LIBI Awards Application Form 2017
Posted: August 14th, 2017
News (All)
Middleton quoted in “Stevens Drops Lawsuit Against the Village of Poquott”
Posted: August 8th, 2017
Debbie Stevens, one of the five candidates for the position, dropped a lawsuit against the village before a July 19 hearing. Stevens came in third with 178 votes, while New York City firefighter John Richardson won one seat with 195 votes and incumbent Jeff Koppelson the other with 180 votes.
Attorney Scott Middleton of Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP represented the village in the case. He said before the election Poquott’s village attorney called the New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials and asked about residents who registered less than 10 days before the election and was under the impression that if a person was generally qualified to vote, taking into consideration that they were a U.S. citizen and met the age requirements, they could vote.Stevens had disputed the discarding of the rule that voters must be registered 10 days before an election. She also had an issue with voters with dual residency being able to vote, and Mayor Dee Parrish’s son being an election inspector. Due to her challenging the election results, the Suffolk County Board of Election recanvassed ballots June 29.
“It’s a village election,” Middleton said. “People aren’t thinking about an election in June, everybody thinks about November. Village elections are held in March or June. By the time [residents] are starting to think about it, and they want to exercise their right, if they just moved into the village, it may not be within that 10-day window. That’s why I think that the advisory opinion of NYCOM is that they can be permitted to vote as long as they qualify.”
Middleton said an elementary error in the lawsuit was that Stevens only named the village even though she was required to name all four candidates in it to proceed. Stevens said this was something she didn’t want to do, especially when it came to Richardson, who she ran with on the Peace Party ticket. If she won the lawsuit, a new election would need to take place.
“The corruption continues and that was really why I did this,” Stevens said. “It wasn’t to overturn the election.
I didn’t want that.”
Another factor in her decision to drop the case was the village cancelling meetings since the lawsuit was filed. The owner of Smoothe Laser Center and Medi Spa in East Setauket said she felt dropping the lawsuit was what’s best for the village.
“I’d rather opt for peace than justice,” Stevens said.
Richardson was sworn in as trustee July 12, while Koppelson took his oath July 19 after the lawsuit was dismissed. In an email, Koppelson said the board members accomplished a good amount at their July 20 meeting after not assembling for a few weeks.
“I have to say that the best thing about this meeting was that there seemed to be a desire among everyone to cooperate and stay task-oriented,” Koppelson said. “There were few if any contentious issues. I am optimistic that we can all work together, and if that happens, there will be little blowback from the residents who have been consistently oppositional, angry and disruptive.”
Stevens said she plans to continue attending village hall meetings, and hopes she can play her part in creating better communication between residents and the board members. For the last three years she feels residents have been extremely divided in Poquott.
Stevens said she has been thinking about next year’s election for two trustees and mayor.
“I’m not even sure of that answer,” she said when asked about running again. “I’m doing a lot of thinking. I know in my heart of hearts that I want what’s best for the village.”
CMM Represents Town of Smithtown in Successful Effort to Replace Leadership at Animal Shelter Due to Safety Concerns
Posted: August 2nd, 2017
Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP has secured another municipal victory with its representation of the Town of Smithtown in a successful effort to replace the leadership at the Town’s animal shelter due to serious safety concerns for shelter employees, the animals in their care, and the public.
On July 25, the Town Board voted to terminate shelter director Susan Hansen, accepting the recommendation of independent hearing officer James P. Clark. Clark reached his conclusions after a four-day disciplinary hearing this spring to address reported filthy conditions and disorganized management at the shelter, which had led to two charges of misconduct and five charges of incompetence against Hansen. CMM’s municipal liability practice group, led by Scott Middleton, Esq., aggressively represented the Town of Smithtown at the hearing, calling numerous witnesses to testify, cross-examining Hansen’s witnesses, and introducing exhibits that clearly illustrated the reasons for the Town’s deep concerns over Hansen’s leadership. The evidence pertained to Hansen’s failure to take corrective action with regard to an inoperative fire alarm, exposure of an employee to a volatile situation in violation of operational policy, and failure to maintain a clean and safe environment for the animals and employees, among other serious issues. CMM’s presentation of the evidence persuasively convinced Clark that while Hansen was “unquestionably a dedicated animal activist, [she] is not suited for the role of Director.”
Middleton said of the Board’s decision to terminate Hansen and seek new leadership at the shelter, “The Town takes safety extremely seriously – that of the public, Town employees, and the animals who reside at the shelter. This is the correct result to further the Town’s safety obligations to all parties involved.”
Should You Loan Your Children Money?
Posted: July 28th, 2017
Tags: elder law, estate planning
I’m amazed at how many times clients tell me that they loaned money to one of their children and now they want to somehow add that into their estate plan. I ask them if it was a loan or a gift. They of course say that it was a loan, but have absolutely no paperwork to show that, nor has the child paid any of the money back.
Now I’m not saying that you shouldn’t give your kids any money. In today’s economy, it’s hard for young people to make ends meet. But if your child asks you for a loan, don’t pull out your checkbook until you’ve examined the financial and emotional costs.
When you go to a bank to get a loan for a car or a house, they specifically want to know what the loan is for, and you should too. Like any lender, you need to decide whether the loan purpose is reasonable. If your child is a chronic borrower, frequently overspends, or wants to use the money you’re lending to pay past due bills, be careful. You might be enabling her to continue making poor financial decisions. On the other hand, if she is usually responsible and needs the money for a purpose you support, you may feel better about agreeing to the loan.
It’s natural to want to help your child, but there are many things to consider, and financial independence should be a big one for both of you. If you step in to help, will your child lean on you the next time too? No matter how well intentioned you are, you can’t keep protecting your child from financial struggles. Hopefully he will get to experience the satisfaction of successfully getting through a difficult financial time on his own.
And remember, your financial independence is just as important. Perhaps you can afford to lend money right now, but look ahead a bit. What will happen if you find yourself in unexpected financial circumstances before the loan is repaid? If you’re loaning a significant sum and you’re close to retirement, will you have the opportunity to make up the amount? If you decide to loan your child money, be sure it’s an amount that you could afford to lose and don’t take money from your retirement account. You don’t want to add taxes on top of the loan.
You also need to think like a loan officer. A gift is a gift, but a loan needs to be documented. Putting loan terms in writing sounds too businesslike to some parents, but doing so can help set expectations. You can draft a simple loan that spells out the loan amount, the interest rate, and a repayment schedule. Try to steer clear of deferred or balloon payments. You want to avoid changing from a parent to a debt collector. Consider asking your child to set up automatic monthly transfers from his or her checking account to yours.
Having loan documentation is also necessary to meet Medicaid requirements. In the eyes of the Department of Social Services, the rule is simple: it’s a gift unless you can show otherwise. That not only means that there was actually a loan or promissory note signed, but that there is actual, consistent repayment. If there is a deferral or balloon payment, they consider it a gift and may cause a period of ineligibility for government medical assistance for up to the next five years. That’s something you probably want to avoid.
Another potential downside to loaning your child money is the family tension it may cause. When you loan money to a relative, it’s personal. If expectations aren’t met, relationships with your child and between the siblings may be at risk. Will you be okay with forgiving the loan if your child is unable to pay it back? And how will other family members react? Will other children feel as though you’re playing favorites?
Relations become very strained when their inheritance is involved. The child thought it was a gift and was forgiven whereas his siblings thought that it was still a loan and should come out of a portion of the inheritance. Or do you try to “even it up” in your estate planning documents? That’s another tricky area that’s fodder for another whole article.
If you decide to say no, consider offering other types of help. Your support matters to your child, even if it doesn’t come in the form of a loan. For example, you might consider making a smaller, no strings attached gift to your child that doesn’t have to be repaid, or offer to pay a bill or two for a short period of time.
Don’t feel guilty. If you have serious reservations about making the loan, don’t. Remember, your financial stability is just as important as your child’s and a healthy relationship between you, your child, and the siblings is something that money can’t buy.
Ban on “Disparaging” Trademarks Struck Down
Posted: July 28th, 2017
Tags: intellectual property
On June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 70-year-old provision under the Lanham Act that barred the federal registration of disparaging trademarks. In Matal v. Tam (15-1293), the Court held that that the disparagement clause was an unconstitutional restriction on speech and the U.S. government cannot refuse to register a trademark based on the offensiveness of the mark.
In Tam, the controversy arose from a rejected trademark application for THE SLANTS by an Asian-American dance rock band. The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) denied the application based on the federal provision barring the registration of disparaging trademarks because the mark may be disparaging to Asian-Americans. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the denial, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that that the disparagement clause was facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit’s judgment.
Writing for the Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito concluded that, despite the role of government in the registration process, trademarks constitute private rather than government speech. Specifically, the government merely registers the contents of others’ trademarks; it “does not dream up these marks,” “it does not edit marks submitted for registration,” and the USPTO has made clear in the past that registration does not constitute government approval of a particular mark.
This recent decision will likely have a direct impact on the Washington Redskins’ canceled registrations for REDSKINS, which the USPTO canceled on the basis that the name disparaged Native Americans. The Washington Redskins’ appeal, which is pending in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, was stayed pending the outcome of the Tam case. Keep an eye on our blog for further updates.
Thinking Positively About International Compliance
Posted: July 28th, 2017
Tags: international
Companies tend to think about corporate functions as one of two things: a revenue center or a cost center. An employee or division of a company either makes money or costs money. Human Resources, for instance, is typically considered a supporting function: a cost center. A sales team, by contrast, is a revenue center. Companies tend to think of international compliance programs, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), international sanctions, or anti-money laundering, as cost centers. In other words, companies spend money to comply with these laws and regulations because they must.
Truly successful companies, however, think positively about their compliance and legal functions and view them if not as revenue centers, then at least as adding value. Building an FCPA compliance program, for instance, needn’t cost an inordinate amount of money, and for any company selling products or services overseas, particularly in highly regulated industries, such a program is vital. Compliance programs should always be risk-based, meaning that a company should look at its unique risk profile regarding the nature of its business, the risks of the countries in which it does business, and so on. One size does not fit all, and a small manufacturer exporting to Asia shouldn’t have the same compliance program as a Fortune 100 company.
A good international compliance program enables companies to identify and mitigate costly regulatory and reputational risks, and therefore helps companies protect value. However, compliance is largely about deepening one’s understanding of the markets and partners with which you do business, and therefore can also create value. When building an FCPA compliance program, a company should educate its workforce about corruption risks in certain countries and conduct due diligence on its customers and partners in high-risk countries, such as China, Russia, or Brazil. This information can provide critical insights, improve cultural understanding when operating overseas, and give a company deeper understanding of the opportunities in a market. FCPA compliance is also about conducting business openly and ethically and is proven to positively impact corporate culture, building trust and dialogue both inside and outside of the organization.
It is easy to think of legal and compliance functions simply as cost centers, but companies should resist that temptation. At the very least, take the time to think broadly about how building effective compliance programs can positively impact other aspects of your business. You may be surprised.
Don’t Be Afraid to Have a Plan B in Negotiation
Posted: July 28th, 2017
Tags: negotiation
There are many myths in negotiation. Among them: effective negotiators are born, not made. Experience is all you need to be a good negotiator. The strong negotiator never exhibits empathy. And perhaps the most stubborn myth? That having a Plan B makes you weak and gives you an easy out, preventing you from ever achieving your Plan A.
In their iconic bestseller Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In, Roger Fisher and William Ury coined the term “BATNA” – or “Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement” – to describe what is essentially a Plan B. Of all your possible alternatives, your BATNA is the option that best meets your goals and that you will most likely take if your ideal outcome remains out of reach. (The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School also offers some important insight on BATNA and other negotiation topics – it’s worth checking out.)
Skilled negotiators understand that thinking through the possibilities and deciding on a Plan B won’t prevent you (or your attorney) from negotiating hard enough to achieve your desired result. Instead, they know that coming to the negotiation table with a well thought out BATNA is empowering – not a weakness.
Consider the following scenario: the party your restaurant is hosting this weekend just doubled in size. Jackpot! But as you’re reviewing ingredients, you realize you’re running low on quite a few things. You call your supplier; sensing your desperation, he has little incentive to give you a bargain. Is that his cash register you hear in the background?
Now imagine you call that supplier after you’ve already spoken to a couple of other suppliers. Sure, you may still be desperate to get your hands on the ingredients – but now, you can negotiate with your preferred supplier to lower his price, throw in some freebies, offer free shipping, or whatever the case may be, because now you have BATNA – an alternative. You can use the price or whatever favorable deal terms the other suppliers are offering as leverage to negotiate with your preferred supplier for what you want. And if he won’t budge, you have options besides either overpaying or having to tell your customer you can’t accommodate her.
Indeed, having a well thought out BATNA also helps you know whether to keep negotiating or walk away. If the sticker price on your desired new car is $38,000 at your local dealership but you saw it at a second dealership for $36,000, the second dealership’s price becomes your BATNA. Your ideal outcome is to negotiate with the first dealership to match or beat the lower price. If they won’t, you’ll buy the car from the second dealership. Putting in the effort to do your research and come up with your BATNA before walking into the first dealership arms you with the knowledge you need to determine when to walk and whether you’re getting a good deal.
The myth that having a Plan B will keep you from negotiating your way to Plan A should be filed away in the “debunked” category. BATNA also serves as an important reminder that as with everything in negotiation, preparation is key.
Middleton quoted in Newsday article “Attorney: Smithtown Animal Shelter Director Fired After Hearing”
Posted: July 28th, 2017
By Nicholas Spangler nicholas.spangler@newsday.com
Smithtown’s animal shelter director, who was suspended earlier this year over accusations that the facility had become chaotic and filthy, was fired this week, an attorney for the town said.
The Town Board voted 5-0 on Tuesday to terminate an unnamed employee, and Town Supervisor Patrick Vecchio would not comment on the matter this week. But Scott Middleton of Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, the attorney who represented the town in a disciplinary hearing this spring for former director Sue Hansen, confirmed Thursday that the board had terminated Hansen.
The independent hearing officer who had presided over that four-day hearing, James Clark, had recommended in a July 18 report that Hansen be fired, calling her a “dedicated animal activist” who was nevertheless “not suited for the role of Director.”
He recommended that the Town Board find her guilty of five of seven charges of incompetence and mismanagement, faulting her for waiting months to fix inoperable fire alarms, storing official records in outdoor dog kennels and allowing conditions to deteriorate to the point where town employees visiting the shelter complained of fleas and rodent droppings and an eye-watering stench.
Hansen did not respond to requests for comment this week. Paul Dashefsky, her union-appointed attorney, also did not respond to requests for comment. At the hearing, Dashefsky had portrayed Hansen as an innovative, driven leader brought in to turn around the troubled shelter but hamstrung by an indifferent town bureaucracy and senior officials who had given her little assistance or training.
Clark largely dismissed those claims. “She cannot avoid responsibility for the problems that her decisions ultimately created,” he wrote in his report.
Hansen, 61, of Rocky Point, started her job in August 2015 and was paid a salary of about $84,138. A town public safety employee with a background in animal care has been running the shelter since her February suspension.
In March, Hansen was charged with misdemeanor trespass after allegedly entering the shelter to attend a volunteer orientation, even though town officials told her to stay away during her suspension. She was released on her own recognizance with a desk appearance ticket and is due back in court Aug. 16, according to records.
Hansen since has filed a notice of claim announcing her intention to sue the town and several town employees and officials, including Councilwoman Lisa Inzerillo, for $500,000 over her arrest.
According to the claim, which does not address Hansen’s suspension, Inzerillo was at the center of a plan to ensure her removal from the shelter supervisor’s job. Inzerillo did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“We find the allegations and the notice of claim to have absolutely no merit,” said Middleton, who is representing the town in the matter.
But Matthew Weinick, the lawyer representing Hansen in her civil case, said the intent behind her arrest “was malicious.”
“Why should there be any reason to arrest a peaceful 61-year-old woman who just wanted to volunteer at the animal shelter?” Weinick said. “It’s just bizarre.”
Read it on Newsday.
September 27 – Malafi to Present at “Law School for Insurance Professionals”
Posted: July 21st, 2017
Event Date: September 27th, 2017
CMM partner Christine Malafi will present at “Law School for Insurance Professionals” on the topic of “Legal Procedures and Nuances that Impact a Claim.” Christine’s talk will address how procedural hurdles such as collateral source, contribution, offset and pre/post judgment interest affect claims in comparison to substantive steps faced in litigation like IME results, appealing judgments, and a bankrupt insured. Attend to receive insights and updates on current legal issues that the savvy insurance professional won’t want to miss!
Program details:
September 27, 2017 – 8:30 a.m.
Inn at Fox Hollow, 7755 Jericho Turnpike, Woodbury, NY
Co-sponsored by the New York State Bar Association, the New York Insurance Association, and the Insurance Federation of New York.