To follow you will find news regarding the latest suit(s) of National and/or
Regional importance filed by, or initiatives commenced by, the Pascazi Law
Offices:
February 4, 2010:
Pascazi Law Offices successfully challenged the
frivolous pleadings of opposing counsel in New York
Supreme Court, Putnam County, and won a sanctions
payment for its client.
Recently Pascazi Law Offices, as Plaintiff's attorney, was faced with
pleadings, received from opposing counsel, in a defamation suit, that were
clearly defective, as a matter of law. Attorney Pascazi promptly notified
opposing counsel of the defects and rejected the papers. Opposing counsel
did not correct the papers, but rather did nothing. Attorney Pascazi felt that
Plaintiff, his client, should not have to bear the expense of dealing with
defective papers. Attorney Pascazi brought a cross motion, on behalf of
Plaintiff, seeking inter alia sanctions. Plaintiff's cross motion seeking
sanctions was granted.
For a copy of the Decision and Order, dated October 16, 2009, granting
sanctions. Click Here.
Update to February 26, 2009 entry below.
In January 2010, Judge Morris of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York issued a Memorandum Decision holding that a creditor
does not have standing to challenge the Proof of Claim of another creditor,
in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. That Decision is now on appeal to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. Until the decision is
reversed or the Trustee in bankruptcy challenges the Proof of Claim of the
New York State Department of Labor ("DOL"), the purported prevailing wage
law violations which are the subject of the Telecom Act preemption
argument will not be heard in the federal bankruptcy court after all, but in
the New York State administrative proceedings, and thereafter, in the New
York State Courts.
Update to January 30, 2009 entry below.
In January 2010, the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal the
decision of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division which affirmed
the trial court, and 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 one parent, or both parents, to privately pay a law
guardian, at the law guardian's private pay rate, in lieu of the more common
practice, whereby, the State pays for the law guardian at the lower
assigned counsel rate.
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 Pascazi Law Offices PLLC, of Fishkill, New York, 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 - www.ejnet.org/dioxin
Wikipedia: Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins - http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Dioxin
Moss Dioxin Expert Test Report
May 11, 2009:
Update to February 25, 2009 entry below.
The People have agreed to adjourn 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.
February 26, 2009:
Update to May 2, 2008 entry below.
The New York State Department of Labor ("DOL") has filed a claim in a
related bankruptcy proceeding, thereby, consenting to the jurisdiction of the
federal bankruptcy court. The DOL's claim relates to the purported
prevailing wage law violations which are the subject of the Telecom Act
preemption argument. Therefore, it appears that the preemption argument
will now be heard in the federal bankruptcy court, not the New York State
Courts after all.
Update to January 22, 2007 entry below.
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.
February 25, 2009:
Michael S. Pascazi has challenged the constitutionality of New York's
criminal harassment statute, on the grounds that it is overly broad, arbitrary
and capricious. 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. 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. Pascazi's challenge has been brought
before the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Term. A decision is
expected sometime toward the end of 2009.
January 30, 2009:
Michael S. Pascazi has 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. Pascazi's challenge
has been brought before the New York State Supreme Court Appellate
Division. A decision is expected sometime in late 2009.
July 7, 2008:
Pascazi Law Offices publishes a "white paper" on Tort Liability concerning
Dioxin found in commonly used Wood Preservatives.
For a copy of: Toxic Tort Liability Dioxin in Wood Preservatives; click here.
(Word Format)
May 2, 2008:
Update to January 3, 2007 News Release Below.
Oral Arguments were held on September 24, 2007 before the U.S. Court of
Appeals on the Pascazi v. Angello case. By year end 2007, the Appeals
Court affirmed the court below, however, on different legal grounds. All is
not lost however. The Telecom Act preemption claim will now have to be
heard in State Court. Pascazi will vigorously argue the preemption claim
before the New York State Courts. Stay tuned.
January 22, 2007:
Michael S. Pascazi has 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. 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. A decision is expected
in 2008.
NEWS Release
Former Telco C.E.O. Invokes Federal Telecom Act to Challenge Enforcement
of New York State Prevailing Wage Law.
For Release: January 3, 2007 - 9:30am ET
Michael S. Pascazi, Attorney & Counselor-at-Law, acting Pro Se, has
brought an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit (Pascazi v. Angello, Docket No.: 06-cv-5108) seeking to reverse a
decision of the U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y. Docket No.: 04-cv-8896) wherein,
the District Court abstained from exercising jurisdiction over a challenge to
the New York State Prevailing Wage Law.
Pascazi is the former C.E.O. of a New York based fiber optic
telecommunications company. Pascazi alleges that the Telecom Act of
1996 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 253) preempts the Wage Law (codified at N.Y.
Labor Law § 220 et seq.), because the Wage Law prohibits, or has the
effect of prohibiting, entities from providing interstate or intrastate
telecommunications service. The Wage Law, for example, requires that
electricians in New York City, who perform telecommunications related
work, on public works projects, be paid wages and supplements totaling,
approximately $80.00 per hour, among many other burdensome and costly
requirements.
In Pascazi’s view “preemption was commanded by Congress in large part
to foster a single national telecommunications policy, as opposed to a
patchwork of state and local regulation.” Preemption, which derives from
the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, is a legal doctrine, whereby,
federal law supercedes state law.
Further, Pascazi argues “the Telecom Act grants to the Federal
Communications Commission the exclusive jurisdiction to determine which
state regulations are preempted and which are not. Congress has also
commanded that the FCC was to exercise its power after notice and an
opportunity for public comment."
Pascazi believes that this case is a case of first impression, and of national
importance. According to Pascazi “there are about 33 states and 100 cities
and counties that have similar Wage Laws.” Pascazi further opines ”if a
Telco provider must turn to state and local courts in defense of an alleged
wage law violation, then the goal of a national policy is dashed.”
Pascazi adds “The Telecom Act was the first major overhaul of
communications law in the United States in 62 years, and has resulted in
the Telecom revolution as we know it. Society has benefited greatly from
this landmark legislation.”
Pascazi is seeking Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) briefs from those
favoring preemption, and opposing prevailing wage laws. The Appellant
Brief is due February 1, 2007. Oral Argument is scheduled for the spring.
For a copy of the various pleadings in the action before the U.S. District
Court click here. (PDF format)
NEWS Release
For Release: February 17, 2006 - 9:15am ET.
Verizon Communications, Inc. Sued in $20 Billion Class-Action for Alleged
Collaboration with Illegal Domestic Wiretapping Program by Pascazi Law
Offices.
For a copy of the full News Release click here. (PDF format)
For a copy of the Class-Action Complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York click here. (PDF format)
For a copy of Frequently Asked Questions and Answers relating to the
Verizon Class Action Suit click here. (PDF format)
If you believe that you have been a victim of the Government's illegal
wiretapping, from 2001 until the present day, and have proof of same; we
would like to hear from you. Also, if you are a current or former Verizon
employee or contractor having information about the alleged wiretapping,
we would like to hear from you. Please Email to: info@pascazilaw.com.
We would also like to communicate with Romanian and Dutch Holocaust
Survivors or Heirs of Victims, both U.S. residents in the New York Metro
area and foreign residents. Please Email to: info@pascazilaw.com.
Should you have any questions or concerns about your legal rights and/or
obligations in any of the fields of interest indicated above, do not hesitate to
contact Attorney Pascazi to schedule a confidential consultation.
1065 Main Street, Suite D, Fishkill, NY 12524 U.S.A.
Phones: New York- +1 845.897.4219 London- +44 0121.288.7535
Fax: U.S.A.- +1 877.844.4120*
Email: info@pascazilaw.com
Copyright 2010 Michael S. Pascazi Esq. All Rights Reserved.
* Service Not Accepted
Do not convey any information that you consider to be your's or others' proprietary or
confidential property. When accepting your Email,Fax,Letter or Phone Call, the Pascazi
Law Offices considers your information to be non-confidential. Further, the information
you convey is not protected by any attorney-client privilege. Additionally, by accepting
your Email,Fax,Letter or Phone Call and/or responding to same, does not create an
attorney-client relationship;such can only be created by the execution of a letter of
engagement agreement,if appropriate.
This site contains trademarks that are the property of their respective owners.
Site Terms of Use Agreement
Pascazi Law Offices PLLC
Attorney & Counselor-at-Law
