8/6/2019 Muschenheim Letter

1/2

THE CIT Y OF NEw Y O R KM IC HA EL A . CA RD O Z O L A W D E P A R T M E N T

M ark W . M us che nh e imorp ora tio n Counsel 100 CH UR CH S T R E ET Te l (212)44 2-0 57N EW Y O RK , NY 1 000 7 Fax. (212) 791-971

M Mu sch en( iIL awN Y C Ge

June 30, 2011

By H an d

Hon. Bert A. BunyanN ew York State Supreme Court360 A dam s Street, Room 1126B rook ly n , N ew York 11201

Re: Seniors for Safety v. NYC Dept o f Transportation, No. 5210/2011

D ear Ju st ic e Bunyan:

This office re p re sen ts the respondents (collectively DOT) in the above-cap tioned Article 78 p roceed in g , re tu rn ab le on July 20, 2011. I write to strongly opposepe ti ti on ers June 27, 2011 letter app li ca tion that seeks, y et again, to ad jo u rn this summaryp ro ceed ing , thi s time to Sep tem ber 7, 2011. Petitioners seek this ad journ m ent for essen ti a lly thesa m e re as on they sought to ad journ last weeks return date before Your Honor, namely, thele ga lly irre lev ant reas on that p e ti tion ers have, yet again, an outstanding Fr eed om o f InformationLaw ( FO IL ) request. Petitioners a tte m p t to make an end run around the general discoveryp ro h ib it io n in summary pr oce edi ngs such as here should be rejected, and it is respectfullyreques te d th a t on Ju ly 20, 2011 Y our Honor hear argument on the d is pos it iv e issues in thisp ro ceed in g , the statute of lim it a tio n s and, if necessary, the m eri ts .

Petitioners req uest fo r an adj our nm en t purportedly stems from an articlepub lis h ed on June 27, 2011 in the N ew York Times, P ilo t Label Lets Mayors Projects SkipCity R ev iew , and they m istaken ly ass e rt that this article has some bea ring on the statute o flim it a tions issue in this proceeding. The article discusses generally the use o f pilot projects byv ario u s City agencies. S ig n if ic an tly , the article makes no mention of the P rosp ec t Park WestT raffi c C alm ing Project (PPW Project) that is the subject o f the instant dispute. That the

W hile p et it io n er s also have an ou tstand in g motion for leave to co nduc t d is cov e ry pursuantCPLR 408, that motion should not be considered until Your Honor has rev ie w ed the amendedpe ti ti on and DOTs re sponsi ve papers and det erm ine d whether there is a material issue thatw arra n ts discovery.

8/6/2019 Muschenheim Letter

2/2

article does not do so is hardly surprising, g ive n that DOT never considered or described thePPW Project as a pilot or trial projec t. Indeed, a description o f various DOT p ro jec ts specificallynotes those that were considered pilot and trial projects, such as the Brooklyn Bridge Accessproject. See DOT Ex. L, at 5 (In June 2008 DOT carried out a six month I o f new traffic

pat t e rn s at the intersection o f.. .

(emphasis ad de d )) . In stark contrast, the de scr ip ti on of thePPW Pr o je c t in the same do cum en t does not state that it was a pilot or trial project. i d . at 9.

Based on this article, on June2 7h petitioners submitted a new round o f FOIL

re ques ts to DOT, as well as to Council M em ber Brad Lander. Petitioners new FOIL requestsare an in ade quat e basis to adjourn this summary proceeding; indeed, such summary proceedingsare in te nded to be resolved quickly. See, g , Rockwell v. Morris, 12 A.D.2d 272, 272 (1st Dept1961) (the very spirit and purp ose of pr oce edin gs under article 78 [is] to pr ovi d e a summaryrem edy ). Specifically, pe titioners FOIL re que sts are separate and legally d ist i n ct frompet it ion ers claims relating to the PPW Project; while litigants such as petit io ner s may seekrec o rd s pu rsua nt to FOIL, their right to do so is as a member o f the public, and is no t enhancedbeca use they

are a litigant. And while pe ti ti on ers may submit their FOIL requests, the Court o f

Appea ls nev erth e le ss recognizes that FOIL may be used during litigation for improperpu rp os es, such as hara ssm en t and delay. M. Farbman & Sons, Inc. v. NYC Health & Hosp.Corp., 62 N .Y .2d 75, 82 (1984). Here pe tit ion ers are attempting to use these legally unrelatedFOIL re qu est s as an attempt to delay the re sol ut io n o f this summary proceeding; th e ir request foran ad jou rnm en t sho u ld be rejected, and this summary proceeding should be heard by YourH onor on July 20, 2011.

Respectfully submitted,

c rk W.Musche

nheimAssistant Corporation Counsel

cc: Jim Walden, Esq.(By E -m ail)

2DOT Ex h ib it L is attac hed to the prev iou sly filed DOT Verified Answer.