if the 2CTT judge uses collateral estoppel? Then Staley should point out that
          1. DoCCS disciplined him in 2012 (for example, by causing his demotion by threatening to fire him) but
          2. DoCCS gave him his NoD (notice of discipline) in 2013. This is a matter of law.
          All discipline done to Staley before the 2013 NoD is illegal. The pre-NoD discipline done to Staley, including the 2012 demotion, should be undone. DoCCS should pay damages to Staley. What if Staley takes a promotional exam in 2022 or 2023, does well, is denied a promotion, sues, and the trial court does not use res judicata or collateral estoppel against Staley? How would a trial court judge decide Staley's case if the judge ignored what had happened in Staley's previous cases? We don't know.
        6. Results-oriented justices? A results-oriented judge decides a case on the basis of his sense of justice, then lies that the law required him to decide the case as he did. There are many, such judges. We do not know if AD3 was results-oriented in the M&O in Staley's appeal. Perhaps Clark sincerely wrote the M&O. Perhaps AD3's justices were results-oriented in wanting fo help DoCCS prevent Staley from getting a promotion. We don't know.

    4. Stevens: DWAYNE P. STEVENS
      1. Introduction 2022jun15 Stevens lost his appeal.
      2. 2017 state court appeal case our source: Justia _____________ Matter of Stevens v DiNapoli 2017 NY Slip Op 08076 Decided November 16, 2017 Appellate Division, Third Department Originally published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Decided and Entered: November 16, 2017 524860 In the Matter of DWAYNE P. STEVENS, Petitioner, v THOMAS P. DiNAPOLI, as State Comptroller, et al., Respondents. Calendar Date: October 12, 2017 Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch, Rose and Rumsey, JJ. Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP, Albany (Thomas D. Latin of counsel), for petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondents. Egan Jr., J. MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT Proceeding transferred to this Court to review a determination of respondent Comptroller denying petitioner's application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits. In February 2012, petitioner, then a correction officer at Moriah Shock Correctional Facility, was supervising a group of inmates strike petitioner's right knee. In October 2014, petitioner applied for performance of duty disability retirement benefits, Respondent New York State and Local Retirement System disagreed with petitioner and denied his application petitioner requested a hearing and redetermination. Following that hearing, the Hearing Officer sustained the denial. Respondent Comptroller accepted the Hearing Officer's findings, prompting petitioner to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Comptroller's determination. the Comptroller's determination will not be disturbed. ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
      3. Result of court case Stevens lost his appeal. Attorney William E. Storrs of the A.G. defeated attorney Thomas D. Latin of the Albany office of Lippes Mathias firm. The government employer defeated the union. The respondents defeated the petitioner.

    5. Wilson: Charles R. Wilson, Jr.
      1. Court laborer and truck driver Matter of Wilson v DiNapoli 2008 NY Slip Op 04991 [52 AD3d 931] June 5, 2008 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau As corrected through Wednesday, August 13, 2008 In the Matter of Charles R. Wilson, Jr., Petitioner, v Thomas P. DiNapoli, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent. Sheehan, Greene, Carraway, Golderman & Jacques, L.L.P., Albany (Thien-Nga Nguyen-Clark of counsel) for petitioner Petitioner was employed by Herkimer County from 1967 to 1968. He was hired as a laborer but later agreed to drive a truck petitioner again became a public employee in 1987.







LIST OF OUR LIPPES-SHEEHAN PAGES

  1. Introduction
  2. Attorneys and other people
  3. Litigation: A-R clients, S-Z clients, court cases
  4. Political payments
    1. Contributors
    2. State Street Associates PAC








LINKS TO A FEW PAGES IN THIS SITE

2010 NY Pistol Permits Impropriety in USA Gov't Home Page
Main NY Page Previous Page Next Page Impressum



To return to this page       =       https://paladium.nfshost.com/gw/usa-farnewyorkstate0000BBcourtLippesMathiasWexlerFriedman53ClientsZ50.php

To return to the page whence you came       =      


map to CIA headquarters on Colonial Farm Road in McLean
link to our home page