Inside the Decision: Appellate Judges Rule 3-1 to Hold Special Election,Citywide

UPDATED, 1-16-02 12:15 PM:Justices Sandra Feuerstein, William D. Friedmann and Robert W. Schmidt found in favor of former Councilman Larry Delgado Tuesday evening, calling for a new citywide election between Delgado and Glen Hockley. Judge Gabriel M. Krausman dissented in the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department of the New York State Supreme Court 5-1/2 page decision handed down from Brooklyn Tuesday evening. Mr. Bradley, Glen Hockley’s attorney comments. Here’s WPCNR’s first look at the decision:

A review of the decision faxed to WPCNR reveals that the majority opinion denied Mr. Hockley’s cross appeal of the Judge Francis Nicolai decision to hold a continuation of the election only in District 18 to dismiss the Supreme Court decision to throw out Judge Nicolai’s ruling on a technicality, yet disagreed with Nicolai on the remedy. The judges also called for a citywide Special Election between the two.

WHOSE NAME WILL GO ON THE COUNCILMAN SIGN? The sign that formerly bore Pauline Oliva’s name stands neatly painted over in the City Hall parking lot, awaiting a Special Election between Glen Hockley and Larry Delgado, providing Mr. Hockley does not appeal the Appellate Court decision handed down Tuesday.


On Delgado failure to purchase a second index number, the court refuses to budge.

After stating the circumstances surrounding the alleged technicality violation the majority opinion ruled,

Hockley moved to dismiss the (Delgado) second order to show cause and petition on the grounds, inter alia, that Delgado failed to purchase a second index number and filed the second order to show cause and petition after it was served. The Supreme Court (Judge Nicolai), inter alia, denied the motion to dismiss, and upon determining that the voting machine in the 18th Election District had malfunctioned, directed that a continued election be held in that district only. Hockley appeals, arguing, inter alia, that the Su[preme Court erred in denying his (Hockley’s) motion to dismiss the second order to show cause and petition. Hockley urges on appeal that, having brought to the Supreme Court a second order to show cause and petition, Delgado was required, pursuant to CPLR 304 and 306-b, to purchase a new index number and file the petition before serving it. We disagree.

Mislabeling of papers not enough to sidetrack the vote

The three judges continued into the labyrinthine flurry of those eight fateful days beginning November 7 when the petitions and the show cause orders flew between the parties over the District 18 impasse. Originally Delgado had filed a petition to impound the voting machines Wednesday morning, November 7, when results in District 18, known as a Republican stronghold, showed him running 100 votes behind his fellow Republicans, indicating to him something was wrong up in North Broadway.

A week later, it became clear to the Delgado camp there was no human reporting error. They theorized the machine appeared jammed. Delgado filed a second set of papers on November 14, 2001, labeled a petition instead of a motion, requesting a ‘hand recanvass and court review’ and ‘a review and correction of the canvass of the machine case ballots.’ Mr. Delgado did not buy a second new index number “in connection” with his second order to show cause.

The show cause order came before Judge Francis Nicolai. Adam Bradley, Glen Hockley’s legal counsel, argued with Judge Nicolai that the missing new Index Number was grounds for dismissing the Delgado petition outright, and not proceeding with examination of the Election District 18 voting machine, which he also opposed a not being specifically called for by Election Law. Judge Nicolai resoundingly rejected his argument, saying he was not going to “throw out a case this important on a technicality.”

The Appellate Court Agrees with Nicolai Tuesday evening

In the decision from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, the Brooklyn three, dated January 14, the majority wrote:

“While it is true that Delgado labeled his second set of papers an order to show cause and petition instead of an order to show cause and motion, in his second order to show case, he indicated that the canvass which he had originally requested was incomplete. Further he requested relief which was related to and contemplated by the relief which he requested in his original order to show cause, and which properly could have been sought in a subsequent motion. In addition, Hockley failed to specify any prejudice as a result of the mislabeling of the papers. The Supreme Court (Nicolai) therefore correctly refused to dismiss this otherwise meritorious claim simply because the second set of papers presented to it was mislabeled.

Moreover, Delgado’s second order to show cause included a general prayer for ‘such other, further, and different relief as this court may find to be just and proper’. Generally, a notice of motion or order to show cause must state the relief demanded and the grounds therefore (see, CPLR 2214[a]). A court may grant relief, pursuant to a general prayer contained in the notice of motion or order to show casue, other than that specifically asked for, to such extent as is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides (decision cites 3 previous decisions). It may do so in the absence of surprise or prejudice (citing a case and commentary), and the determination of whether to grant such relief is discretionary with the court ,(citing two cases).

Appellatteers note a Delgado ambiguity.

The three magistrates in the majority opinion did single out this oversight, but dismissed it:

“Although the prayer for relief contained in Delgado’s second order to show cause did not explicitly request leave to amend the pleadings, he did request such relief in paragraphs 28 and 31 of the “petition” appended thereto, which, we have already noted, was in actuality a motion for additional relief in connection with the first order to show cause and petition. Under the exceptional circumstances of this case, we therefore would find it appropriate to grant Delgado leave to amend his original petition to add the calims raised in the “petition” appended to the second order to show cause.

Accordingly, we conclude that there was no necessity for Delgado to purchase a new index number and file anew in accordance with the provisions of CPLR 304 and 306-b.

Judges open up the election to the entire city – only between Delgado and Hockley

They judges expanded Judge Nicolai’s remedy :

“The Supreme Court (represented by Judge Nicolai), however, should have directed a new citywide election, instead of a continued election in the 18th Election District only, between Hockley and Delgado for the third contested seat (see, matter of Doherty v. Machoney, 42 NY2d 1069). It also should have afforded sufficient time before the new election to enable the Board to provide proper notice to the voters pursuant to Election Law * 4-120(1), and to provide for the casting of absentee ballots. We therefore modify the order to direct that the new election be held on the earliest date deemed practicable by the Board (of Elections) taking into account these considerations.

The ruling goes on to state that “the matter must be remitted for entry of a judgment declaring the rights of the parties in accordance herewith,” and rejected Mr. Bradley’s other arguments as being “without merit.”

UPDATE:In new information brought to WPCNR’s attention by Adam Bradley, Mr. Hockley’s attorney, Mr. Bradley informed WPCNR that not only his arguments, but also Mr. Delgado’s Cross Appeal, and request that he, Delgado, be declared the winner was also rejected by the appeals court. He added that the majority decision also follows the Bradley/Hockley contention the election should be citywide, between the two candidates. Bradley said the sentence “The remaining contentions raised on the appeal and cross appeal are without merit,” denied the Delgado cross appeal and request to be declared the winner.

The Delgado View:

Larry Delgado, speaking with WPCNR Tuesday evening said, this means the two parties will return to Supreme Court, go before Judge Nicolai, and receive Nicolai’s instructions on how the election should be run.

It was said by Jeffrey Binder, another Delgado election attorney who prepared the case with John Ciampoli, that this means only the voters who voted in the November 6 election could vote in the new election, since the Appellate Court Justices did not address that issue, which was part of Judge Nicolai’s decision.

Appellatteers leave the details to Judge Nicolai

Delgado weighed in with the further opinion that the judges did not wish to involve themselves in the “day-to-day, nitty gritty” of the new election.

On the basis of this written decision, it appears that Nicolai’s originally call for an election with all six council candidates on the ballot has also been thrown out, because the Appellate decision species an election between Delgado and Hockley alone. This creates the spectacle of a mano-a-mano race developing over the next 45 days to 60 days. Delgado theorized it would take the Board of Elections at least that long to prepare to notify all who voted November 6 that they can vote again, a total of over 12,000 persons. Delgado blue-skying with WPCNR guessed the election could be held in early March.

Another city hall source told WPCNR that City Clerk Janice Minieri was going to have a job to do outfitting machines to cover all 46 Election Districts. Moreover, how many polling places there would be has yet to be determined.

These kinds of issues are to be determined by Judge Nicolai, according to the Appellate Court.

One Judge Dissents.

Judge Gabriel Krausman went by the book. He passionately demurred with his Appellatte colleagues. He wrote a three page “dissent” (longer than the majority opinion). He strongly supports the Adam Bradley contention that the Delgado faux pas of failing to obtain and purchase a second index number was grounds for granting the Bradley-Hockley appeal that the Delgado petition should be dismissed and Hockley declared the winner.

Krausman cited several cases where the Court of Appeals, Glen Hockley’s next and final stop in fighting a new election, threw out cases on this very technicality. We turn now to the Judge’s writing:

I believe that Delgado’s failure to comply with statutory filing and service provisions require us to dismiss his second proceeding. Furthermore, I disagree with my colleagues’ position that dismissal can be avoided by either treating the second order to show cause and petition as a motion for further relief in the first proceeding, or by amending the petition in the first proceeding to include the additional claims contained in the second petition. Accordingly, I would reverse the order appealed from upon the ground that the second proceeding was not properly commenced.

Cutting to the heart of Judge Krausman’s thinking, he points out his colleagues’ recount of the sequence of events is correct, but highlights the case of Gershel v. Porr, which found that under the filing system, ‘service of process without first paying the filing fee and filing the initiatory papers is a nullity, the action or proceeding never having been properly commenced.’

Court of Appeals agrees.

Krausman writes the Court of Appeals upheld the matter of Gershel v. Porr in dismissal on these very grounds of filing protocol:

The Court of Appeals observed that ‘by withdrawing the order to show cause rather than obtaining from the court a new return date and date by which service would be made of the filed order to show cause and petition, petitioner made the decision to start anew. Along with this decision came the obligation again to comply fully with the statutory filing requirements, that is, to file the notice of petition and the petition, pay the filing fee, secure an index number, effect service, and file proof of service within the prescribed period.’ The Court of Appeals found that the petitioner’s failure to properly comply with these filing requirements was a fatal jurisdictional defect.

Justice Krausman writes on to describe three more cases where “the failure to properly file the initiatory papers in an Election Law proceeding, or effecting service, prior to filing, renders the proceeding jurisdictionally defective.” He refers Connolly v. Chenot, Kurtzberg v Mastroianno and Carnese v. Ferraro.

Dissenting judge finds flaw. Says first petition completed. Second not a clear-cut continuation.

The demurring deliberator writes:

“…the majority reasons that Delgado can be saved from the unfortunate consequences of his failure to comply with CPLR 304 by deeming the second order to show cause and petition to be merely a continuation of the first proceeding, rather than a second distinct proceeding. The flaw in this rationale is that Delgado’s first petition sought only the limited relief of impoundment of voting machines and ballots, in order to ensure the integrity of the voting process. The respondent candidates consented to the relief requested in the first petition, and no other issues remained outstanding once the impoundment order had been carried out.

“In contrast, Delgado’s second petition sought additional relief not contemplated in the first proceeding, including a review of the canvass and recanvassing of votes, with particular scrutiny of the voting machine in the 18th district which may have malfunctioned. Along with Delgado’s decision to request this additional relief, and seek either adjustment of the canvass of votes or a new election, came ‘the obligation again to comply fully with the statutory filing requirements’, including paying the filing fee and securing and index number. (Gershel v. Porr).

The minority opinion concludes dismissing the majority’s clinging to the additional claims in Delgado’s second petition:

“According to the majority, we may grant this relief to Delgado because his second petition contains two paragraphs requesting leave to amend the pleading, as well as a general prayer for ‘such other, further, and different relief as this court may find to be just and proper’. This position does not withstand scrutiny. First of all, the two paragraphs in the second petition which contain requests to amend the pleading clearly do not refer to the petition in the impoundment proceeding. Rather these two paragraphs…state that the petitioner ‘requests leave to, and reserves the right to submit further proofs by way of witnesses *** and *** evidence upon the date set by this court for the trial and hearing of this matter, and to amend these pleadings to reflect the facts adduced by way of further investigation and/or a canvass of the ballots.’ This language cannot be fairly interpreted as a request to amend Delgado’s first petition.

Krausman ties up the loose ends

The Justice strictly interprets the statutes, too, contending that,

“the broad prayer for such other relief as may be just and proper, which is contained in the second petition, does not provide us with the authority to revive the impoundment proceeding, which was no longer pending when the second order to show cause and petition were purportedly filed. Logic dictates that a complaint or petition which is no longer extant cannot be amended (Hummingbird Assoc. v. Dix Auto Serv., Louden v. Rockefeller Ctr.) Morover, CPLR 3025(c), which authorizes the court to freely grant leave to amend a pleading ‘upon such terms as may be just’, cannot be used as a device to circumvent a dismissal of a prior action (cites case), or the filing requirements of CPLR 304. While dismissal may be considered a harsh result in this case, it is mandated by statute, and may not be circumvented by expanding the petition in the completed impoundment beyond its intended scope.”

Posted in Uncategorized

FLASH! Appellate Court Issues Ruling on Hockley-Delgado.

Special to WPCNR: The Appellate Court in Brooklyn issued its ruling in the Glen Hockley appeal of Judge Francis Nicolai’s decision on Hockley/Delgado inconclusive election early Tuesday evening.
John Ciampoli, one of former councilman Larry Delgado’s attorneys, reports to WPCNR this evening that the court has upheld Mr. Delgado’s challenge.

The attorney reports the judges have ruled a new election be held between Mr. Delgado and Glen Hockley, with the stipulation that the election be held citywide in every election district,(not just District 18), between the two contenders.

The Appellate Court in Brooklyn ruled in favor of a new election between Mr. Delgado and Mr. Hockley Tuesday, calling for a citywide election between the two. Details will be issued as they become available.PHOTO BY WPCNR.

Ciampoli, speaking to WPCNR by telephone at 7:15 PM Tuesday evening, called it a “big win for the voters, and a big win for Larry Delgado.” The “Voter’s Voice,” said that the court “tinkered” with Judge Francis Nicolai’s decision by extending it beyond District 18 to a citywide canvas.

Ciampoli also reports the 4-judge panel ruled that the Board of Elections can set the date of the new election.

It is not known at this time whether Mr. Hockley will appeal Tuesday’s Appellate Court decision to the New York State Court of Appeals in Albany — the next step.

Delgado: “The Court believes in Justice!”

Larry Delgado, in an exclusive interview with WPCNR Tuesday evening said, “I’m very gratified the courts believe in justice, and not in striking down a result on a technicality. I didn’t know when it would come, but I’m very pleased with the result. Now, it goes back to Judge Nicolai (Francis — writer of the original decision), for the grounds rules to be set.”

Delgado sees a 45-day window. Election possible for early March.

Asked to speculate on what comes next, former Councilman Delgado, just off the phone with his attorney Jeffrey Binder said, he felt that it would take the Board of Elections approximately 45 days to ready voting machines in all 46 White Plains Election Districts, but the actual date of the election will be set by Judge Nicolai. Delgado speculated the election might be held in early March based on that 45-day timetable.

Delgado added the Appellate Court did not want to be involved in the “day-to-day” procedural of setting the election and that the case would be sent back to Judge Nicolai who would call in both parties and the Board of Elections to “lay out the ground rules” procedure from here.

Delgado said he was holding a news conference at 12:30 PM Wednesday afternoon to discuss the decision and launch his campaign, “I’m going to get my sleigh and go door-to-door and ring bells.”

Delgado said the Appellate Court decision meant that “every vote counts, and that’s a real win.”
Possibility of Appeal?

Mr. Delgado when asked if he expected Glen Hockley to appeal the Appellate Court decision, said yes, but pointed out that he did not think, given the trend of New York State to uphold the right to vote, that the Court of Appeals in Albany would take up the case.

Posted in Uncategorized

CNA Opens Doors – Schedules New York Presbyterian Hospital InfoForum.

Special to WPCNR:The White Plains Council of Neighborhood Associations voted at its regular monthly meeting last week to open its monthly meetings to all residents of White Plains neighborhoods.

They have also arranged for executives of New York Prebyterian Hospital to present details of their biomedical complex proposal for Bryant Avenue to the public at Education House on January 23 at 7:45 PM. The meeting will be open to all, including the media.
Carl Barrera, of the Hillair Circle Association, newly elected CO-President of the Council for Neighborhood Associations; Jesse Crell of Colonial Corners, Ron Shakeridge of the Rosedale Residential Association, and John Bailey of the Haviland Manor Association, worked for the last year to make the Council more accessible to the community at large with the purpose of involving more White Plains residents.

Barrera told WPCNR the vote to open CNA meetings up to residents other than just delegates of the member associations (27 in all, 21 of which are active), was to achieve more “outreach,” to allow CNA to achieve “more focus” (in the community).”

Eight neighborhood associations voted to open the meetings, with 2 abstaining. Ten associations are required to be present under current bylaws for a quoram. The resolution which the associations voted on reads as follows:

Resolved, that regular meetings of the Representative Board be open to all members of the CAN’s constituent neighborhood associations, as well as to a limited number of invitees of association delegates, unless a meeting (or a portion of a meeting) is declared in advance to be an executive session limited to association delegates. The attendance of working journalists must be specifically approved in advance. Meeting discussions are limited to association delegates, unless the Chiar of a meeting recognizes other attendees.”

The Resolution allows the Council the right to limit non-delegate speakers, and to exclude the news media to allow more freedom of expression of views, while at the same time giving the right to attend to virtually all neighborhood residents of the city.

Open Meeting Policy in Effect for New York Presbyterian Hospital Special Meeting January 23

The effect of the new policy will be tested in its ability to draw new participants in the Council on January 23, the date on which the CNA leadership has invited representatives from New York Presbyterian Hospital to present details of their biomedical complex proposal for the Bryant Avenue end of their campus, now before the Common Council in public hearings.

Marc Pollitzer, of the North Street Civic Association, characterized the January 23 Hospital meeting as being a Special Meeting to present to CNA delegates, association officers and association boards of directors their proposal and to review highlights of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

This past August, a similar information forum held by the Council of Neighborhood Associations which invited Louis Cappelli to present his City Center proposal, attracted a larger crowd than CNA usually draws. It was credited by many observers with having changed peoples’ minds about the height of his proposed apartment towers and their effects on the downtown.

Posted in Uncategorized

New Taxi Rate Chart:Taxi Commission Releases New Hack Rates Effective Feb

Special to WPCNR: The Taxi Commission has officially issued a new chart showing the new configuration of White Plains taxi fare zones 1 through 8. The Commission now imposes a 50 cent surcharge on radio dispatched calls, a 75 cent charge for each extra fare in a cab, with the first fare paying the full fare. The New Fare Chart and a Map of the 8 Zones and boundaries appear in the following portfolio:

A 50 cent surcharge is placed on calls for a cab from any location within the zones. PHOTO BY WPCNR.

Zones 2,3,4 comprise the Central Business District that account for 50% of all cab fares.
Arrow points to Railroad Station (TransCenter) in Zone 3.

Zone 5 has been truncated to begin at Bryant Avenue, providing relief for drivers summoned from railroad station to south of Bryant Avenue. PHOTO BY WPCNR.

Posted in Uncategorized

Wanted: Candidates for the Board of Education Open 2 Seats!

Special to WPCNR: White Plains residents interested in running for positions on the Board of Education next May, can pick up Information Packets at Education House this week explaining the procedures to get on the ballot. Each potential candidate has to have petitions in by May 1. The election is Tuesday, May 21, 2002.
According to an official news release from Michelle Schoenfeld, Clerk to the Board of Education, the Annual White Plains Board of Eduction Budget Vote and Election of Board Members will take place on Tuesday, May 21. This is a date one week later than listed on the 2001-2002 school calendar.

Petitions for candidates require 100 signatures of 100 qualified voters in order for candidates to appear on the ballot. If you are a resident of White Plains for at least one year, and a United States Citizen you are eligible to run.

Registration for new residents eligible to vote: April 27

If you have moved to White Plains recently, and are eligble to vote and not registered with the Westchester County Board of Elections, you may register on Saturday, April 27, 12 noon to 5 PM at Mamaroneck Avenue School, Nosband Avenue. If you’ve moved within the city, you may also change your address at that time.

Posted in Uncategorized

In-Person Little League Registration a Hit! Next Saturday Last Day to Register.

They lined up as early as 8:15 AM Saturday morning and kept streaming into the Ridgeway School Cafeteria all Saturday morning and afternoon. White Plains parents from all walks of life and many players new to the league for the first time signed up for the 2002 Little League Season in the first in-person registration Day in WPLL history. There is only ONE more day to register, and that is next Saturday, January 19 at Ridgeway School from 9 AM to 3 PM.
Over 600 boys and girls were signed up by their parents in Saturday’s first Registration Day, an average of 100 an hour, and parents interviewed by this reporter said they were pleased with the organization of the process and the ability to get key player questions answered from league volunteers conducting the Registration process.

The steady pace of the sign-ups was gratifying, as the league did know what to expect. The first day signups Saturday put the league a month ahead of last year’s sign-up pace.

Rich Massaroni, League President Congratulates Volunteers

In a statement to WPLL volunteers, Massaroni expessed optimism about the first day sign-ups,

“The in-person registration this past Saturday was an overwhelming success. We had approximately 640 players register of which approximately 125 were new players to WPLL. This is approximately 56% of the overall total registered last year. That’s an excellent turnout for the first day of registration.”

Massaroni praised League Secretary, Billy Wooters for computer coordinating and devising the registration plan: “With the exception of 2 or 3 parents who complained, the feedback we received indicated that WPLL was well organized and the registration itself was very easy and painless. What amazed me is that we had 20-30 people lined up at 8:30 – 8:45 AM ready to register. That’s pretty awesome.”

Massaroni writes that the key to the first-day success of registration was the pre-filled-out forms ready and waiting for parents by name when they arrived:

“Special thanks to Billy Wooters who coordinated this entire effort. By having the “pre-printed” registration forms for the people when they walked in, made it very easy for them (less than 5-10 minutes) to register their children. The flow of people working their way through the registration process worked quite well. I would also like to thank everyone who volunteered their time on this effort, both prior to coordinating, as well as being there on registration day to assist,” Massaroni wrote.

Registration continues for only one more day, this coming Saturday

Parents whose children had played previously were able to acquire pre-filled registrations, correct any information that had changed, and be out in 15 to 20 minutes. Parents signing up new players were able to get policy and age questions answered authoritatively, by the 15 Little League officials conducting the big sign-up.

Parents received free Little League magnets, policy papers, and information on how to keep up with the league on the White Plains Little League website,

The big sign-up continues Saturday, 9 AM to 3 PM at Ridgeway School Cafeteria

Registration for the 2002 Little League Season continue for a second day, and one day only,. beginning next Saturday morning at Ridgeway School Cafeteria at 9 AM to 3 PM.

The cost for the season to White Plains boys and girls 5 to 15 is $65, $150, for a family of 3 players.

Parents and guardians not signing their children up next Saturday, run the risk of their children not being able to play Little League this year.

Posted in Uncategorized

Bill Colavito, High School Principal Interviewed on White Plains Week

Alex Philippidis of Westchester County Business Journal, James Benerofe of, and yours truly, The White Plains CitizeNetReporter interview the retiring Principal of White Plains High School Monday evening at 7 PM on Public Access Channel 71.
William Colavito, who ran schools in New York City for 28 years before taking over the Principal position of WPHS 6 years ago, talks about the present atmosphere at the high school, comments on the effects state tests are having on our students, and delivers his candid commentary on what kind of principal WPHS should be looking for to replace him.

Colavito comments on the biggest problems facing adolescents today in the White Plains schools.

The program was taped last Friday and will air twice this week on Cable Access 71, 7 PM on Monday, and 7:30 PM on Friday.

Posted in Uncategorized


Special to WPCNR:January 26th is going to start “big” and will close even “bigger.”From 6:00 PM on to about 10:00 PM, Journey Arts Music Society (J.A.M.S.) will present two bands that are certain to scintillate your musical senses, at the Westchester Arts Council on Mamaroneck Avenue.

The Westchester County Youth Jazz Combo, comprised of
seven emerging performers between the ages of fourteen
to fifteen will recreate the passion and zeal we so
appreciate in young performers. Their repertoire will
scan a diverse musical arena ranging from jazz to Big
Band, blues to Dixieland.

The Westchester County Youth Jazz Combo is an offshoot
of the Big Band to which they are part. They formed
only a few months ago under Music Director, Scott
Castle and Ensemble Coordinator, Joseph Jacoby.

Tenor saxophonists Brian Sheridan and Robert Jacoby,
accompany Skyler Roswell on Trombone, Eric Sherman on
Trumpet, Paulo Farqui on Bass, Sam Sherman on Drums
and Keji Ishiguri on Piano/Keyboard.

Too talented to stay at home to the delight of their parents and
relatives, these young men and one woman demand to be
heard by a wider audience. And so they shall. Thanks
Moms and Dads!

2, that’s right — 2 bands for the price of 1!

The “big” sound of the Westchester County Youth Jazz Combo is followed to the stage by JUMP-START Big Band. They were created because of the belief that that there is an appreciative audience out there that yearns for the great songs of the big bands that rocked the dance halls in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s.

With this desire and determination, the Jump-Start Big Band formed less than three years ago, but the dream started with four sax players more than four years ago.

They diligently practiced in a hot, top floor music room at the home of one of the musicians. Sound familiar? As the big band resurgence took hold, more talented musicians came out of the proverbial woodwork to create the big sounding group that delights audiences today.

They now rehearse in a large, modern auditorium. On January 26th, they will perform at the new home of the Westchester Arts Council located at 31 Mamaroneck Avenue, in White Plains, NY.

Turn back the hands of time for just one night!

A big band is only as good as its charts and musicians. The JUMP-START Big Band charts are the original versions of the greats of the era: Harry James’ SLEEPY LAGOON, Artie Shaw’s BEGIN THE BEGUINE, Glen Miller’s IN THE MOOD and hundreds MORE!! The
Jump-Start BIG BAND musicians have played on Broadway, in Las Vegas, on Channel 13 and cable television, at Carnegie Hall, and at nightclubs around the country.

The JUMP-START Big Band has top-notch musicians, the best charts, and a great love and respect for the music of the big band era. Join the fun. Dance the night away to the accompaniment of the JUMP-START Big Band.

To delight your other senses, Greyston Bakery cakes will be served with coffee, tea, bottled water and soda. Free coffee refills encouraged.
Journey Arts Music Society (J.A.M.S.), founded by Donovan Guy, is located at 31 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 707, in White Plains, NY, 10601. For more information, please contact (914) 671-2985 or e-mail
Journey Arts Music Society . Ticket prices are $20 in advance, $25 at the door.

Posted in Uncategorized

Wanted: Charismatic Academic Magician Who Cares-Parents on Superintendent Search

Dr. John Whritner and Dr. Deborah Raizes met with 20 persons Thursday evening at White Plains High School to receive community input on the strengths of the school district, issues facing the school community, and the skills they would like to see in a new Superintendent of Schools. Another Forum gets under way Friday morning at 10 AM at Education House.
Thursday evening was the first of four public forums in which the two consultants from Hazard Young Attia hope to create a profile of the kind of superintendent of schools White Plains needs, based on residents’ input.

Good “hunting” time. District turmoil no problem.

Whritner explained under questioning from the audience that the search was beginning at what he described as the prime “hunting” season for superintendents looking to leave.

He advised the gathering the current estrangement between the Board of Education and the community over the Saul Yanofsky dismissal would not be a problem. He said superintendents looking to leave are most likely having problems with their own Board of Education. “They understand Board dynamics,” he said.

Whritner is a tall rangy confidence-inspiring gentlemen, who, with his partner, Deborah Raizes, a dynamo of a search consultant who has placed 30 superintendents in just 4 years with Hazard, Young Attia, conducted an orderly give-and-take that drew out the residents to share their fears, concerns and wishes for a new “super” superintendent.

The Search Is On.

Whritner said an advertisement had already been placed in Education Week, and that candidates would be contacted discreetly through the Hazard Young Attia “search network.”

The text of the advertisement just out in Education Week and on the Education Week job availabilities website reads,

Superintendent, White Plains, NY


White Plains Public Schools

White Plains, NY

Located in Westchester County, the White Plains Public Schools have a long history of impressive accomplishments. The diverse student body of 6,700 is served by a Pre-K program, five elementary schools, a middle school with two campuses and one high school. The District has a large industrial and commercial base. The parents and community members insist on high academic achievement for all students.

Screening begins early March.
Hazard, Young, Attea & Assoc., Ltd.
1151 Waukegan Road • Glenview, IL 60025
Tel: 847-724-8465 • Fax: 847-724-8467
An Equal Opportunity Employer

District may have to go to $200,000 Salary Level

Dr. Whritner said that the district was highly desirable and indicated that the tri-state area considers $200,000 a year as the new standard for attracting topflight candidates for a prime position. He feels this will be a factor in attracting candidates, considering the demand for experienced superintendents of schools.

Hazard, Young Advises Review of Candidates be Private Up to Time the Finalist is Selected.

One parent asked if a handful of finalists could be presented to a committee of citizens under a guarantee of confidentiality. Whritner said it has been his experience confidentiality is hard to maintain.

He and Dr. Raizes said actual candidates most likely would not be introduced to the community until the Board of Education had reached a tentative agreement with a finalist agreed in principle to take the position. At that time he or she would be introduced, Whritner suggested.

This discreet search policy is the recommendation of HYA, and not that of the White Plains Board of Education. It is Hazard Young’s advice to conduct the search with as much privacy as possible to appeal to the most desirable candidates.

Whritner told WPCNR, “Though the Board wanted to be as open as possible, it is our advice to handle it this way (discreetly).”

Standard practice in the business.

Dr. Raizes said that the private search is more than ever the practice these days, due to the shortage of qualified superintendents and principals. She said that damage is done in a candidate’s current district when superintendents are discovered searching for a position while they still have their present placement.

Raizes recalled a search where one of the finalists was made public, and she said he did not get the job: “It has taken him a year and a half to rebuild his relationship with his district,” she said.

Whritner assured WPCNR that the White Plains Board of Education would not sign a contract without introducing the finalist to the community.

Residents expressed very little references to Dr. Saul Yanofsky, the Superintendent of Schools who has just five months and three weeks to go on his contract.

Concerns voiced by parents centered equally on three areas:

1.)The need for the new superintendent who can “sell” the district to both upscale universities, real estate students and young residents to rebuild the reputation of the White Plains schools.

Several parents said the district had been damaged by negative publicity generated by Westchester Magazine and the messy Yanofsky dismissal. Two worried that trends in college admissions did not favor White Plains, and spoke of the perceived “flight” from the district by parents with elementary children.

Several residents supported this view, while two longtime residents of the city pointed out that the same fears of “flight” were being expressed “40 years ago” when their children were going to school in the district.

2.) The need for the superintendent to be a strong academic. One person said they wanted a person with the experience of both teaching and supervising in elementary, middle and high school environments. Another suggested the ability to introduce innovative programs to strengthen the elementary schools more that was strongly endorsed. Another parent urged changing elementary schools so all offered the same programs.

3.) The need for the superintendent to care about parents and children in the district and be able to inspire and motivate supervisors and teachers.

Strengths of the district were touted as strong parent involvement, music and the arts program, dedicated teachers.

Looking to Interview about 15 candidates

Raizes told WPCNR that she expected to be interviewing approximately 10 to 15 candidates, depending on HY & A network contacts and responses from the national advertising which started this week in “Education Week.”

She expected to conduct two hour interviews with each, and Whritner said from these six they hoped to present six finalists to the Board in March. This would be narrowed to finalists by April, Whritner said, with a hire decision slated for early May before Board of Education elections. There are no candidates as of today,Whritner said, and no applications from present employees of the School District.

Second Forum Takes Place at Ed House this morning at 10 AM

Dr. Whritner and Dr. Raizes will conduct another listening and learning forum this morning at Education House at 10 AM at 5 Homeside Lane.

The third forum will be Sunday at 12:30 at St. Bernards Church, Chapel Hall, and the final opportunity to tell the two consultants your take on the issues will be Wednesday at 7 PM at Bethel Baptist Church, North Street and Bryant Avenue.

Community leaders and officers of city groups will have an opportunity to give their opinions at 2 PM Wednesday at Education House.

Profile to be Presented January 29 at Education House

Whritner advised that the final profile based on the information they receive by mail and in-person at the forums will be presented to the Board of Education on Tuesday evening, January 29 at Education House at 8 PM.

Crowd of 20 Dissappoints attendees One parent said they were upset that only twenty persons had shown up for the evening meeting when over 100 persons had turned out for the December board of Education meeting to protest.

Dr. Whritner said that attendance of around 20 was “normal” for these kind of meetings in his experience.

The meeting was calm. No rancor was demonstrated by any speakers in sharp contrast to meetings in November and December when over 100 persons showed up at each alternately haranguing and criticizing the school board over the Yanofsky departure.

Posted in Uncategorized

Short Council Passes Taxi Increases, BID Assessment, Sloan, Bar Part

The “short” Common Council met Wednesday at 8 AM to hold a second vote on the ordinances they heard Wednesday evening, passing them all, including a taxi increase, and a new ceiling on the BID Assessment (hiking the BID budget to $500,000).

The 10-month controversy over adding a patio bar at the back of the Thirsty Turtle and Kelly’s Pub establishments, broke down just when the Council thought they were about to approve the patio permit.
As detailed in WPCNR Tuesday, the Common Council reconvened to hear and pass the ordinances they heard for the first time Monday evening. William King, Benjamin Boykin, Rita Malmud and Tom Roach were on hand with Mayor Delfino promptly at 8 AM to do a few minutes business so they thought.

They passed the ordinances, including a taxi cab fare increase.

Pending official notice from Taxi Commission Director, Daniel Hickey (the same Daniel Hickey who is Acting Commissioner of Public Safety), WPCNR reports that the increase and changes in fares agreed to by the Council at last month’s work session were:

1.A $1.00 surcharge for exclusive use of a cab.

2. A 50-cent surcharge on dispatched calls. (Where cabbie is dispatched to one point to go to another point in the city.)

3. He is shrinking Zone 3 so that it stops at Maple Avenue, rather than Bryant Avenue as it does now.

Zone 4 would be extended North to Maple Avenue and Bloomingdale Road to the new supermarket (Stop N Shop). This Hickey feels will provide cabbies with more revenue on trips out to The Westchester and Westchester Avenue. This, Hickey says, is to counter cabbie complaints that trips to Zone 4 take longer because of the heavier traffic in the Central Business District (Zone 3).

4. Flat fees would be increased 50 cents a trip in Zones 2,3, and 4. (From the Trans Center to Bryant Avenue, which comprise 50% of all cab calls.)

5. Flat fees would be raised 25 cents a trip in Zones 1,5,6, and 7. (Zone 1 is the North Broadway Woodcrest Heights area; Zone 5, South of Ridgeway to Sammis Lane; Zone 7, South of Sammis Lane.)

6. He is calling for a $10 Safety Inspection Fee twice a year. (Currently there is no fee.) Police inspect the cabs in June and December.

There is no word yet from the Taxi Commissioner on when the fare increase would take effect, though February 1st would be a likely date.

The council also agreed to raise the White Plains Downtown Business Improvement District assessment allowance (the BID budget) to rise to $500,000, though on an “as-needed” basis.

Tri-Kelly/Thristy Turtle and Sloan-Bar owner negotiations over parking and patio bar break down.

The council was also prepared to grant the Thirsty Turtle and its sister establishment on East Post Road a terrace bar for 52 more patrons. However, the council encountered a breakdown in negotiations at the last moment. Tri-Kelly’s Pub/Thirsty Turtle, and
Stephen Sloan, the owner of the Sloan-Bar Building across the street, could not come to agreement on Sloan-Bar parking lot usage by the patrons of the two bars, over the question of liability.

In thirty minutes of trading charges, it became apparent to the Council that the two parties were very apart. The council, after executive session with their corporation Counsel, Edward Dunphy, decided they could not vote the approval of the Turtle patio bar until the two parties settled their differences.

The Council tabled the issue until the work session of January 24. We learned the ability to establish a patio bar would go with the property in perpetuity.

Steve Sloan said he could not agree to any use of his parking lot unless Mike Kelly, the owner of TriKelly’s and the Thirsty Turtle agreed to insuring Mr. Sloan against any liability for incidents occuring on the Sloan Bar parking lot. Kelly’s is negotiating to use the Sloan Bar lot for its patrons, who have allegedly been using the lot illegally, leaving assorted bottles and trash.

Past Experience Haunts Sloan

Sloan told WPCNR he had lost $65,000 in legal fees a number of years ago when after buying a marina, he was sued as the result of a boat accident that took place under previous ownership. To defend himself he had to pay the legal fees during the course of that suit involving the other company.

Sloan said he was very concerned about the possibility of bar patron incidents happening in his parking lot, involving him in liability, and until Kelly agreed to cover him for any liability by putting him on Kelly’s policy, the agreement was off.

Posted in Uncategorized