THE WORLD READS WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER — 8,324,077 VISITS IN ONE YEAR

WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. March 24, 2005: Thomas J. Abinanti, the attorney for former deposed Councilman Glen Hockley who attended Wednesday evening’s Common Council Work Session at City Hall, has released a statement nine days after the Appellate Court, Second Department, issued a ruling on Mr. Hockley’s appeal for a jury trial on the jammed voting matter.

Abinanti takes issue with the decision, and remarks that they are still considering how to proceed:

The Appellate Division, Second Department, has issued a decision on Glen Hockley’s appeal of Westchester Supreme Court’s order removing him from the White Plains Common Council summarily without a trial. The Appellate Division found that Westchester Supreme Court  was wrong to consider summary judgment without giving Hockley the opportunity he sought to take depositions. The Appellate Division reopened discovery, gave Hockley until June 30 to conduct depositions and stayed his appeal until both sides submit additional legal papers 30 days thereafter.

The Appellate Division decision is both gratifying and perplexing.

By finding that Mr. Hockley “should have been given an opportunity” to take the depositions of the principal witnesses against him, the Appellate Division stood up for fundamental fairness and vindicated the position we have maintained since December, 2003, when Westchester Supreme summarily prohibited us from taking those depositions.

But the Appellate Division failed to follow its own legal ruling to its logical conclusion: that Mr. Hockley must be restored to office. In so doing, the Appellate Division has abandoned long-standing legal  precedent which dictates that summary judgment must be reversed when granted without the losing party having had proper discovery  Instead, in a determination which it admitted was “unique,” the Appellate Division left summary judgment in place– and Mr. Hockley out of office– pending the completion of depositions. It’s a decision reminiscent of the “Sentence first– verdict afterwards” of Alice in Wonderland.

The disputed election was held in November 2001. The Attorney General commenced this lawsuit to overturn Mr. Hockley’s certified victory in December 2002. After the Appellate Division decided in late 2003 that the commencement was still timely,  we were prepared to take the depositions that the Appellate Division now confirms we had the right to take. But it is now fifteen and a half months later, with only seven and a half months before the next election for Common Council. The Court’s proposed  four-and-a half month delay hardly seems designed to promote a fair and timely resolution of the case.

We will carefully consider whether the procedure laid out by the Court makes any sense at this late date or if there are alternatives available to Mr. Hockley.

Thomas J. Abinanti

Attorney for Glen Hockley