Man, Charged Last Week with Robbery, Arrested for Attempted Rape.

Hits: 0

WPCNR POLICE GAZETTE. October 6, 2006  UPDATED October 7, 2006 12 Noon E.D.T.: White Plains Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety  Daniel Jackson reports a 34 year old woman was attacked Thursday evening at approximately 11 P.M. while walking her dog on Old Mamaroneck Road. Police apprehended the same White Plains man who was charged for the robbery of a resident of 90 Bryant Avenue last week, and charged him in connection with the attempted sexual assault.


The official police statement from Commisioner Jackson: “Last night we arrested Elvis Mckenzie, a 20 year old from 115 Old Mamaroneck Rd. for attempted rape, assault, and sex abuse, for an incident that occurred on Old Mamaroneck Rd. at around 2250hrs. The incident occurred as a 34 year old woman was walking her dog on Old Mamaroneck Rd. She received minor injuries in the attack and the suspect was arrested at his Old Mamaroneck Rd. residence.



Mckenzie was also arrested on 9/29 for the robbery at 90 Bryant Ave. of another White Plains resident. He has been arraigned and remanded to the custody of the county jail. Both cases are now in the hands of the courts.”


Deputy Commissioner Jackson reports Saturday: “Mckenzie is currently being held at the county jail. We will certainly monitor his status due to his alleged connection to these serious incidents.”


Jackson said he could not comment on bail decisions of the court made in regard to the previous arrest.



Posted in Uncategorized

New York Hospital Refuses Comment on Council Tabling of the MOU

Hits: 0

WPCNR EAST SIDE STORY. October 5, 2006: A spokesperson for New York Presbyterian Hospital declined comment on a series of questions WPCNR posed to them after the Common Council voted to table the Memorandum of Understanding that, if approved will pave the way for a subdivsion of at least 125 homes on 60 acres of NYPH property lying adjacent to Bryant Avenue.


WPCNR asked  Willa Brody of the NYPH Community Affairs, why if the hospital was so inclined to provide a park for the city that they would not give the 5.5 acres to the city outright, with no compensation as a good will gesture, leaving the rest of the 60 acres available to build the proton accelerator/biotech facility.


WPCNR asked  if the hospital had no plans to build housing on the 60 acres, why they would require “payment” of 11 additional homes to put into any apparently mythical subdivision instead of a cash payment of approximately $10 Million.


WPCNR asked what plans the hospital had for developing the rest of the property (the north side of the property) other than the 65 acres covered by the Memorandum of Understanding?


WPCNR asked in the Proton Accelerator Proposal/Biomedical facility was dead, considering that the hospital was reported eager to agree to the Memorandum of Understanding.


Ms. Brody declined comment on behalf of the hospital thusly, issueing this statement: Received your questions, but we have no response at this time. This is the Mayor’s proposal and at this point the matter lies with the Council.


However, when Mayor Delfino first presented the proposal he described it as a agreement he had worked out with the CEO of New York Presbyterian Hospital, Dr. Herbert Pardes, over the course of a year, indicating it had been a mutual plan.

Posted in Uncategorized

Details on the City/Armory Plaza Senior CenterLease Made Public.

Hits: 0

WPCNR FOR THE RECORD. By John F. Bailey. October 5, 2006: The details of the new lease approved Tuesday evening by the Common Council contracting the city to rent the Senior Center from Armory Plaza Preservation Housing Development Fund, Inc. (a newly formed subsidiary of the present owners of the property, Related  Apartment Preservation of Manhattan) for the next twenty years with an option for thirty were made public in the City Clerk Office today.


The city, as reported by WPCNR previously will pay $264,000 a year  (up from $126,000 the city has been paying the last twenty years annually), for ten years to rent the the senior center. After 10 years there will be a 2% increase in year 11 (to $269,280) running through year 20, or to year 30 if the 10 year extension is agreed upon. The document dated August 30, 2006, was not included in the back-up material provided the media Monday October 2.


The document describes the increase as follows: “The recommended rent for the new lease brings the rent on the leased premises to market rate…” and notes “Although this represents an initial significant increase in the (city’s) rent for the leased premises, this increased rent is necessary to preserve the low income senior citizen housing on the premises and represents the first increase in 20 years.”


The city was told by Related Preservation Companies in August that a recent Housing and Urban Development survey had determined that Related Preservation had been charging too much for the senior apartments and told the company to reduce their rents. The reduction as reported by Andrew Glantz, press spokesperson for HUD’s Manhattan office told WPCNR


What has happened as stated in the work session when this lease was discussed is that Related Apartment Preservation has been charging rents over and above guidelines HUD has established and the Housing and Urban Development department has told Related Apartment Preservation to reduce their rents which the company did.  Related Apartment Preservation asked the city to make up the rent loss difference dictated by HUD surveys of typical rents,  in the September work session.


HUD Explains: Rents too High.


Andrew Glantz, spokesman for HUD of Manhattan,  told WPCNR last week that Related Apartment Preservation had been charging $1,087 a month for its 13 efficiences (of which the elderly tenants pay one-third), and HUD demanded Related lower that rent to $925. Glantz said the average decrease was $146 a month, which cost Related Apartment Preservation $1,898 a month in rent or $22,776 a year.


Glantz reported to WPCNR that of the 39 one-bedrooms, Related Apartment Preservation had been charging an average $1,306 a month, and HUD has forced Related to lower that rent to $1,215, a decrease of $91 a month. That works out to $3,549 a month in rent shortfall or $42,588 a year.  The total rental shortfall, according to the figures Glantz supplied on the individual apartments totals $65,364. The city had been paying Related $125,000 a year for rent on the senior citizen center in the Armory. Related wanted the city to up that rent and also take care of a portion of the rent loss demanded by HUD.


 

Posted in Uncategorized

Police on the Greenridge Gun Accident. Victim I-D’d; Capt. Lundin Retires

Hits: 0

WPCNR POLICE GAZETTE. From White Plains Department of Public Safety and WPCNR. October 4, 2006, 4:30 P.M. E.D.T.: Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety, Daniel Jackson moments ago issued this statement to WPCNR on the Tuesday afternoon shooting at 74 Greenridge Avenue, the reported retirement of Captain Paul Lundin (previously head of the Central Business District Neighborhood District, and the unsolved Ferris Avenue shooting of September 11:



Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety Daniel Jackson on the Greenridge Incident, the Ferris Avenue stabbing and the departure of Captain Paul Lundin. Photo,WPCNR News Archive.



Yesterday afternoon at around 5 PM we responded to 74 Greenridge to a reported robbery/shooting that had allegedly occurred around the corner on Linda Ave. Due to inconsistencies in the robbery story, it was determined to be a false report. The victim, 22 year old Carlton Brown, had suffered a gunshot wound to the shoulder and his girlfriend Elena Sannella was on scene as well but, it was determined that the incident had occurred inside 74 Greenridge. Investigation revealed that Ms. Sannella had shot her boyfriend inside the house while he was showing her the gun. The gun was an illegally possessed 22 caliber handgun which has been recovered.



Mr. Brown was still at the Westchester Medical Center last night being treated. The wound was not life threatening.



Ms. Sannella has been charged with Assault 2, Reckless Endangerment, Criminal Possession of a weapon, and Falsely Reporting an incident. It is expected that Mr. Brown will be charged as well upon release from the hospital. 



She will be arraigned in White Plains City Court today.


 (WPCNR notes from independently gathered information from sources, that the young woman is a student of White Plains High School and was engaged to Mr. Brown. Persons who know the couple said the incident was not the result of a quarrel or dispute or any violent interchange.)


On the Lundin matter:



Captain (Paul) Lundin has announced his retirement. We will be adjusting personnel to compensate for his absence. Lt. Christopher will be handling the CBD at this time.


On the Ferris Avenue shooting:


‘
The investigation is continuing in the Ferris Avenue case. The victim is reluctant, as are the witnesses.

Posted in Uncategorized

Motorcyclists Injured in Accident on Cent Westchester Parkway.

Hits: 0

WPCNR POLICE GAZETTE. October 4, 2006: White Plains Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety, Daniel Jackson said today that two motorcyclists collided into the back of a stuck truck which had wedged itself under the footbridge crossing southbound on the Central Westchester Parkway at about noon today. The two cyclists were injured and hospitalized. One of the cyclists from Port Chester, Jackson said was “in bad shape.” Presently G.W. Parkway southbound is closed, Jackson said police expected to have it open by evening.

Posted in Uncategorized

Proposed Timetable for NYPH Subdivision.

Hits: 0

WPCNR FOR THE RECORD. October 4, 2006: In the Common Council backup material supplied with the Memorandum of Understanding, there is an Exhibit B which is a timeline by which, if the Council and the Mayor can work out differences over questions on the Memorandum of Understanding expect to approve the city-originated subdivision acquiring 5.5 acres of park. 


The schedule is ambitious expecting, if the Mayor and council reach agreement by the end of October or the first week in November, the subdivision can be approved by the Planning Board by August 1. Here is the schedule:


EXHIBIT B
CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION TIMELINE


October (If MOU approved in October, first month of timeline starts in November when NYPH gives City permission to proceed with application to Planning Board after up to 45 day review and comment period by NYPH, as set forth in Section 1 of the MOU)


Week 1


a. Common Council authorizes Mayor to execute MOU, Mayor executes
MOU


b. NYPH approves and executes MOU


c. NYPH directs preparation of site survey for portion of property subject to
proposed Conservation Development.


d. Planning, DPW, Traffic, Law, Mayor’s Office, Public Safety, Planning
Board Secretary and Environmental Officer (together “City Staff’) meet to
lay out staff responsibilities and consultant responsibilities for
Conservation Development application process before Planning Board


e. City Staff prepare application to Planning Board for Conservation Development pursuant to Section 5.7 of the Zoning Ordinance


f. City Staff prepare Long Form Environmental Assessment Form


g. End of Week 1, City submits preliminary Conservation Development
application and Long Form Environmental Assessment Form to NYPH
pursuant to Section 1. of the MOU. NYPH has 45 days to review
application and provide comments. (45 days ends prior to next Planning
Board meeting) Timeline begins once application is approved to be
submitted to Planning Board


Week 1-2


a. Assuming NYPH executes MOU in Week 1 ,City staff and NYPH finalize
budget. Budget to be approved within 10 days of execution of MOU by
NYPH


b. Common Council approves budget and authorizes contracts with
consultants within 10 days of NYPH execution of MOU


Week 3-5


City staff and consultants continue to prepare information for environmental review of application


Month 1: November


Weeks 1-2


a. City Staff and consultants continue to develop information for
environmental review and prepare draft Scoping Outline


b. NKTH submits application to Common Council to amend Special Permit
to remove portion of property subject to the Conservation Development
application, subject to the approval of the Conservation Development and
final non-appealable approval


Week 3


a. At work session Conmion Council schedules public hearing on
amendment to NYPH Special Permit for Month 2 (December) Common
Council meeting


b. Planning Department submits the following to Planning Board and
affected neighborhood associations and DPW, Traffic, Public Safety, Law,
Environmental Officer, Conservation Board, and Design Review Board,
with copies to Common Council, pursuant to Section 5.7.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance:


(i) application to Planning Board for Informal Conservation Development Review under Section 5.7.4.1


(ii) Long Form EAF


(iii) Draft Scoping Outline


Week 4


At special meeting of the Planning Board, Commissioner of Planning makes presentation for Informal Conservation Development Review pursuant to Section 5.7.4.1 and presents Draft Scoping Outline. Planning Board responds to proposal for Conservation Development, declares itself Lead Agency for proposed Conservation Development and determines the proposed Conservation Development to be a Type I Action under SQER, directs submission of Preliminary Application pursuant to Section 5.7.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, directs preparation of a DEIS and schedules public scoping session for regular meeting in Month 2 (December)


Month 2: December



Week I


a. At its regular meeting the Common Council would take the following
actions:


1. Common Council, as an Involved Agency, would confirm the Planning Board as Lead Agency for the environmental review of the proposed Conservation Development on the NYPH property


2. Common Council would hold a public hearing on amending NYPH Special Permit for NYPH to remove the property subject to the Conservation Development from the NYPH Special Permit and amend the NYPH Master Plan, subject to the non- appealable approval of the Conservation Development; and would approve proposed amendment, all being made subject to the completion of the environmental review


b. City Staff and consultants continue to prepare information for DEIS


Week 3


Planning Board holds public scoping session and designates 10 day written comment period


Month 3: January



Weeks 1-2


City staff and consultants finalize Scoping Outline and submit to Planning Board and public, continue to work on information for DEIS


Week 3


Planning Board approves Scoping Outline


Week 4-5


City Staff and consultants continue work on DEIS


Month 4 February



Week 1-2


City and consultants complete DEIS and submit to Planning Board for completeness review; hold meeting with Planning Board to review completeness of DEIS


Week 3


a. At its regular meeting, Planning Board accepts DEIS for public review and
schedules two public hearing dates, one in early Month 5 and one at
regular Month 5 meeting


b. City Staff distribute DEIS


Week 4


Final Survey received from NYPH and DPW and consultants prepare survey specific plat


Month 5 March


Week 1 or 2


Planning Board holds special meeting for public hearing on DEIS and adjourns DEIS hearing to a second meeting in the month


Week 3


At second meeting, Planning Board continues hearing and closes hearing on DEIS. Depending on extent and substance of comments Planning Board directs preparation of an FEIS or directs preparation of Findings Statement/Negative Declaration


Week 4


City Staff and consultants work on FEIS


Month 6 April



Week 1 OR 2 


1. If FEIS required, City staff and consultants complete EElS and submit to
Planning Board and public for review.


2. If no FEIS required, City Staff submits Findings Statement/Negative
Declaration and Preliminary Conservation Development Approval
Resolution to Planning Board


Week 3


At Planning Board meeting, Planning Board does one of following:


1. If FF15 required, Planning Board accepts FEIS and gives 10 day review
period


2. If FEIS is not required, Planning Board receives Findings
Statement/Negative Declaration and Preliminary Conservation
Development Approval Resolution. Planning Board can act on the
Findings Statement/Negative Declaration and Preliminary Conservation
Development Approval Resolution that night or schedules a special
meeting to approve, and schedule a public hearing on Final Conservation
Development Approval for following month


Month 7 May


Week 1-2


If FEIS was accepted at last meeting, distribute Findings Statement and Preliminary Conservation Development Approval Resolution


Week 3


1. If FF15 was required, at its regular meeting, Planning Board adopts
Findings Statement and Preliminary Conservation Development Approval
Resolution and schedules public hearing on Final Conservation
Development Approval for following month


2. If FEIS was not required, Planning Board holds public hearing on Final
Approval

Month 8 June


Week 3


1. If FEIS was required, Planning Board holds public hearing on Final
Approval



2. If FEIS was not required, Plaiming Board closes public hearing on Final
Approval and grants Final Approval. Approval Process is complete.


Month 9 July


Week 3


If FEIS was required, Planning Board closes public hearing on Final Approval and grants Final Approval. Approval Process is complete

Posted in Uncategorized

Council Considers 6 Month Extension on Pin Affordables.

Hits: 0



WPCNR Common Council Chronicle-Examiner. October 4, 2006, UPDATED 2:20 P.M. E.D.T. with Financials: The Pinnacle, the Ginsburg Development Corporation 28-story luxury condominium housing, received a mixed blessing from the Council which voted to “refer out” a Pinnacle request for extension of time before The Pinnacle has to post a Guaranty Agreement and posting of financial security,  until April 2007. 


 


Councilperson Rita Malmud questioned Corporation Counsel Edward Dunphy closely on the council’s ability to enforce the “linkage” of the Pinnacle to the 221 Main Ritz-Carlton opening. Malmud has  realized that in view of The Pinnacle difficulty in getting financing together it will affect The Pinnacle ability to build the 52-unit affordable housing at 260 Main Street by fall 2007, when the Ritz-Carlton is scheduled to be occupied and require a Certificate of Occupancy.





Mr. Dunphy noted that the likelihood of the Pinnacle affordable housing being built by “late 2007” the time when 221 Main Street is targeted for completion and a certificate of occupancy, is unlikely. Ms. Malmud asked what would happen if The Pinnacle failed to cobble together its financing by next April (the deadline of the proposed six month extension). Dunphy said the responsibility for the Cappelli portion of the affordable units would revert back to Mr. Cappelli. Where Mr. Cappelli would build that housing was not conjectured by Mr. Dunphy.  Malmud said she would hope that Mr. Cappelli would commence immediately building his affordable housing share (24 units) immediately if The Pinnacle were to default, saying she would do everything in her power to withhold the certificate of occupancy from Mr. Cappelli until his “share” of the affordable housing was built.


 


Mr. Dunphy, in conciliatory tones, when Malmud asked about what recourse the council had to enforce the affordable housing Mr. Cappelli owes, be built, said the council recourse was that they could without certificates of occupancy from the second tower (now rising above ground level), as a means of enforcing the affordable housing piece.


 


The  Pinnacle is supposed to supply a Guaranty Agreement and posting of financial security on October 7. The council would need to extend the agreement shortly to avoid the responsibility for the affordables reverting back to Mr. Cappelli.


 


$16.3 Million and rising.


Cost per unit: $313,461


 


Documents supplied with the Common Council agenda place the cost of the 52 units of affordable housing to be $16.3 Million (with construction listed as being $12 Million of that total, and the balance in fees). The $16.3 price tag now with $20 Million in funding sources, shows that the cost to build each of the 52 units is $313,461 — comparable to the cost of building Louis Cappelli luxury apartments and condos.


 


 The Pinnacle reports as supplying $6,377,704 of its own equity, and is attempting to lineup financing from Restore New York Initiative ($1 Million) by December 31; HHAP Grant of $1.4 Million by December 31; $364,000 from Federal Home Loan Bank by January 2007, and $2 Million from Westchester County New Home Lands Acquisition fund by November 30, 2006. The documents state this sum of $4.7 Million in grants would be on top of Pinnacle’s $6.4 Million of equity. A White Plains Urban Renewal Agency “bond issue” of $8-9 Million is expected to finance the rest of the project.  (The White Plains URA is only listed in the documents as supplying $4M in funds through bonds, but has authority to offer $8-9 Million). Low Income Tax Credit Equity is also sought and would contribute $6.3 to the project.


 


 The Pinnacle Affordable Housing By the Numbers. Photos by WPCNR News




 


 


“This extension is necessary to afford our client time to secure various governmental grants, which are necessary to the financial viability for constructing the fifty-two (52) units,” the letter requesting the extension said.


 


Demolition on The Pinnacle project was supposed to have begun in September, but it did not. The letter states,


 


“Accordingly, during the additional time needed to obtain commitments from these governmental funding sources, Pinnacle-Westchester LLC will review its design for this building. It has completed one-hundred percent Design Development Drawings upon which its construction estimates have been based. However, further engineering is needed so that alternative structural systems or other modifications mayf be implemented to achieve cost savings.”


 


Following is the fund sources and tax credit calculation and “use of funds” supplied as requested by Councilman Benjamin Boykin:


 


 

Posted in Uncategorized

City Rent for Senior Center at Armory More than DOUBLES to $264,000 A Year

Hits: 0

WPCNR COMMON COUNCIL-CHRONICLE EXAMINER. October 4, 2006: The city approved a 20 year lease with a newly formed subsidiary of Related Apartment Preservation, LLC, known as Armory Plaza Preservation, which will pay Armory Plaza Preservation $264,000 a year for rent on the senior Center in the Armory building.


 The Mayor in his remarks stated that the city action preserved the 52 units of senior housing there, because the organization has lost its funding and the units would have to close, while also assuring that $2 Million in improvements would be made to the Armory building by the new owner.


What has happened as stated in the work session when this lease was discussed is that Related Apartment Preservation has been charging rents over and above guidelines HUD has established and the Housing and Urban Development department has decreased the Related Apartment Preservation rents.  Related Apartment Preservation had asked the city to make up the rent loss difference dictated by HUD surveys of typical rents,  in the September work session.


Here’s the story from HUD:


Andrew Glantz, spokesman for HUD told WPCNR last week that Related Apartment Preservation had been charging $1,087 a month for its 13 efficiences (of which the elderly tenants pay one-third), and HUD demanded Related lower that rent to $925. Glantz said the average decrease was $146 a month, which cost Related Apartment Preservation $1,898 a month in rent or $22,776 a year.


Glantz reported to WPCNR that of the 39 one-bedrooms, Related Apartment Preservation had been charging an average $1,306 a month, and HUD has forced Related to lower that rent to $1,215, a decrease of $91 a month. That works out to $3,549 a month in rent shortfall or $42,588 a year.  The total rental shortfall, according to the figures Glantz supplied on the individual apartments totals $65,364. The city had been paying Related $125,000 a year for rent on the senior citizen center in the Armory. Related wanted the city to up that rent and also take care of a portion of the rent loss demanded by HUD.


Tonight’s lease does more than that. The city is more than doubling its annual investment with Related’s new subsidiary Armory Plaza Preservation. The city will pay $264,000 a year over 10 years for the lease of the senior center, with renegotiation at that time.


No explanation was given at the council proceedings Tuesday evening of the justification for the more-than-double increase in the amount of rent the city will now pay for the Senior Center. 

Posted in Uncategorized

Council Balks on NYPH Memorandum of Understanding. Tables to November.

Hits: 0

WPCNR COMMON COUNCIL CHRONICLE-EXAMINER. October 3, 2006: In a very rare occurence tonight, the Common Council took an item up for discussion on the consent agenda.


 It was in the matter of the last-Thursday-evening-submitted Memorandum of Understanding on subdivision of New York Presbyterian Hospital property, the council was being asked to approve that the city may acquire a 5.5 acre park from the Hospital in exchange for subdividing a  60-acre adjacent parcel for 125 homes (down 6 units from as first reported based on last week’s MOU information).


The Council soundly bounced the Memorandum  back to the Mayor as being too vague, laying the city open to unknown expenses. This, after they had no particularly objections to the concept in the work session. However, five of the six councilpersons found plenty to disagree with in the fine print. Glen Hockley was the only individual in support of the proposal, however, he did vote in favor of tabling the matter.


The rejection of the MOU (as it is anacronymically referred) in its present form was spearheaded by the instant research of Councilman Dennis Power, which he apparently conducted since last Thursday evening when he received the MOU. Power read a listing of careful technical questions he raised over 40 minutes of sustained questioning of the Commissioner of Planning Susan Habel about the Memorandum of Understanding over fees due in the subdividing process, and the question of what would the hospital do the the rest of its land. (Habel said the hospital would follow its Master Plan, but knew of no indications of any hospital projects for “the rest of the property”.) Habel insisted the MOA was simply to acquire parkland for the city and nothing else. Mayor Delfino assured the television audience that the hospital has “no plan” to execute a subdivision “at the present time.”


Councilpersons Thomas Roach (complaining about the vagueness of what happens if the hospital walks away from the deal and whether the proton accelerator project still remains alive in that event), Rita Malmud (Council authority to approve the budget)  and Benjamin Boykin  (demanding a specific budget analysis before approval), and Councilman Arnold Bernstein (preferring to see a larger park parcel) all agreeing tabled the Memorandum until the Regular Common Council meeting of November 6, 2006. Prior to that the council is to meet to discuss rewording of the MOU with the Corporation Counsel, and the Planning Commissioner.


The document, Edward Dunphy, the Corporation Counsel, said appeared to be headed for substantial revision. Councilpersons statements were greeted with applause from the handful of citizens who were invited to speak about the Memorandum of Understanding even though it was a consent agenda item and was not in a public hearing mode.


Six citizens spoke, denouncing the MOU. Harriet Baker described it as “an insult.” Lynn Huber, Treasurer  of Concerned Citizens for Open Space ridiculed the statements that the 5.5 acres would be preserved in perpetuity, noting that the 60 acres if turned into 131 homes would  “be destroyed in perpetuity.” Dan Seidel castigated the Memorandum of Understanding on grounds that the city should not be doing it, when there was so much else to do. Marc Pollitzer expressed budget concerns, said the School District Capital Project Committee should have been informed of this city intention to subdivide on the basis of any subdivision impact on school district enrollment.


 

Posted in Uncategorized

Shooting on Greenridge in Highlands An Accident Sources Say.

Hits: 0

WPCNR POLICE GAZETTE. October 3, 2006 UPDATED 12:45 P.M. E.D.T. October 4, 2006: Paul Wood, the City’s Executive Officer, confirmed there was a shooting on Greenridge Avenue in the Highlands Tuesday, in which a woman shot a man, who was hospitalized. Wood reported his injuries were not life-threatening. Wood knew no other details of the shooting. Police would not make a statement Tuesday afternoon on the nature of the shooting or what lead to it.


Further information acquired by WPCNR Wednesday indicates the incident was not violent but an accidental firing of a pistol that resulted when the male was showing his gun to his fiancee at 74 Greenridge Avenue.  His financee is a student and athlete at White Plains High School.


 Reliable sources outside the Police Department who know the couple told WPCNR today the incident was an accident and not a result of a quarrel, dispute, or violence between them.


The WPCNR source said that the man not identified by police was wounded in the area of left shoulder when the pistol being handled by the woman accidentally discharged. She was showing him the gun where she lived at 74 Greenridge Avenue. WPCNR’s source says the couple realized the man had been shot and they went out walking in the neighborhood, on Linda and Longview Avenue and created a story of being robbed to explain the young man’s gunshot wound to the police. The police did not buy their story, according to press reports because there were no signs of a struggle and the two not being consistent in their stories of what happened.


Police have not contacted WPCNR with any updates on this incident despite several requests to find out what criminal charges may have been filed and the police evaluation of the incident. A detailed report in The Journal News this morning report the Police as identifying the woman as Elena Sannella,18,  and that she has been charged with second-degree assault, reckless endangerment, criminal possession of a weapon and falsely reporting an incident.  Police said the victim had been showing her the gun and the woman pulled the trigger, hitting the victim, which confirms what WPCNR sources have said. Her finance, the male was not charged at the time last night, police saying he likely would be charged with weapon possession and falsely reporting an incident.


This appears based on the information WPCNR has obtained to not be a violent incident.


This, though,  is the second  incident in the Highlands  in less than a  week, and third violent episode in the city in five days. Last Thursday a resident was mugged by three youths in the late afternoon as he entered his yard. Police arrested and charged three youths with the attack.


There have been seven violent attacks in the city since March 27 all involving persons in their twenties and teens. The violence began with a fatal stabbing on South Lexington Avenue and Post Road March 27, followed by a fatal shooting on Ferris Avenue, a gunfight between two individuals after observing a fist fight last week at Winbrook, a non-fatal shooting on Ferris Avenue, with the perpetrators still at large, followed by three incidents in a week: the mugging on Bryant, the stabbing on Mitchell Place Friday night, and Tuesday afternoon’s shooting.

Posted in Uncategorized