WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER SETS RECORD VISITS FOR YEAR 7,017,658 VISITS! 2,098,003 VISITORS MADE 6 VISITS A DAY EVERY DAY. 63,330 UNIQUE VISITORS MADE 133,730 VISITS IN DECEMBER. WPCNR AVERAGED 17,284 VISITORS A WEEK, VISITING 31,270 TIMES.

Hits: 0

WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. By John F. Bailey. November 19, 2010:

 

A Department of Social Services Emergency Services aid Magdelena  Diaz-Gomez testified Thursday afternoon that  within 10 hours after Adam Bradley allegedly slammed a bedroom door on his wife Fumiko’s hand resulting in a charge of third degree assault and other charges, “I did  not see any marks or bruises” on Mrs. Bradley’s left hand.

 

Earlier this week, Detective Robbins of the White Plains Police Department who took photographs of Mrs. Bradley’s hand after the alleged door-slam incident Sunday morning, February 28,  testified his (Robbins’) prints of the photographs he took of Mrs. Bradley’ alleged injured hand did not look like Mrs. Bradley’s hand looked at the time Robbins took the photographs. The original camera card containing the originals, has not yet been introduced in the trial.

 

Thursday afternoon the Bradleys’ au pair, Yuko Watanabe, testifying through an interpreter, described how she saw the alleged door incident unfolding. Ms. Watanabe testified  Mrs. Bradley went upstairs to the Bradley bedroom on her own screaming at Mr.Bradley for consuming lemonade.

 

At no time, Ms. Wantanabe said, (before the alleged incident unfolded), did Mr. Bradley come down the stairs. Originally, in testimony Mrs. Bradley said, Mr. Bradley pushed Mrs. Bradley up the stairs.  Wantanabe recounted that after Mrs. Bradley went into the bedroom, she heard Mrs. Bradley yelling and screaming at Mr. Bradley. She testified that the disagreement started over he and his children drinking lemonade Mrs. Bradley had intended for “a girl friend (of hers).”  

 

Wantanabe heard Mr. Bradley say, “Fumiko, please stop…please forgive me,” from the upstairs bedroom,  then Ms. Wantanabe said she heard 4 or 5 door “closings,” while Mrs. Bradley continued yelling and screaming.

 

In later testimony, Ms. Wantanabe testified she saw Mrs. Bradley hit Mr. Bradley with her fist on the morning of Election Day 2009, and push him about eighteen feet. (The judge estimated the eighteen feet based on a positioning Ms. Wantanabe had indicated.)  These two alleged acts testified as having take place by Wantanabe were denied by Mrs. Bradley under oath in previous testimony.

 

The Thursday session of the trial came to a close at 4:45 P.M., with Ms. Wantanabe still on direct examination by Mr. Bradley’s attorney. Friday will see the parties back in court to discuss procedural issues involving if and how Selena Bradley, one of the Bradleys’ daughters will be put on the stand to testify and how her testimony will be taken, if allowed.

 

 

An Offer of Proof Brings DSS worker to the stand

 

Ms. Diaz-Gomez, one of the Department of Social Services Emergency Service worker who interviewed Mrs. Bradley after her husband was arrested February 28 for the alleged finger slam in the door incident,  was allowed to testify over objections raised by the  Westchester County Attorney Office.  The County Attorney  representative argued reports of DSS that return a finding of “unfounded” when child abuse is considered to have occurred  are “inadmissible.”

 

Mr.Penichet in earnest argument pointed out that in only two cases have such reports been allowed, one such matter was to demonstrate a false report. Judge Susan Capeci asked Penichet to delineate an offer of proof as to what areas Penichet wanted to explore with the DSS workers. After Penichet described those areas to Judge Capeci in lengthy argument,  the judge allowed two of the DSS workers to testify, restricting them to questions of :

 

If the DSS workers saw no visible sign of injury at the time; whether the Bradley au pair, Yuko Watanabe, was in  the house at the time of the incident the morning of February 28; if Mrs.Bradley mentioned she had seen a counselor on issues of domestic violence. (These were matters Mrs. Bradley had testified to previously in the trial.)

 

Possibility of Child Taking the Stand

 

Mr. Penichet, in making this offer of proof, said that he wanted to bring another DSS worker involved in an investigative interview with Mrs. Bradley and her attorney, Neil Comer. In this interview Celena, the Bradley’s 4 year old daughter (at this time) was said to say her mommy pushes her daddy and my daddy gets mad.

 

Mr. Penichet also told the Judge he wanted to ask the DSS worker Celena Bradley’s account of the January 11 incident where Mr. Bradley is alleged to have thrown tea on Mrs. Bradley. Celena is said to have indicated in the same investigation report furnished the District Attorney detailing the subtance of that meeting, that Mr. Bradley was holding a cup of hot tea and her mother pushed him, causing Mr. Bradley to spill tea on Mrs. Bradley as a result of the push.

 

Mr. Penichet told the Judge, “the relevancy (of allowing the DSS emergency workers to testify) is overwhelming,” He followed up his advantage saying, “It goes to her state of mind, extent of injury, knowledge, intent, motive.”

 

Penichet suggested to Judge Capeci  “If I let this (DSS testimony) in for a limited purpose.” 

 

Capeci asked him his reasons for bringing the DSS workers in to testify. Penichet cited Fumiko Bradley testimony from earlier in the trial. Penichet reread sections of Mrs. Bradley’s testimony and the judge relented. She did lay out limited inquiry specifically to four areas of controversy: presence of the au pair, extent of injury, whether domestic violence history was brought up with Diaz-Gomez, and whether she and Mr. Bradley hand seen marriage counselors.

 

“I did not see any marks or bruises.”

 

When Ms. Diaz-Gomez arrived from the field to testify at noon,  Penichet asked Ms. Diaz-Gomez if Mrs. Bradley had told her about the couple having marriage counseling and Diaz-Gomez said “Yes.” He asked her if Mrs. Bradley had “made mention of domestic violence at the sessions.” Diaz-Gomez said “Yes.” Previously in the trial, Mrs. Bradley in her testimony did not remember whether she had or not on both questions. Later in the testimony Penichet asked Diaz-Gomez if during the alleged incident the morning of the 28^th if the nanny was in the home.

 

Penichet asked if Mrs. Bradley told her the au pair (Yuko Wantanabe) was not there at the time of the alleged incident in the home (the morning of the 28^th). Diaz-Gomez said, “Correct.”

 

He asked Diaz-Gomez, “Did you observe her (Mrs. Bradley’s) hand what did you see?”

 

Diaz-Gomez said, “I did not see any marks or bruises.”

 

Penichet asked “Was she (Mrs. Bradley) in pain?” Diaz-Gomez testified, “She was not in any pain.”

 

After completion of the Diaz-Gomez testimony, Amy Puerto for the prosecution conducted a cross-examination asking Diaz-Gomez to describe Mrs. Bradley’s demeanor during the interview the evening after the alleged incident. Diaz-Gomez said, “She was very distraught.”

 

Mr. Penichet said to WPCNR after this afternoon’s session ended that he did not call the second Department of Social Services worker because that testimony involved possible testimony of a child which Judge Capeci had said she would not let him focus on when she agreed to the questions Penichet wanted to ask Diaz-Gomez.

 

The trial then adjourned at 12:55 until 2:15 P.M. when the au pair, Yuko Watanabe was called as a witness for the defense.

 

Judge Capeci said she would consider allowing the child to testify. At the end of the day in court at 4:45 P.M. the Judge said the attorneys would meet Friday morning at 9:30 A.M. to consider “procedural issues” regarding whether Celena Bradley could testify. However, Luis Penichet, the defense attorney told the Journal News Thursday evening after parties had left the court Mr. Bradley would not let his daughter testify.

 

 

Detective Pays a Call

 

It should be noted that after Penichet’s extended discussion with Judge Capeci presenting his offer of proof and persuading the judge to allow his questioning Diaz-Gomez,  Mr. Penichet brought up a matter he learned about Wednesday afternoon after court had adjourned.

 

Penichet told the judge he learned that Detective Robbins of the White Plains Police Department had paid a visit to the home of Bonnie Hagan Wednesday afternoon.  Detective Robbins, incidentally, was one of the original investigating officers on the February 28 alleged door-slam incident. Robbins, photographer of  Mrs. Bradley’s hand, also testified earlier in this trial.

 

Ms. Hagan, to set the scene for you, is the witness Mr. Penichet had sought the Judge to be allowed to testify yesterday that Mrs. Bradley had warned her (Hagan) not to testify. Penichet  told Judge Capeci of Detective Robbins visit to Hagan after Judge Capeci had not allowed Hagan to testify.

 

Penichet said Detective Robbins asked Ms. Hagan , as a reason for his visit, “We’d just like to know what you were going to say at the trial.”

 

Penichet said Ms. Hagan was annoyed, having spent time at the trial yesterday and not being called. Judge Capeci said, “it’s irrelevant.”

 

Penichet said he believed the prosecution was preparing a rebuttal and was attempting to find ways to discredit Amy Tiinoken’s testimony Wednesday that Mrs. Bradley said to Mrs. Tiinoken (in the presence of Bonnie Hagan) “I lied to the police.” (After court, Penichet told WPCNR the prosecution, it was his understanding, was preparing to bring in seven witnesses to mount a rebuttal.)

 

Prosecutor Amy Puerto dismissed Detective Robbins’ visit to Hagan as part of the prosecution’s continuing investigation.

 

Penichet asked again for the Judge to rule that Bonnie Hagan could testify about what Mrs. Bradley had said to her. The Judge again denied it.

 

Enter the Au Pair

 

In Ms. Watanabe’s testimony Wednesday afternoon, she confirmed she was present in the home the morning of February 28. She said she had not seen Mr. Bradley that morning until one of his daughter’s said she was thirsty. Wantanabe said Mr. Bradley had not been downstairs at all that morning before the incident as previously testified by Mrs. Bradley who in earlier testimony said Mr. Bradley pushed her up the stairs.

 

She said the prelude to the incident started when Mrs. Bradley discovered lemonade had been consumed in the kitchen that had been intended for a friend of Mrs. Bradley’s.

 

Asked by Penichet if Mrs. Bradley had asked the children who drank the lemonade, Wantanabe said, “Yes. Both (children) said Daddy.”

 

Penichet asked what did Fumiko Bradley do? Watanabe said, “She went to the stairs and asked Adam whether or not he had drank the lemonade.”

 

Penichet followed with, “Did you see Adam come down the stairs?” Watanabe said “No, he didn’t.”

 

Penichet asked how Mrs. Bradley asked the “did you drink the lemonade question.” Watanabe said, “She was dominant. She was screaming in a loud voice.”

 

Penichet asked: Did Adam answer back. Watanabe said Mr. Bradley said, “Yes, I did.” Watanabe on further questioning testified that Mrs. Bradley asked why, that it was for one of her “girl friends” and that Mr. Bradley called down, “Sorry, I didn’t know that.”

 

Watanabe then recounted Mr. Bradley said he was going into the bathroom. At that point, Watanabe said Mrs. Bradley, who had not stopped screaming went (upstairs) to the bedroom. All the while, with Ms. Watanabe in the kitchen, Ms. Watanabe said Mrs. Bradley was screaming.

 

Peniche asked if Mr. Bradley said anything. Watanabe said “Yes.” Over an objection by the prosecution, vigorously argued, Judge Peniche overruled and Watanabe said she heard Mr. Bradley saying,

 

“Fumiko, please stop…forgive me.”

 

Asked how Mr. Bradley sounded, saying those words, Ms. Watanabe said, “Confused,pleading.”

 

Asked if Mr. Bradley said this in an angry voice, Watanabe said, “No.”

 

Peniche asked if Mr. Bradley said anything else “while Mrs. Bradley was yelling and screaming in the bedroom.”

 

Ms. Watanabe said, “He said it (“Fumiko, please stop”) a number of times.”

 

Penichet then asked “if there were any other noises or sounds?”

 

Watanabe said, “A door being closed,  four or five times.”

 

Penichet continued asking, “when the door closed , was Mrs. Bradley still yelling and screaming?” Watanabe said “Yes.”

 

Watanabe said she then went to her room (in the basement). Mr. Bradley she said came down the stairs. Then went back up to the bedroom.

 

Testimony on Au Pair’s 30 Minutes with Fumiko Ruled Out

 

Under questioning, Ms. Watanabe said she saw Mrs. Bradley twice later the day of the 28^th, (the day of the alleged hand-in-door incident), for two to three minutes and for about a half-hour at dusk.

Penichet asked what she and Mrs. Bradley talked about in that 30 minutes.

 

The prosecution objected. 

 

The Judge would not allow Ms. Watanabe to answer the question. Penichet in yet another offer of proof said that  Ms. Watanabe would testify that Mrs. Bradley said she never wanted Mr. Bradley to be arrested, and later he would say to the judge that Mrs. Bradley and Ms. Watanabe had a “heart to heart” during this 30 minute interval and Mrs. Bradley said to Ms. Watanabe, “she was tricked by the police.” Judge Capeci sustained the objection.

 

In the course of her two-hours on the stand, (with two 15-minute breaks for consideration of admissability of quetions),  Ms. Watanabe was questioned about her presence at the lunch of February 27. She confirmed Mrs. Bradley’s screaming at Mr. Bradley, paralleling and confirming the testimonies provided by Mr. Passarella and Mr. Strongwater on Wednesday.

 

At the end of the day in family court at 4:45 P.M. the Judge said the attorneys would meet Friday morning at 9:30 A.M. to consider “procedural issues” regarding whether Celena Bradley could testify.

 

The strategy to place Celena Badley on the stand, according to The Journal News, changed after court concluded. Luis Penichet,Bradley’s defense attorney told reporter Ben Rubin Mr. Bradley had decided against having his daughter testify on how the tea found its way onto Mrs. Bradley January 11.

 

The judge indicated as court closed Thursday there would be no more testimony taken until Monday, November 29, because the interpreter was not available until that time, according to Prosecutor Audrey Stone.

 

Prosectuor Amy Puerto who has deftly parried Mr. Penichet’s daily Offers of Proof, said to several reporters after close of court today, this was the longest misdemeanor case she and Ms.Stone have ever been involved

Hits: 0

WPCNR CAMPAIGN 2010. Special to WPCNR from Guy Parisi of the Castelli for Assembly Campaign. November 17, 2010 (Edited) UPDATED 10:30 P.M. E.S.T. :

The Castelli campaign advised WPCNR that double the number of  votes originally estimated by Bob Castelli two weeks ago remain to be tabulated in the dead heat between White Plains Councilman Tom Roach and incumbent Assemblyman (for the last eight months) Mr. Castelli.

Mr. Castelli estimted to WPCNR two days after election day that perhaps 2,000 votes remaind to be counted. The number determined by the Westchester County Board of Elections turns out to be  3, 926.

Counting of votes, held up for two weeks, due to a restraining order impounding the machines obtained by James Maisano, a Republican supreme court contestant, who was behind in his race by 6,000 votes at the time, was resumed today at the Board of Elections in White Plains after the Board obtained a lifting of the restraining order by Judge Lester Adler.

Guy Parisi of the Castelli campaign reported the results so far in Wednesday’s counting to WPCNR. Here is the breakdown of votes:

“Today, the ballots cast into handicapped accessible machines in the 89th Assembly District were read electronically.

According to preliminary results from the Westchester County Board of Elections, out of 951 Plan B ballots cast, Robert Castelli received 495 votes to 456 for Thomas Roach, which brings Castelli’s overall lead to +111 votes out of some 38,774 votes cast.

The next step will be to count emergency ballots, on Friday, November 19th. There are 1,342 emergency ballots in the 89th Assembly District.

Absentee and affidavit ballots are set to be counted on Tuesday, November 23rd. Thus far, 2,082 absentee ballots were returned to the Westchester County Board of Elections. There are 502 affidavit ballots in the 89th Assembly District.
 
On Wednesday, November 24th, the Westchester County Board of Elections will begin a process known as the 3% audit, a hand count which will randomly recanvass 3% of the 1,033 voting machines in Westchester County.

More Potential for Delay

On Monday, November 22nd, Justice Adler will hear an application by State Senate Candidate Mike Kaplowitz which may delay counting ballots in the 40th Senate District, which overlaps parts of the 89th Assembly District. If this motion is upheld, the schedule may change. If the motion is denied, absentee and affidavit ballots are set to be counted on Tuesday, November 23rd.

Both absentee and affidavit ballots are subject to legal challenges and may be set aside for review by Justice Adler if requested by the attorneys for each of the candidates involved in the legal proceedings. The deadline for military and overseas ballots to be returned is also November 23rd.

On Wednesday, November 24th, the Westchester County Board of Elections will begin a process known as the 3% audit, a hand count which will randomly recanvass 3% of the voting machines in Westchester County.

Castelli said he was cautiously optimistic that based on both a geographic and party registration breakdown of what remained to be counted, that he would prevail when all of the ballots were counted.

“While I’m eager to count these ballots as quickly and as expeditiously as possible, I think what’s most important at the end of the day is that no individual is disenfranchised,” he noted.

 

 

Hits: 0

WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. By John F. Bailey. November 17,2010:

 

After a twenty-five minute Offer of Proof from Adam Bradley’s defense attorney, Luis Penichet this morning,  Judge Susan Capeci reaffirmed her earlier ruling that bringing in Mr. and Mrs. Bradley’s marital counselors to testify in the Mayor’s alleged domestic violence trial was “irrelevant.”

 

Judge Capeci also brought up the matter of recalling Fumiko Bradley to testify after she ruled out the counselors’ testifying.

 

 Penichet made a brief argument that he would address Mrs. Bradley on four questions he was going to ask the counselors about. Among them were whether or not Mrs. Bradley discussed domestic violence with the counselors.

 

Audrey Stone for the prosecution argued  Penichet had opportunity to ask such questions  previously on cross-examination of Mrs. Bradley. 

 

The Judge in addition ruled that witnesses who would have testified on whether key incidents in Mrs. Bradley’s previous testimony happened that way would not be allowed to testify, dismissing Mr. Penichet’s contention they were admissable because they would testify to the “state of mind, motive, and bias” of Mrs. Bradley.

 

In the only testimony of the day, an administrator  of the White Plains Kodomono Kuni School, testified Mrs. Bradley had a reputaton for lack of veracity durng the time Mrs. Bradley was employed there in 1999. 

Judge Capeci disposed of the recall of Mrs. Bradley, saying she would not allow Mrs. Bradley to return to the stand “for the purpose of impeaching the witness.”

 

Mr. Penichet argued why at this point in the trial, he and his client feel testimony of counselors is relevant.  Penichet said he wanted to prove through counselors’ testimonies that Mrs. Bradley had not discussed or brought up domestic violence incidents between the couple with the counselors.

 

Penichet revealed he expected one counselor would confirm Adam Bradley’s recounting  to Mr. Penichet of a counselor session with both Mr. Bradley, and Mrs.Bradley, were present. At that session, Penichet recounted, Fumiko Bradley allegedly  had a screaming incident similar to the 5 to 7 minute alleged shouting sequence described Wednesday by Michael Passarella and Marc Strongwater for the defense. Penichet said that alleged  shouting sequence in question lasted for the better part of an hour in front of the counselor.

 

Penichet said the prosecution had “opened the door” for this testimony by their re-direct questioning of Mrs. Bradley where she answered questions on the subject matter of whether she discussed domestic violence.

 

Amy Puerto for the prosecution argued again her rebuttal Wednesday that Mr. Penichet had not established any relevance of the testimony the counselors could provide to the  incident of February 28. “no specific reason why any of this information, motive, bias, state of mind (relates to the incident of February 28). He uses it as a blanket.”

 

After her decision to rule out counselor testimony, Judge Capeci brought up the recalling of Fumiko Bradley to the stand, and ruled against recalling Mrs. Bradley

 

Earlier this morning, Akiko Yamanaka, was called as witness for the defense. She is an assistant administrator  at Kodomono Kuni School  in White Plains.

 

Audrey Stone was given 30 minutes to query Ms. Yamanaka before the witness gave her testimony. This was allowed by the judge because Yamanaka  was a last-minute replacement for the Kodomono Kuni administrator who is presently in Japan and will be back Monday to testify possibly.   

 

Yamanaka  testified she had known Fumiko Bradley in 1999 when Mrs.Bradley was employed by the school.  Ms. Yamanaka said she attended a meeting in which the subject of Fumiko Bradley came up. Penichet asked if discussion of Fumiko Bradley’s reputation for veracity and to tell the truth came up. Yamanaka said “Yes.” Penichet asked what Mrs. Bradley’s reputation for veracity was in the school was, and Yanamoke said, “Not good,” and added “she made up stories.”  

 

Mr. Penichet asked one final question of Yamanaka, “Do you believe what she said under oath?” Yamanaka said, “No.”

 

Prosecutor Audrey Stone in her cross-examination, brought out that when she (Stone) met with Ms. Yamanaka just prior to testifying, Yamanaka had explained she attended only one administrator meeting where the matter of Mrs. Bradley’s behavior was discussed. That occured in June 1999, one month before Mrs. Bradley left the school.  Yamanaka agreed on the stand that the matter that came up involved a male teacher. Details of that matter were not explored in the official testimony by Ms. Stone.

 

At the beginning of the proceedings, the judge refused to allow Mr.Penichet to call witnesses who would have testified, (Mr. Penichet said)  that Mrs. Bradley showed off the Madagascar cockroach (after her daughter acquired the insect) to a neighbor (presumably disproving that Mrs. Bradley was afraid of cockroaches); another witness who would have testified, Penichet said,  that the alleged incident where Mrs. Bradley chased Mr. Bradley to his car did not take place immediately after Mr. Bradley had been accused of placing the cage containing the cockroach against her cheek; a third account where Mr. and Mrs. Bradley’s children spoke about their parents’ behavior.

 

In the last minutes of this morning’s session, prosecutor Audrey Stone said she planed to call John DiBlasi, friend of Alexandra Hofgaertner, to testify to Ms. Hofgaertner’s concern about damage to her (Hofgaertnr’s) reputation in the community (after Ms. Hofgaertner leaked e-mails beween her and Fumiko Bradley to Fox News.

 

After the close of court. Mr. Penichet told WPCNR he expected the trial to last until Monday with the District Attorney calling other character witnesses to the stand. He said he also expected to bring more character witnesses.

 

The trial resumes Thursday morning.

Hits: 0

WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. By John F. Bailey. November 16, 2010:

 Mayor Adam Bradley’s trial of charges of domestic violence  at the Westchester County Courthouse is currently in recess, scheduled to resume at 2:30 P.M.

The action so far:

At 10:40 this morning, Defense Attorney Luis Penichet opened the case for the defense of Mr. Bradley calling Detective Robbins of the White Plains Police Department to the stand. After brief questions about the pictures of the stairs in the Bradley household and the door where the alleged slamming of Mrs. Bradley’s three middle fingers of her left hand happened, Penichet asked at any time during Detective Robbins investigatory interview did Mrs. Bradley indicate the door was slammed on her hand twice.

Prosecutor Audrey Stone objected. She argued that unless the detective “confronted” Mrs. Bradley with the question in the investigative interview,  the question should not be asked, saying Penichet could have asked Fumiko Bradley that question directly in cross examination. Stone cited a civil case supporting her interpretation. Judge Susan Capeci took a recess at 11:00 to consider the decision. At 11:15, court resumed with Judge Capeci sustaining Ms. Stone’s objection.

Call for Dismissal of One Charge

At that point, Mr. Penichet said he had no further questions for Detective Robbins and asked the Judge to dismiss the January 11 assault charge against Mr. Bradley for allegedly  throwing tea at Mrs. Bradley. The Judge said she would take fifteen minutes to consider it. 

Penichet asked for dismissal on the grounds that the plaintiff, Mrs. Bradley had felt testified she felt bad about the incident and had demonstrated inconsistency in her testimony. The prosecutor argued the charge should not be dismissed because part of the charge definition was to inflict bodily harm. Judge Capeci took a 15-minute break and announced she was reserving decision on the dismissal request.

Penichet called his next witness, Mike Passarella, a contractor and previously an employee of White Plains in administering a housing rehabilitation program.

Penichet lead Mr. Passarella back to the Saturday before the alleged door slam incident. The key portion of the testimony, found Mr. Passarella describing what happened when he came upstairs from the basement after examining water damage to sheet rock in the Bradley basement, from a roof leak.

Passarella said, noting that Mike Strongwater, Mr. Bradley, Mrs. Bradley and the two Bradley children were around the (dining) table:

“She  (Fumiko Bradley) approached me and started screaming hysterically and pointed to Adam (Bradley). She was pointing at Adam and screaming and walking back and forth.” Asked the color of Mrs. Bradley’s face, Passarella said, “Red.”

Penichet asked if Mrs. Bradley and Adam Bradley gotten into an argument. Passarella said “No.”

Penichet asked how long Mrs. Bradley was shouting. Passarella said, “5 to 7 minutes.”

Then Penichet asked if Mr. Bradley told Mr. Strongwater (at the table in front of the agitated Mrs. Bradley) that “Fumiko was crazy.”

Amy Puerto of the prosecution objected. The witness was asked to leave the court and Judge Capeci heard Mr. Penichet’s justification for allowing what the prosecutor feels was collateral and hearsay into the record. Penichet once again referred to the law manual, Richardson On Evidence, citing the right to show “bias, state of mind,” of the plaintiff.

Prosecutor Amy Puerto objected again. The witness Passarella was again directed out of the courtroom and another discussion over  what Richardson On Evidence interpretation means. Penichet said the answer to the question would reveal “the state of mind” of Mrs. Bradley the day before the February 28 incident of the alleged door slam.

Puerto declared to the Judge, that Penichet “has failed to show in any of the matters how what happened here (around the lunch table on the 27th)  shows (Fumiko Bradley’s) state of mind the day before the 28th.”

Judge Capeci overruled the objection and directed Passarella to answer the question whether Adam Bradley said Fumiko Bradley is crazy.  

Passarella  said “No.” (that Bradley did not say Mrs. Bradley was crazy, which Mrs. Bradley had testified to on direct.

Penichet proceeded asking what Mrs. Bradley had yelled in the reported 5 to 7 minute tirade.

Prosecutor Amy Puerto objected again. The witness Passarella was again directed out of the courtroom and another discussion over  what Richardson On Evidence interpretation means. Penichet said the answer to the question would reveal “the state of mind” of Mrs. Bradley the day before the February 28 incident of the alleged door slam.

The Judge adjourned for 10 minutes, and returning  sustaining the prosecution objection.

Just before court ended for lunch, Mr. Penichet was calling a school bus driver as a witness of a conversation they had had with Mrs. Bradley. Again the prosecution objected. The Judge recessed the proceedings at 12:30 P.M.

The proceedings were interrupted for two other court matters during the morning. Mr. Penichet also made two statements for the record to note what he felt were disallowances of questions that he felt were in order according to the Richardson On Evidence book allowing hearsay in on a collateral matters where the state of mind, bias, motive could be shown by those questions. WPCNR notes the prosecutors peppered the proceedings objections.

 

 

Hits: 0

WPCNR COUNTY CLARION-LEDGER. From the Westchester County Board of Legislators. (Edited and amplified by John F. Bailey).November 15, 2010:

The Westchester County third quarter forecast shows substantial financial improvement, predicting a $52 million return to fund balance, County Board Chairman Ken Jenkins (D-Yonkers) announced Monday. 

 “This is good news , following a 2nd quarter forecast which showed Westchester returning $22 million to fund balance,” Jenkins said.

 The 2010 forecast, according to the Board of Legislators news release reflects increases in sales tax revenue of $25.6  million over 2009 actual (by the end of December).

To date as reported Sunday by WPCNR, the county has collected $361,958,132.62 in sales taxes through October, $17,976,111.70 more than 2009  ($343,982,020)after the 10 month mark. This computes to a 5.2% increase pace in sales tax revenue collection over the first ten months of 2010.

If November and December maintain the same 5.2% pace, the county should generate $75 Million in sales tax dollars finishing the year at $436 Million in sales taxes, $21 Million over last year’s $415 Million.

The county forecast of a $25 Million increase in sales collections assumes the rate of increase being experiened in county sales tax revenues will double from 5.2% to 10%.

 

In a joint statement with the Board’s Budget and Appropriations Chairman Jose Alvarado (D-Yonkers), Jenkins said, “The third quarter forecast shows Westchester‘s budget is in a far better position than it was at the same point in 2009.” Alvarado added that  the County  government remains committed to its investment and fiscal strategy. “This continues to show that the County Board along with the previous Administration enacted a fiscally responsible budget for 2010.”   

Chairman Jenkins said, “Through the 2011 budget process, we will continue to balance the needs of all our stakeholders; the people who pay for services; the people who receive services and the people who deliver those services