THE WORLD READS WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER — 8,324,077 VISITS IN ONE YEAR | 2,905,611 VISITORS VISIT 8,324,077 TIMES 3 TIMES EVERY DAY IN ONE YEAR. HIGHEST ACTIVITY IN WPCNR HISTORY.White PlainsCitizeNetReporter lifted its worldwide visits from unique visitors to wpcnr.com to 8,324,077,a 1,306,419 increase in visits in one year from 7,017,658 visits to the site last year which covers White Plains and Westchester County. The 8,324,077 visits were made by 2,005,611 unique visitors who visited wpcnr an average of 3 visits a day. ON JULY 20- -2026 visitors have accessed wpcnr and made 3,072 visits an average of 1.6 visits. In the last week 33,495 individual vistors made 54,458 visits, averaging 1.6 visits. In the last month, 152,940 visitors recorded 229,338 visits (1.5 visits)

221 Main Street Groundbreaking Cancelled for Wednesday

Posted on March 22, 2005 by John Bailey

WPCNR MAIN STREET TICKER. March 22, 2005: Tomorrow’s scheduled groundbreaking for the 221 Main Street Cappelli Hotel project has been cancelled. A spokesman for Cappelli Enterprises told the CitizeNetReporter the reason was for a delay in the issuance of the demolition permit and that Mr. Cappelli could not attend tomorrow. The spokesman said the Bar Building Annex was “gutted” on the interior and the exterior walls will be coming down shortly.

2 Attend Hearing on School Budget. P.R. Firm Hired. No St. Pat’s Party Statement

Posted on March 22, 2005 by John Bailey

WPCNR SCHOOL DAYS. Special to the CitizeNetReporter. March 22, 2004 EDITED March 23, 2005: At the Board of Education meeting Monday evening, the first public hearing on the proposed 2005-2006 School Budget of $154.8 Million was held, and just two citizens appeared. Neither of those citizens made any comments, according to a school district official who attended the meeting.

The Board of Education is scheduled to adopt the budget next Monday evening, March 28. City Hall provided no written projections of future certriorari refunds and expected revenues from new development (PILOTS) were provided to the district as requested by the Assistant Superintendent for Business one month ago.

No written information on major certriorari obligations expected or the revenues anticipated in the next two to five years from Payments In Lieu of Taxes from the City Center, 221 Main Street, The Jefferson, the City Center North Tower and Trump Tower was received by the School District Business Office as requested one month ago. No representative from the city attended to pinch-hit for Eyde McCarthy, the City Assessor, who was scheduled to provide this information Monday night, but could not attend for health matters.

A call to the Mayor’s office to ascertain why a detailed written report outlining expected certriorari and PILOT and revenue projections going out up to five years or more has not been prepared by the city, or why Budget Direct Ann Reasoner, or Commissioner of Finance Gina Cuneo-Harwood could not address the School Board and the School Business Office in Ms. McCarthy’s place has not been responded to as of this hour. The School District Business Office requested such a projection for their own budget planning over the next five years a month ago.

Public Relations Team on Board.

Syntax Communications was officially hired by the School District to prepare district publications and informational material at a cost of $40,000, about $20,000 of which would be remimbursed by BOCES.

According to Michele Schoenfeld, Clerk to the Board of Education, Syntax will be publishing the next Board of Education newsletter in April, the budget information briefings in May, and will be conducting focus groups to develop and eventually prepare profiles and informational materials and features on the uniqueness of the School District.

No Statement on High School Drinking Party last Wednesday.

No statement was offered by the Superintendent of Schools Timothy Connors on the White Plains High School morning teenage drinking party involving 20 – 25 students just off-campus of the high school that was broken up by White Plains Police last Wednesday.

MCPRC meets at Highlands Tonight 7:30 on Close-In Hoods. Comment Welcome!

Posted on March 22, 2005 by John Bailey

WPCNR Highlands Tribune. From MCPRC. March 22, 2005: The Comprehensive Planning Review Committee will be meeting to focus on the Close-In Areas, and Gateways/Major Corridors within them at 7:30 at Highlands Middle School, Room 261. The Close in Areas are the neighborhoods that border the downtown. Public comment is welcomed and encouraged.

The Hockley Decision: Analysis

Posted on March 21, 2005 by John Bailey

WPCNR MR. AND MS. AND MRS. WHITE PLAINS VOICE. March 21, 2005, UPDATED MARCH 22, 2005, 4:30 P.M. E.S.T.: Glen Hockly told The CitizeNetReporter today his attorneys have not arrived at a recommendation as to whether they believe he should begin the deposition of affidavit signes. Hockley said they are evaluating past cases and simply have not reached a conclusion. Mr. Hockley is pondering whether to proceed and conduct legal depositions on the 103 affidavit-signees who swore they voted for Larry Delgado, November 5, 2001. Hockley has until June 30, 2005, to conduct the depositions at his expense.

Mike Amodio, a local attorney close to the case says the Appellate Court of the 2nd Circuit in Brooklyn has given Mr. Hockley a hard choice. Here is Mr. Amodio’s “take:”

Dear Mr. Bailey:

       I have read your description of the Appellate Division Decision on the Delgado-Hockley case and I think it needs some clarification.

       The Appellate Division has basically affirmed Judge Nicolai’s decision without specifically saying so. The Appellate Division decision lists every one of Mr. Hockley’s attorney’s arguments and dismisses them all except one. The only argument that they will even consider is the argument that the Affidavits submitted by the AG and Mr. Delgado were not valid. After noting that a challenge to a person’s assertion of how they voted would be difficult, the Appellate Division decided to allow Mr. Hockley’s lawyers an opportunity to do so. However, this is not what Mr. Hockley’s attorneys wanted. They challenged the validity of the Affidavits and argued that only the voter’s sworn testimony at a trial would be sufficient. Thus, they argued, summary judgment in favor of Delgado should have been denied and a trial should take place. A trial would have placed the burden on the AG and Mr. Delgado to produce the 103 witnesses to testify that they voted for Mr. Delgado.

       This the Appellate Division did not do. Instead the Appellate Division has placed the Appeal on “hold” (until June 30th) while it allows Mr. Hockley’s lawyers to depose the 103 voters who signed Affidavits swearing that they voted for Mr. Delgado. Thus the burden is now on Mr. Hockley’s attorneys to issue Subpoenas to each of the 103 voters and cause a deposition of each of the 103 voters in the hopes that the voter will recant his/her previous sworn statement. This will cause Mr. Hockley’s attorneys to pay for the service of a subpoena on 103 voters (at about $20 to $25 per voter), pay a witness fee of approximately $20 per voter and pay for the deposition transcript for each 103 voters.

       Because Mr. Hockley’s attorneys have attacked the validity of the Affidavits, each deposition will require Mr. Hockley’s attorneys to ask the voter if he/she knew what he/she was signing and then to ask to voter is he/she was telling the truth when he/she signed the Affidavit.

       As the notary public who took the testimony of a good number of the voters, I can state unequivocally that the voters I dealt with knew what they were signing and were eager to sign the Affidavits. I testified to this fact when I was deposed in the proceeding.

       I do not think this decision is a victory for Mr. Hockley’s Attorneys nor should it be categorized as such.

       Michael P. Amodio