To follow you will find archived news regarding suits, initiatives, and/or transactions involving the Pascazi Law Offices PLLC: NEWS RELEASE For Release: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 HAZARDOUS DIOXIN CONTAMINATION UNCOVERED IN PAWLING, NEW YORK A far greater evil masquerades as a bucolic setting of a quaint wooden bridge, over a babbling brook, on a quiet country lane, in the southeast corner of Dutchess County, New York. However, all is not what meets the eye, because the wooden bridge over Brady Brook, at Ravine Road, in the Town of Pawling, New York has been found to contain the notorious poison, and carcinogen, known as Dioxin, at levels well above the “clean up level” of one part per billion set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Yet, the Town of Pawling, New York, which installed the contaminated bridge in 2002, has done nothing about the perilous situation, even after having been presented with scientific test data confirming the presence, in high levels, of what has been called “one of the most toxic substances known to man”. To add insult to injury, the bridge emits what neighbors have described as a “noxious chemical smell”. The Town has known about the smell for about seven (7) years, yet the bridge still stands, and children routinely fish from it, and play on it. It should also be noted that the Town of Pawling is home to a former nuclear contamination site known as “Nuclear Lake”, and was recently fined for unrelated pollution of Brady Brook, therefore, the Town is no stranger to environmental disasters. Dioxin, which was the contaminant found in Agent Orange, during the Vietnam War, and which is responsible for catastrophic illnesses among countless Vietnam Veterans, was uncovered in the Ravine Road Bridge during the discovery phase of nuisance litigation involving the bridge. That litigation was brought by Dr. Stephen and Mrs. Lydia Moss. That litigation, now pending in New York State Supreme Court, Dutchess County, and being prosecuted by the Pascazi Law Offices PLLC, is in the process of being amended, to force the removal of the contaminated bridge, address the decimation of property values in the surrounding community, and deal with the actual and potential deleterious health effects of Dioxin exposure on humans. Further, the EPA, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”), as well as the Dutchess County Health Department, and New York City Department of Environmental Protection have been notified of the contamination, and asked to help. The full report, prepared by Ecosystems Strategies detailing the Dioxin contamination at the Ravine Road Bridge, can be found by clicking below (PDF format). Links to other sources of information concerning Dioxin can be found here: Environmental Justice Associates: Dioxin Homepage Wikipedia: Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins Unfortunately, the case was dismissed when it was determined that in 2002 (when a noxious smell was first detected) a Notice of Claim was not timely filed by the Plaintiff with the Town of Pawling, as required by the General Municipal Law. February 25, 2009: Pascazi Law Offices PLLC challenged the constitutionality of New York's criminal harassment statute, on the grounds that it is overly broad, arbitrary and capricious. Attorney Pascazi has a particular problem with the language in the statute which uses the words "harass, annoy or alarm". The chief question is: How would a potential lawbreaker know that his/her conduct would harass, annoy or alarm another person? Some people have thick skin, and are not easily annoyed or alarmed. Others are sensitive souls who are easily annoyed and alarmed. For a statute to be constitutional a citizen must know precisely what conduct is proscribed by the statute. New York's Harassment statute does not meet that requirement, and should be stricken. Attorney Pascazi draws upon a recent decision of the former Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the late, Honorable Charles Brieant. Judge Brieant found New York's Aggravated Harassment statute unconstitutional on similar vagueness grounds. The People have adjourned the matter in contemplation of dismissal, therefore, a decision regarding the constitutionality of New York's criminal harassment statute will have to wait for another day. January 30, 2009: Pascazi Law Offices PLLC challenged the practice in certain parts of New York, and not in others, whereby, a judge of the Supreme Court or Family Court, in a child custody dispute, orders a parent, or both parents, to privately pay a law guardian, at the law guardian's private retained rate (which could easily exceed $250.00 per hour) to represent the child, or the children, who are the subject of the custody dispute. This practice is in lieu of the more common practice, whereby, the State pays for the law guardian at the assigned counsel rate of only $75.00 per hour. Attorney Pascazi's challenge was brought before the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division. The Appellate Division 2nd Department upheld the practice. In January 2010, the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal the decision of the Appellate Division 2nd Department. January 22, 2007: Pascazi Law Offices PLLC challenged the constitutionality of New York's child support law that requires the non-custodial parent to pay child support until the child reaches age 21. The challenge was brought before the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division. The matter arose in the context of a divorce action. Attorney Pascazi argued that the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution barred the mandate that one adult provide support to another adult. The age of majority in New York was reduced years ago to age 18; however, the child support law continues the support obligation for three (3) years beyond when the child reaches adulthood. The parties to the divorce action have settled their case, therefore, the question regarding the constitutionality of imposing child support obligations in New York, upon a non-custodial parent until the child reaches age 21, will have to wait for another day, and another case, to reach the New York Court of Appeals. NEWS RELEASE For Release: February 17, 2006 Verizon Communications, Inc. Sued in $20 Billion Class-Action for Alleged Collaboration with Illegal Domestic Wiretapping Program, under the Bush Administration. For a copy of the full News Release click here. (PDF format) This suit has been rendered moot and has been voluntarily withdrawn. An act of Congress, passed during the Bush Administration, has effectively immunized the Telecommunication companies from claims of cooperation with the NSA's warrantless surveillance program under the Bush Administration. Should you have any questions or concerns about your legal rights, and/or obligations in any legal matter, or transaction, do not hesitate to contact the Pascazi Law Offices for a free initial consultation. Pascazi Law Offices PLLC 1065 Main Street, Ste. D, Fishkill, New York 12524 U.S.A. Ph: +1 845.897.4219 / Fax: +1 845.468.7117* E-mail:Info@pascazilaw.com* *Service Not Accepted by Fax or E-mail 22 Avenue Pierre Köenig, 95200 Sarcelles [Paris] FRANCE** Tél: +33 9.77.21.86.40 **Service Américain Non Accepté Ici We are required by IRS Circular 230 to inform you that any statements contained herein are not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed by U.S. Tax Law. The content of this website is not, and is not intended to be, legal advice. Each case is based upon its own unique facts and circumstances which must be addressed on their own merits. Past performance is no guaranty of future success. Copyright 2011 - Pascazi Law Offices PLLC. All Rights Reserved. This site contains trademarks that are the property of their respective owners. Hosted by Yahoo! Site Terms of Use Agreement |
| PASCAZI LAW OFFICES PLLC |
| When the odds are one in a million, be that one... Let us help. |
| "Common sense often makes good law." -William O. Douglas |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| ARCHIVED NEWS |
(845) 897-4219