Vindication or Validation?

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Vindication or Validation?

Playing on a neutral field for the first time, the Village of Westhampton Beach obtained the legal decision it had sought in the polarizing Shock Ice Cream sign case.

The Appellate Term of the New York State Supreme Court of the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, by a unanimous decision of the Panel, decided the question of "Did the municipality get a fair shake in its own Justice Court?"

And Shock's proprietrix Elyse Richman is going to have to live with the answer: "No, it didn't!"

It wasn't a cheap victory for the Village, running in excess of $15,000 in legal fees, but several things emerged, the most critical ones being:

This particular case, one involving the giant ice cream cone Ms. Richman had affixed to the wall of the alley leading to her Shock Ice Cream store, has been a divisive one from the start.

Shortly after the item was mounted, Shock was issued an Order to Remedy, and when that went unaddress­ed, she was issued a Summons returnable in Village Justice Court.

Almost immediately thereafter, the cone was taken leading some to opine that the Village was behind the vandalism.

When Ms. Richman finally did show up in court, Justice Robert A. Kelly Jr. dismissed the charge because, well, that's what Gus does, and is one of the contributing factors in Westhampton Beach Justice Court operating in the red1 for 13 of the last 15 years.

Following a full re-presentation of the municipality's case by then Village Attorney Hermon "Bo" Bishop, Associate Justice Lee Sneed again dismissed the case, seemingly out of hand.

It was Sneed's manner and language2 that the Judicial Panel was most critical of in reversing the decision "on the law and the facts," and remanding the case to the original court "to be heard by a different judge."

Vindication or Validation? Stay tuned!

Notes
  1. As a practical matter, some in the Westhampton Beach Police Department are more inclined to issue verbal warnings rather than writing tickets that experience has shown are routinely dismissed by the court.
  2. It was the "dismissed in the interests of justice" part to which the panel seemed to take the greatest exception, there being no finding to support such a determination,

Comments

1. EastEnd68 said...

Poor Elyse.

Pffffui! Elyse flouts the law and dares the Village to come after her. The poor Village, having to go to this length to maintain some semblance of order.
– Dean

Name
URL
Email
Email address is not published
Remember Me
Comments

CAPTCHA Reload
Write the characters in the image above