WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. By John F. Bailey January 24, 2003: The Delgado-Hockley quo warranto action held its Preliminary Conference with Judge Francis Nicolai Thursday morning, and was recessed until February 14 for the respective counsels to respond to Glen Hockley’s new attorney’s motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds.
However, courtside observers in this unusually choreographed opening round observed two unique flurries of lively exchanges between counsel and bench.
Tom Abinanti, the County Legislator from the Queen City of New Rochelle, is Mr. Hockley’s new counsel. Abinanti filed a motion to dismiss the quo warranto action being brought on Mr. Delgado’s behalf by Joel Graber, assistant State Attorney General on two grounds: 1.) That the quo warranto action was being initiated beyond the 4-month statute of limitations for contesting elections, and 2.) That Mr. Delgado had “sat on his rights” and violated the Doctrine of Laches by not bringing the quo warranto action sooner.
The Preliminary Conference set dates for both parties to respond to the motions, reconvening February 14. However, two interesting situations developed.
Judge’s law clerk applies for City Court Judgeship
Judge Nicolai before proceedings got underway informed the counsels, Mr. Abinanti, Jeffrey Binder and John Ciampoli for Mr. Delgado, and Joel Graber, for the Attorney General’s office of a possible conflict of interest.
He said his law clerk, Diane Lundin, had applied for the vacant White Plains Judgeship on the City Court. He asked if any of the attorneys had a problem with this, since Mr. Hockley, a principle in the case, is on the Common Council, which has to approve any judgeship appointments to the City Court. Mr. Abinanti said he would address that after Judge Nicolai ruled on the motion, suggesting that a new law clerk possibly handle the matters relating to the case. Mr. Graber and Mr. Binder said they had no problem with it.
What Could be Discovered by Disclosure
The dates set for responses to the motions, Assistant Attorney General Graber noted to Judge Nicolai the need for disclosure (sharing of witnesses and evidence with Mr. Abinanti) to continue while Mr. Abinanti’s motions were being considered.
Judge Nicolai raised the issue of “What more from a legal standpoint, could be gained from further disclosure?”
Mr. Abinanti stood up and said he was contemplating a jury trial on the matter, was new to the case, and needed time to review the evidence, since he was limited in his resources in examining the evidence.
Judge Nicolai’s eyebrows flared, and said in a rising voice, “No reasonable, clear-thinking person could say that that machine had not jammed. Nineteen people saw it. You waste my time, I’ll sanction you.”
Slamming his fist down on his bench, Judge Nicolai rose majestically and sharply rebuked the counsels, “Do not make the simple complicated, gentlemen, I repeat, do not make the simple complicated. I decalre a recess.”
This left the counsels to talk among themselves about what exactly the Judge was indicating, and some twenty minutes were spent among the four attorneys interpreting just how much disclosure would be tolerated, after Judge Nicolai rules on the motion to dismiss.
