Category: Uncategorized

Featuring Brian Turchin, President of Cape Horn Strategies and a leading entrepreneurial growth expert and problem-solver.

Are You In Control of Your Business? Or Is Your Business In Control of You?

Description:
Designed for senior executives, this session will explore the real reasons that many companies end up losing momentum, become less profitable and add stress to the lives of owners and executives. Brian Turchin will walk you through his process for identifying growth obstacles, demonstrating real-world ways to improve systems and manage people. He’ll show you how to implement simple but effective solutions that produce real, measurable results.

Learn how to:
— Articulate your company’s vision so everyone “sees” it & buys in
— Go from Endless Meeting to Final Decision – quickly
— Delegate work to the right people so it gets done right –once and for all
— Ask the 8 Key Questions that determine where you are going and how you can get there
— Replace the “It’s not my job” mentality with a culture of accountability and discipline

EVENT DETAILS

Breakfast & Registration:  8:30am – 9:00am
Presenting Speaker: 9:00am – 9:45am
Q&A and Discussion 9:45am – 10:00am

REGISTRATION: All events are FREE but registration is required.
Complimentary breakfast will be served.

LOCATION: Meetings are held at the CMM Ronkonkoma location.

RSVP to vtringone@cmmllp.com

Long Island Press’ 2015 “Bethpage Best of Long Island” Taps “Best Law Firm”

By Brian Harmon

Stony Brook graduate Joe Campolo — a former president of the University’s Alumni Association — is the best lawyer on Long Island, according to the Long Island Press’ “Bethpage Best of Long Island 2015.”

Campolo’s firm, Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP in Ronkonkoma, was named the “Best Law Firm on Long Island” in the contest, which is the region’s largest business and professional awards program.

“You can’t be the best lawyer unless you’re surrounded by the best law firm,” said Campolo, who earned a bachelor’s degree in history from Stony Brook in 1994. “It was very gratifying to present these awards to the entire staff.

“We are all completely aligned in the firm’s mission. We all share the same values and the same vision — everyone comes here every day and works as hard as they possibly can to service our clients,” he added.

Campolo, who lives in Stony Brook, is hardly the lone Seawolf at his firm. Partner Scott Middleton ’84, as well as other attorneys and paralegals at the firm, are Stony Brook graduates.

“This is a very Stony Brook-centered practice,” said Middleton, who, like Campolo, is a past president of the Alumni Association.

Middleton and Campolo remain active members of the association and both have taught masters-level classes at the University. They also have donated generously to the University, giving to athletics, the Staller Center and Children’s Hospital, while establishing student scholarships.

“If it wasn’t for Joe and I meeting on the Stony Brook Alumni Association Board, our firm would never have come about,” said Middleton, who studied political science at Stony Brook.

The firm even has a “Stony Brook Conference Room” decorated with Stony Brook football jerseys, flags from the Alumni Association’s annual golf outing and photos from the yearly Wolfstock homecoming event, said Campolo, a season-ticket holder for Stony Brook basketball and football games.

Middleton called Campolo “hands down one the best lawyers I know,” adding, “This award is just great recognition of his efforts, as well as for the firm as a whole.”

Nominations are accepted from the public for the “Bethpage Best of Long Island” awards from January 1 until August 31. Once the top nominees are identified, voting is open from October 1 until December 15. One vote per IP address per day is accepted.

Stony Brook was voted the “Best College or University on Long Island.”

Campolo and Middleton, partners since 2008, said that much of their client base has come by way of the business leaders they have met through their work on Stony Brook’s Alumni Association Board.

“Stony Brook has been one of the biggest driving forces in the success of our law firm,” said Campolo, who grew up in Port Jefferson Station.

Carol Gomes, current president of the University’s Alumni Association, said the successful partnership between Campolo and Middleton exemplifies the value of  a Stony Brook education and the importance of remaining active with your alma mater.

“Stony Brook is what brought Joe and Scott together,” said Gomes, who is also the chief operating officer at Stony Brook University Hospital.

“The Alumni Association couldn’t be prouder to have a Stony Brook graduate be voted the best lawyer across Nassau and Suffolk, and to have a firm featuring two partners who are Stony Brook graduates be deemed the region’s best law firm.”

Winning the “Best Lawyer” award is a long way from Campolo’s time at Stony Brook, when he was a full-time student going to school at night while working full-time during the day as a computer salesman for RadioShack.

“Now, my firm represents RadioShack,” he noted.

http://sb.cc.stonybrook.edu/happenings/homespotlight/stony-brook-alum-joe-campolo-94-voted-best-lawyer-on-long-island/

The law firm of Campolo Middleton & McCormick is comprised of seasoned attorneys who are well versed in the laws of the land and have the experience to represent clients from a number of different disciplines, including corporate law, health care, intellectual property, labor, litigation and more. What elevates this group is their commitment to the communities of which they are a part. The lawyers of the firm play large roles in volunteer groups across the island, sitting on many non-profit boards and giving back to those who need it most.

http://bestof.longislandpress.com/best-law-firm-long-island/

By Christine Malafi

Cyber liability insurance is a risk management tool and a form of protection that a business can purchase to limit economic losses from damages and for liability from a potential hacking.  Most industries in today’s world conduct a lot of business through computers and the internet.  While modern technology helps to promote efficiency and organization throughout businesses, the misuse of the technology poses a threat to private information, which may be seen or used by third parties who should not have access to it resulting in potential liability to the business.  On a daily basis, businesses must deal with data security threats, remote and not, of cyber-attacks and potential costs, expenses, and liability stemming from a security breach.

Commercial businesses which primarily publish and collect information via a website may have a higher risk of various legal risk exposures, including from defamation, copyright infringement, and release of confidential information.  Cyber liability insurance is important for certain businesses to consider because of the sensitivity of the information stored and transmitted through the internet.  For example, businesses that collect customer credit card information and/or store confidential information (i.e. financial, medical, or education materials) have risk.  Businesses can choose from different types of policies.  For example, breach-notice coverage, privacy liability coverage, and security breach liability coverage.  Breach-notice insurance protects from liability exposures and costs associated with a violation of privacy laws and provide fraud monitoring for customers and clients when confidential information has been compromised.  Privacy liability insurance protects from losses incurred when the personal information of third parties (i.e. customers, clients, vendors) is compromised.  Security breach liability insurance covers expenses and losses arising from liability due to viruses and hackings that damage third parties.

In the complicated world we live in, it is essential to protect not only your business, but also all personal information relating to a customer, client, as well as your business and employees.  Even though computer software systems and intelligent IT employees can help thwart an attack, breaches occur to the best of systems. Cyber liability insurance can help salvage the cost of the damage and liability after an attack has occurred.

By Scott Middleton

In litigation, when deciding which employee a corporation should make available for the opposing party to depose, the “corporate entity has the right to designate, in the first instance, the employee who shall be examined.”  Schiavone v. Keyspan Energy Delivery NYC, 89 A.D.3d 916, 917 (2d Dep’t 2011).  The corporation and counsel must decide, based on the totality of the circumstances in the specific case, which employee will testify best.  Remember, opposing counsel will evaluate the likability and credibility of a witness as well as determine how the witness will present to the finder of fact at trial.  The corporation must be consciously aware that producing an employee who does not provide adequate information or who does not have the requisite knowledge may result in the need to produce an additional witness.  In that case, the opposing party must show “(1) the employee already deposed had insufficient knowledge, or was otherwise inadequate, and (2) the employee proposed to be deposed can offer information that is material and necessary to the prosecution of the case.”  Id.

For example, in Sladowski-Casolaro v. World Championship Wrestling, Inc., the court held that the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum was not required to produce additional witnesses for deposition in an action for personal injuries.  47 A.D.3d 803, 803-04 (2d Dep’t 2008).  The Court reasoned that “[t]he plaintiff failed to sustain her burden that the Coliseum representative who had already been disposed had insufficient knowledge, or was otherwise inadequate, and that there was a substantial likelihood that the persons sought by the plaintiff for additional depositions possessed information which was material and necessary to the prosecution of the case.”  Id.

It is imperative that a corporation, working with counsel, carefully decide which employee to select for a deposition.  Producing the wrong employee may subject the corporation to additional legal fees and wasted time.  Therefore, the corporation must discuss with counsel which potential witness has the degree of knowledge required for a meaningful deposition and assess how the witness will present at the deposition.  By collaborating with counsel, the client can avoid the unnecessary cost and expense of producing multiple witnesses for depositions and the possibility of engaging in otherwise unnecessary motion practice.

Based on a recent decision from the Commercial Division in Westchester County (J. Scheinkman), the answer is yes.  The case of Graham, et al. v. Command Security Corporation was commenced as a class action by Richard Graham (“Graham”) on behalf of himself and all other security guards similarly situated against his former employer Command Security Corporation (“Command”).  Graham’s claims related to the alleged failure of Command to, inter alia, pay Graham and other security guards prevailing wages under New York Labor Law and other wage and hour law violations.  After Graham commenced the lawsuit in Supreme Court, Command filed a motion to stay the action in Supreme Court and compel arbitration based on Graham’s prior agreement to resolve any employment disputes by arbitration.

In support of its motion, Command argued that Graham was provided with an Employee Handbook at the time of hire and as part of the job offer.  The Employee Handbook contained, among other things, Command’s personnel policies.  Upon accepting the position with Command, Graham executed and acknowledged a Receipt of Personnel Policies in the Employee Handbook, including the Pre-Dispute Resolution Agreement, and returned the signed acknowledgment to Command.  The Pre-Dispute Resolution Agreement covered all matters directly or indirectly related to an employee’s recruitment, hire, employment or separation.  Importantly, the Pre-Dispute Resolution Agreement also provided Command with the option to require any dispute brought by an employee in Court to be heard through arbitration instead.  To exercise the option, Command was required to notify Graham within sixty (60) days of service of the complaint, which it did.

The issue to be decided by the Court was whether the parties actually entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate.  In opposition to the motion, Graham contended that there was no agreement because the Employee Handbook contained language stating that “employment is at will” and the “[Employee Handbook] does not create a contract with the Company for any purpose and the provisions of this Manual may be modified or eliminated at any time.”  Graham also argued that the agreement to arbitrate was unilaterally in favor of Command and not a reciprocal obligation.  Command, on the other hand, argued that, despite the non-binding nature of the Employee Handbook, the Pre-Dispute Resolution Agreement was enforceable because the language is distinct and mandatory and Graham’s executed acknowledgement confirmed his agreement.

The Court ultimately sided with Command. The Court, citing Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Assn. 64 F.3d 773 (2d Cir 1995), noted that “a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.”  The movant attempting to compel arbitration has the burden to show a “clear and unequivocal” agreement to arbitrate the claim. Fiveco, Inc. v. Haber, 11 N.Y.3d 140, 144 (2008).

Here, the Court held that it could not be disputed that Graham signed the Pre-Dispute Resolution Procedure Employee Acknowledgement Form and, with no claim of fraud or other wrongful conduct, Graham is bound by what he signed. The Court noted that language in the Pre-Dispute Resolution Procedure section of the Employee Handbook specifically states: “In consideration of the Company’s offering and providing you with employment…[y]ou agree that the Company’s option to require arbitration is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and is fully enforceable.”  Although the separate “Personnel Policies” Acknowledgement states that the Employee Handbook is not a contract, the Court held that the agreement to arbitrate became an enforceable agreement as soon as Graham signed the Pre-Dispute Resolution Procedure Acknowledgement Form.  Also, there was nothing in the “Personnel Policies” Acknowledgement that expressly or impliedly rescinded the agreement to arbitrate.

The Court also shot down Graham’s argument that the agreement to arbitrate was unenforceable because it was one-sided in that Graham would be required to arbitrate if a claim was brought by Command, but Command had the option to elect arbitration if Graham attempted to sue in Court. The Court held that the mutuality of remedies is not a requirement in an arbitration agreement and, as long as there is sufficient consideration, the agreement is valid.  The Court held that agreeing to arbitrate as a condition for hire constitutes sufficient consideration to render the arbitration agreement binding.

Overall, this case highlights some important issues that are showing up more frequently regarding terms and conditions that can be binding between employers and at-will employees.  Of course, how these documents/handbooks are drafted is vital.  For instance, the Court referred to another case cited by Graham, U.S. ex rel Harris v. EPS , Inc. 2006 WL 1348173 (D.Vt. 2006), in which the acknowledgment form signed by the employee contained stronger language and multiple disclaimers making it clear that the employee handbook at issue was not even “a legal document.”  Thus, in Harris, the Court found that neither the employee nor the employer had rights against the other with respect to the handbook.

It is always recommended to consult with an attorney either for drafting purposes or simply to review these documents, whether you are an employer providing a handbook to employees or an employee being asked to sign a particular document as a condition of new employment or continuing employment.

CMM is proud to share that Joe Campolo has been chosen as the honoree for the 2015 Suffolk County Girl Scouts Golf Classic & Grand Cocktail Reception on July 27. 2015 at the Nissequogue Golf Club. We invite you to join us for a day on the greens. Proceeds from the Girl Scouts’ Golf Classic will provide scholarships for children for STEM programs.

Yvonne Grant, President/CEO of the organization shared that they are “delighted to honor Joseph, as his impressive tenure of community service and giving back to others aligns with our mission of building the strong, confident leaders of tomorrow.”

Schedule
10:30AM: Registration &
Continental Breakfast
12PM: Shotgun Start
12:30-4PM: Barbecue Lunch
5:30PM: Grand Cocktail Reception

Learn More. 

Please join us on Thursday, March 31 for a complimentary seminar on Secured Transactions, presented by managing partner Joe Campolo.  This survey on the ins and outs of security interests will cover attachment, perfection, default, remedies, and tips for drafting security agreements.  Attendees will receive crucial guidance on the role of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code in corporate transactions.

The course has been submitted for credit approval (1.5 Professional Practice, 0.5 Skills) in accordance with the requirements of the New York State Continuing Legal Education Board.  Approval is pending.  This course is appropriate for both newly admitted and experienced attorneys.

A light dinner will be served.

Thursday, March 31, 2016
5:00 – 7:00 p.m.
Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP
4175 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 400
Ronkonkoma, NY 11779

This seminar is free but registration is required.  Please RSVP to Lauren Kanter-Lawrence, Esq., Director of Communications, at Lkanter@cmmllp.com or (631) 738-9100, extension 322.

SPower, the entity seeking to construct a 9.5 MW solar electrical generating facility on a 60 acre portion of the Delalio sod farm in Shoreham, along Route 25A, recently sent a brochure to the community touting the environmental benefits of the project, its ability to eliminate fluctuating prices for electricity during peak usage, its benefits for the environment, and why a buffer of trees around the facility will “protect the local viewshed and maintain the rural character of the area.” How can anyone be against this project and doesn’t opposing it make you “anti-environment”? Opposition to this project is based on there being a better solar alternative that won’t eliminate altogether 60 acres of open space, the existing viewshed, and the existing agricultural use which the Brookhaven Town Code’s Planned Conservation Overlay District expressly states must be preserved. Putting solar panels on roof tops (“distributed solar power”) can provide the same benefits to the environment, without the adverse impacts caused by huge commercial projects, at a fraction of the cost to LIPA and its ratepayers. Supporting distributed solar power is most assuredly a pro-environment position.

PSEG-LI recently concluded that the reliability of LIPA’s electrical system can be maintained without additional power sources until 2024. Why then are LIPA and PSEG-LI moving full speed ahead with negotiating 11 Power Purchase Agreements (“PPAs”) for 122.1 MW of commercial solar power at significantly inflated cost compared to purchasing power on the open market, and say they will soon release a new Request for Proposals for another 160 MW of commercial solar power? These PPAs will require LIPA to purchase all the power from these commercial facilities for 20 years at a fixed cost of approximately $0.17 per kWh, more than twice the cost of power on the open market. After 20 years, LIPA and its ratepayers will pay approximately $360,000,000 more for the commercial solar power than they would for open market power. The proposed 9.5 MW solar facility proposed by SPower in Shoreham is even worse – LIPA has guaranteed it will pay SPower $0.22 per kWh generated for the next 20 years, almost three times the cost of power on the open market.

The State has set a goal of having 20% of power from renewable sources by 2025. But why rush into commercial solar contracts at high prices now when that goal may be able to be achieved by 2025 with rooftop solar systems at a fraction of the cost to LIPA, and without any of the negative aspects of commercial solar systems such as high energy cost, and loss of large tracts of open space? LIPA expects to eliminate rebate incentives for rooftop solar systems altogether within two years because the cost will be low enough so that incentives no longer will be needed to encourage rooftop systems to be installed. LIPA will then receive all the power from these rooftop solar systems at virtually no cost to LIPA. Nevertheless, LIPA prefers the long term high priced contracts because it wants to avoid the loss of revenues suffered when power from solar systems installed on roofs is credited to the system owner.

Dare I say anything negative about solar? It is crazy to rush into overpriced 20 year contracts for commercial solar power when no more power is needed for at least ten years. If enough people install solar systems on their roofs in the next few years, the length of time until more power is needed by LIPA to maintain reliability will be further extended, and the power from the commercial solar systems may no longer be needed. Regardless, ratepayers will pay the inflated cost for commercial solar for twenty years if these 20-year contracts are signed.

Whether LIPA likes it or not, the ever declining cost of rooftop solar systems and the increasing efficiency of lighting and appliances will cause LIPA to lose more revenue every year. Whatever the solution to this problem may be, the answer cannot be to enter into 20 year fixed contracts at inflated prices for solar power that may never be needed. Indeed, if you examine your monthly LIPA bill, and divide the monthly charge by the number of kWhs you used, you will see that you are paying about $0.22 per kWh to LIPA to cover all of its monthly costs for power, transmission lines, maintenance, taxes, and revenue lost from renewable energy and energy efficiency. Only a fraction of what you pay goes to pay for electricity. By agreeing to pay SPower $0.22 per kWh for all the solar power it generates for the next 20 years, however, LIPA will then have to find the funds to cover all the other costs it has for expenses other than acquisition of electricity. At the end of the day, the ratepayers will have to pay for this shortfall.

In addition, when LIPA agrees to purchase solar power from huge commercial developers like SPower, the money spent goes out of State. When local companies install roof-top systems, the money goes to local companies, and the money saved by the owners of roof-top systems by reason of their monthly LIPA charges being significantly reduced gets spent right here, in our communities.

One of the arguments made in the lawsuit challenging LIPA’s and PSEG-LI’s approval of a PPA for SPower’s 9.5 MW commercial solar system is that the approval occurred without any environmental review at all. If a Draft Environmental Impact Statement had been prepared, alternatives, such as distributed rooftop solar systems, would have had to be considered in depth. No such review took place.

LIPA and PSEG-LI have the luxury of time. The commercial solar projects and their long term inflated costs can wait; proper planning must come first. Slow down – and get it right.

By Christine Malafi

To protect shareholders, in certain circumstances the law places liability upon corporations and their directors and officers for damages caused by conduct harmful to shareholders or conduct that breaches fiduciary duties. Just the way car owners and homeowners have insurance to protect themselves from potential liability claims against them, corporations and their directors and officers can have similar protection. Directors’ and Officers’ (“D&O”) liability insurance protects individual directors and officers, as well as their corporations, defending against claims of wrongful conduct specified in the coverage and losses incurred to a corporation directly in connection with those claims.

In the underwriting process, in addition  to setting the premium amount, the potential D&O  insurer may also review a corporation’s governance and business practices, and may even suggest changes to be made prior to the issuance of such coverage. As with everything in business, the purchase of such insurance may require a cost-benefit analysis.

Insurers typically offer three different coverages. The first of these coverages compensates individual directors and officers when a corporation does not satisfy certain debts on their behalf. The second protects  corporations when they indemnify their directors and officers for such claims. The third coverage protects the corporation from its own liabilities. None of these coverages defend or indemnify against allegations of fraud, acts that took place prior to the date coverage began, or suits between the corporation and its directors or officers. Nevertheless, all three of these coverages provide safeguards and help to manage the risk of liability. The D&O policy usually covers settlement amounts, legal fees, and compensatory damages that would otherwise have to be paid by the corporation or its officers and directors directly.

The one general standard that D&O insurance protects against are mis-steps by the corporation or its officers and directors. Even though the corporation and its employees can rely upon the business judgment rule as a defense to lawsuits, if a suit is based upon a decision or act which is rationally based, there are still risks, litigation may be protracted, and the cost of defending a lawsuit can be high. D&O insurance allows corporations to make rational business decisions without the fear of sustaining costs and expenses that could harm or even shut the business. As a result, it may be an important decision for a corporation as to whether to purchase D&O insurance.

In prior months, I have discussed cases involving businesses pursuing lawsuits against former employees due to perceived violations of, among other things, non-compete and/or non-disclosure agreements, as well as alleged misappropriation of trade secrets.  While the former employer is usually the one to commence the lawsuit, there are times when the former employee may also fight back with claims of his or her own.  This is exactly what happened in a recent case out of the New York County Commercial Division.  Luckily for the employer, certain of the former employee’s claims were dismissed.

In the case of International Publishing Concepts, LLC v. Locatelli (J. Bransten), International Publishing Concepts, LLC (“IPC”) commenced a lawsuit against one of its former salespeople, Thierry Locatelli (“Locatelli”).   IPC is a company that publishes books and magazines for placement in hotels.  IPC generates revenue by selling advertising within the publications themselves.  Locatelli was a salesperson for IPC for approximately five years, beginning in 2007, and generated significant revenue for IPC during the time he was employed.

In mid-2012, Locatelli left IPC and allegedly began to compete against the company, which led to a significant drop in sales.  IPC alleged that Locatelli used similar materials in an effort to mislead IPC’s clients to do business with him instead.  IPC commenced the lawsuit against Locatelli alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment, tortious interference, unfair competition, and theft of corporate opportunity. After IPC commenced the lawsuit against Locatelli, Locatelli served an Answer containing counterclaims against IPC for defamation, among other things.  Locatelli alleged that IPC forwarded several disparaging emails and letters to Locatelli’s clients, which caused him to lose business and damaged his reputation.  Locatelli also commenced a third party action against the president and CEO of IPC for the same defamation claim as alleged against IPC.

As it turns out, the letters that were forwarded to two of Locatelli’s clients by email were actually letters from IPC’s counsel in this lawsuit.  The first letter was originally sent to IPC’s President and addressed the firm’s analysis of the claims against Locatelli and provided the firm’s recommendations as to what claims and relief to pursue.  [As an aside, it is unclear if the law firm was okay with its client sending out an attorney-client privileged communication, but it is not something that would be recommended regardless of intent.]  The second letter was a “cease and desist” letter from IPC’s counsel to Locatelli which essentially restated the legal claims against Locatelli for engaging in violative conduct.  It was these letters and the emails forwarding them that formed the basis for Locatelli’s defamation counterclaim and third party claim.

IPC and IPC’s President sought to dismiss the defamation counterclaim and third party claim respectively, among other relief.  In reviewing the defamation claim under New York law, the Court noted that Locatelli would have to establish that there was “(1) a false statement, (2) published without privilege or authorization to a third party, (3) constituting fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and (4) it must either cause special harm or constitute defamation per se.” Frechtman v. Gutterman, 115 A.D.3d 102, 104 (1^st Dep’t 2014).

The Court ultimately held that the defamation claim must be dismissed because the statements contained in the letters and forwarding emails were protected by “absolute privilege,” “qualified privilege,” and were also non-actionable statements of opinion rather that actionable assertions of fact.

The Court held that the absolute privilege applied because the statements made in the letters were made by individuals participating in a public function such as a judicial proceeding.  Because the statements made were pertinent to the litigation, absolute privilege applied and the defamation claim could not stand.

The Court held that qualified privilege also applied because both parties (the communicating party and the receiving party) had an interest in the communications and Locatelli could not establish that the communications were made with spite or ill will or with knowledge that the statements were false or made in reckless disregard for the truth.

Lastly, the Court held that the statements in the letters were merely non-actionable opinions rather than actual assertions of fact.  Considering that the letters merely contained statements of IPC’s lawyers’ beliefs and opinions, rather than statements of fact, the defamation claims were dismissed on that ground as well.

While the defamation claim was ultimately dismissed here, it is important that any business in this type of situation consult with its attorneys before sending out potentially inflammatory communications, especially attorney-client privileged communications.  The claims asserted by Locatelli, which include tortious interference claims that were not part of the motion to dismiss, potentially could have been avoided if IPC sought the advice of its counsel before forwarding letters to Locatelli’s clients.  It is unclear if IPC consulted with its attorneys here, but it does not appear so based on the facts presented by the Court.

Bridgehampton Teachers Get Hair Buzzed to Benefit Local Family

By Mara Certic

The last day of school before vacation tends to be an exciting one, as academics take a backseat to fun activities in most classrooms for the last few hours before that week of freedom. That was the case on Friday, February 13, at the Bridgehampton School where students prepared themselves for the chance of a lifetime—the opportunity to shave a teacher’s head.

In an effort to raise money for a family in the school district, Bridgehampton High School History teacher John Reilly decided that it was once again time to give schoolchildren the opportunity to pay money for the chance to shave his flowing locks in front of the entire school.

Mr. Reilly has previously allowed his students to give him a buzz, and this year, when he heard that the father of a first grader was battling cancer and unable to work, he didn’t hesitate to offer up his coiffed ‘do in order to raise some money.

“My hair is less important than their need,” Mr. Reilly said on Friday afternoon, shortly after he had been shorn.

The history teacher, whose mane looked like it belonged on the head of a Romantic poet, mysteriously went “missing” moments before he was scheduled to sit for his hair cut. Eric Bramoff, the school’s athletic director, asked the gathered students call out to Mr. Reilly to try to find him.

“I saw him in the hallway, maybe he’s nervous,” one second-grader shouted over the screams of “Mr. Reilly” punctuated by rhythmic claps that echoed throughout the gymnasium.

A mysterious character with long, flowing blonde locks ran in at one point and sat in the designated barber’s chair, much to the confusion of some of the children. It was not a golden-haired maiden, as some had believed, but in fact music teacher David Elliot, who had donned the shining wig.

After more chanting from the students, a reluctant Mr. Reilly emerged from another room.

“There’s just not enough money in the pot,” he said as he explained he had cold feet and was second-guessing his decision.

Just as disappointed groans started to become audible throughout the gym, Mr. Bramoff made an offer he couldn’t refuse.

Would he change his mind if the new athletic director bought another ticket for every student in the gym? Could that $175 sway his decision?

Apparently so, as Mr. Reilly sat down and lucky students were called up to begin buzzing his hair.

Charles Manning Jr., Janatan Braia, Franky Bonilla, Melissa Villa and Michael Smith were all called up to begin the trimming process.

The school’s three senior classmen were also called upon to participate in the haircut, which raised a total of $760.

Campolo, Middleton & McCormick donated $100 when it heard of Mr. Reilly’s plans.

In a shock last-minute decision, just as students were starting to file out of the room, Mr. Bramoff announced he was going to let his girls JV basketball team shave his head too, in order to get the total up to an even $1000.

The team, which is new this season, gleefully took up the challenge and quickly gave their basketball coach a haircut that might just as well be known as the “Reilly” at Bridgehampton School.