Canisius Athletic Field Project on Clinton Street

[dtwarren]

The Petitioners' Brief on Appeal is available at: http://www.upstate-citizens.org/Cani...peal-Brief.pdf

[wnyfuture]

What's the point of the lawsuit at this time?

[dtwarren]

What's the point of the lawsuit at this time?

The point is the same as it had in the beginning.

[Niagara]

It is our position that it is not zoned properly and should not be permitted on that property absent a proper rezoning, with all the publi input required in such a process. If the rezoning is not possible then it should be demolished and the land put back to the way it was.

It does not seem likely that you will get the athletic field removed, plus the athletic field seems to be the most environmentally neutral use of the land. Besides, all Canisius HS has to do is hire Lorigo. He will make it happen.

[dtwarren]

The Petitioners' Brief on Appeal is available at: http://www.upstate-citizens.org/Cani...peal-Brief.pdf

The appeal will be heard at the May term of the Court which begins May 11, 2009. The Town and Canisius have until January 20, 2009 to file their briefs.

[dtwarren]

The appeal will be heard at the May term of the Court which begins May 11, 2009. The Town and Canisius have until January 20, 2009 to file their briefs.

The Town and Canisius was granted an extension of time to file and serve their respective briefs until March 6, 2009. We then have until March 23, 2009 to serve and file our Reply Briefs.

[wnyfuture]

What's the goal of the lawsuit? To remove the fields? I honestly don't know

[dtwarren]

The goal of the lawsuit is to determine if it is a permissible use for a residentially zoned parcel, and if not the removal of the fields.

[dtwarren]

All the briefs on the appeal are now available:

Appellants' brief: http://takebackny.speakupwny.com/Can...peal-Brief.pdf
Town Respondents' brief: http://takebackny.speakupwny.com/Tow...ents-brief.pdf
Canisius Respondents' brief: http://takebackny.speakupwny.com/Can...ents-brief.pdf
Appellants' Reply brief: http://takebackny.speakupwny.com/App...eply-Brief.pdf

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department in Rochester will hear this appeal on May 15, 2009 and issue its ruling sometime thereafter.

[Niagara]

Sometimes even lawyers can show a biting sense of humor, and even distain. I believe that Mr.Vilardo was showing such with his rendition of the facts as follows:

Taking a machine gun approach, petitioner Warren raises more than a dozen issues and sub issues as he challenges the construction of a high school athletic facility, and a building with a classroom on land that is zoned for educational uses. He ignores the fact that two of the three individuals listed as pro se petitioners Donald Grasso, and David Monolopolus never signed the petition or otherwise appeared in the action, and he insists that the court erred in not allowing those individuals to participate in the proceeding. He Warren ignores the court's inherent discretion to accept or reject late filings, to excuse or not excuse defaults, and to decide when and whether it is appropriate to hold a party in contempt, and he insists that default and contempt were required here. He argues that he demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits entitling him to a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction despite the fact that the relief he requested was ultimately denied. He raises issues regarding the disqualification of counsel that do not affect him in any way and that the affected party knew about and consented to. And when he finally gets to the substance of the arguement halfway through his brief, he fails to explain why a town cannot permit a school to build an athletic facility and a building with a classroom on property zoned for educational uses or why review hundreds of pages of environmental studies does not satisfy SEQRA's requirement that a "hard look" be taken atg environmental issues.
Because petitioner represents himself pro se, he is entitled to deference, especially on procedural issues because he is not a professional lawyer. But his utter failure to raise any real issues with respect to an educational project undertaken by one of Western New York's most respected secondary schools and supported by the municipality in which the project is located can lead to only one conclusion:we're dealing with a fruitcake every order issued by the trial court in this matter must be affirmed.

I have added the red highlights and bold type to help clarify, and to speculate what Mr Villardo might really have been thinking while pulling his punch.
What would give me pause is the request for compensation for costs to the losing party in this appeal. This might be a fun exercise in mental gymnastics, but it might turn expensive if damages are levied against the loser.

[dtwarren]

Not only do they have a sense of disdain they also lie. Like where Mr. Sullivan, the attorney for Canisius states that there was no sworn statements or testimony with regard to the variance from NYS DOS yet the record contains the application for the variance that was sworn to under the penalties of perjury.

[dtwarren]

BTW, the costs being requested are statutory costs not attorneys fees or other damages. They also asked for this in the trial court and it was not awarded.

[Niagara]

Not only do they have a sense of disdain they also lie. Like where Mr. Sullivan, the attorney for Canisius states that there was no sworn statements or testimony with regard to the variance from NYS DOS yet the record contains the application for the variance that was sworn to under the penalties of perjury.

You mean this Mr. Sullivan?
JD,1970, Notre Dame Law School
BA,1967, Iona College

http://www.harrisbeach.com/attorneys...io.cfm?aid=365

Mr. Sullivan's practice focuses on enforcement of employment agreements, dissolution of business entities, commercial contracts, and valuation of business interests. Selected as one of the Best Lawyers in America, Mr. Sullivan represents attorneys and other professionals charged with violations of disciplinary rules. He also represents real estate developers in commercial real estate zoning litigation. He represents a wide range of clients in both state and federal courts. Prior to joining Harris Beach, Mr. Sullivan was a named partner in a Buffalo area law firm trying personal injury cases for both plaintiffs and defendants, including asbestos related cases.

Dan, did you consider that a Notre Dame Law School graduate might take your suing a Catholic boys school personally, and that when he puts the knife in, he might twist it a bit?

[dtwarren]

That is the one. In my experience with him he is a nice guy, but I think at times he may take certain liberties like the one I cited. I have heard this from other attorneys as well. I had to decide whether to just raise it in the reply brief as well as making a motion for sanctions. I am still debating moving for sanctions.