News (All)

By Marc Alessi

Published in Innovate Long Island

It’s no secret that Long Island has problems with cellphone service.
More than 200 cellphone “dead zones” were identified in late 2016, as well as poor-quality network speed, reliability and performance. U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has even urged carriers to improve coverage on the Island.

As a longtime resident of the North Shore, I have witnessed firsthand what it means to not have reliable wireless connectivity with our mobile-enabled electronics. And as someone who served for several years in public office, I know the typical community sensitivities that arise when we discuss the investments and improvements necessary to ensure a wireless infrastructure that enables our communities to participate in the information economy.

It is of paramount importance that we ensure the seamless wireless connectivity of our personal lives and for businesses.

My interest in improving the quality of mobile networks has grown stronger since I left public service and immersed myself into the innovation economy. As a startup entrepreneur here on Long Island and someone who helps to develop and grow startups throughout the state, I’ve witnessed firsthand the impact that quality cellphone service can have on the local entrepreneurial ecosystem, keeping businesses running smoothly and ensuring that local communities can attract high-growth tech startups.
I also know that if we don’t keep pace as smartphone usage and data demands increase, Long Island’s issues with cellphone service will be further magnified.

Today, if deployed efficiently, 4G LTE can meet most communities’ wireless-connectivity needs. But to enable future technologies like autonomous vehicles and smart cities, 5G (the fifth generation of wireless broadband technology that carriers are rolling out this year) will be required in pockets for cities and communities around the country.

We’re using our smartphones more than ever – to chat, stream content, read the news, shop and more. By 2020, mobile data traffic worldwide will be four times what internet traffic was in 2005. All that data is putting a strain on the cell towers built before our “phones” became more than phones.

This data demand isn’t just a fun part of our lifestyle. Wireless bandwidth is important for public safety, which brings me to FirstNet (First Responder Network Authority), which was created in 2012 by the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Actto provide first responders with the first nationwide, broadband network dedicated to public safety.

The rollout is beginning this year across the country. Installing the appropriate network infrastructure will be critical in ensuring that the network runs smoothly and keeps communities safer in life-threatening situations.

It is estimated that about 70 percent of 911 calls are placed from wireless phones. In other words, wireless is not just for smartphones, but actually is a basic utility.

We all have a critical stake in assuring our communities have quality network coverage. You may have read recently that the villages of Kings Point, Lake Success, Flower Hill, Plandome, Plandome Manor and Williston Park are among the areas with more data demand than the current network infrastructure can accommodate. And you may have noticed a drop in coverage in your own local area or while driving on the LIE.

Our bandwidth is maxed out. Addressing network infrastructure challenges requires collaboration between the carriers, neutral host providers (the companies that build the network infrastructure and lease it to the carriers), residents and local leaders.

Those aforementioned areas are currently debating the path forward after reviewing a proposal from the carrier providing service to customers and ExteNet Systems, an Illinois-based neutral host provider, to improve network coverage and performance.

New network infrastructure doesn’t mean unsightly cell towers, which is a common concern. Neutral host providers like ExteNet install “small cell” antennas, which can be as small as a lunchbox and are placed near the top of utility poles, much like electrical transformers.

When citizens, community leaders and organizations can work together with the carriers and neutral host providers, the potential is there to install unobtrusive wireless sites that support today’s data demands, and the future.

Health concerns about radio emissions from small cells also are raised frequently. It is understandable, given how much we all use our smartphones. As a parent, I also want to ensure no health impact for my three children.

Fortunately, several U.S. government agencies and international organizations are working together to monitor research on the health effects of radio frequency exposure. To date, the FDA and the World Health Organization, among others, have concluded that scientific evidence doesn’t effectively link radio frequency exposure with any known health problems.
In addition, small cell networks with small antennas help limit radiated power. The deployment of faster 4G and 5G networks also will contribute to reducing the energy radiated by cell phones significantly.

I hope that Long Island, and the residents and businesses which stand to benefit from the improved cell phone service, can work together with the carriers and neutral host providers to ensure that our wireless network capabilities are the best they can be. If enhanced wireless service becomes a reality, our communities will be better off.

Read the full article here.

By Patrick McCormick and Richard DeMaio

The political drama surrounding Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation captivated the public this fall. Across the country, people were glued to their screens watching the proceedings. But why? Fierce ideological debates and even allegations of sexual assault are not new to confirmation hearings. Throughout history, confirmation hearings have involved sexual assault allegations (Justice Thomas) and ideological disagreements (Robert Bork). However, they have never been mixed into a single cocktail featuring a former political operative such as Justice Kavanaugh.

Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation serves as an example that any time politics threatens to seep into the Court, it will be met with resistance. Look no further than the two most recent nominees, Merrick Garland and Justice Gorsuch. Merrick Garland—who sat on the D.C. Circuit with Justice Kavanaugh where they voted the same in 93% of the cases—had full support of the Democrats. And although Justice Gorsuch found himself in the middle of a political battle after the Senate failed to consider Garland for a vote, he nonetheless emerged from his confirmation relatively unscathed with majority support. Justice Kavanaugh’s “X-factor,” that Merrick Garland and Justice Gorsuch lacked, was a position as a Republican operative.

A combination of Justice Kavanaugh’s uncanny timing and political baggage exacerbated the politics and emotions that naturally underlie the nomination process. Justice Kavanaugh filled the seat of retired Justice Kennedy, who was the swing vote on several controversial issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, affirmation action, and campaign finance. This came weeks before the midterm elections where optimistic Democrats hoped to flip a few seats in the Senate to block his nomination. On top of it all, sexual assault allegations against Justice Kavanaugh surfaced in the midst of the #MeToo movement.

The well-known politics of Justice Kavanaugh’s previous stints as associate counsel during the Ken Starr investigation and White House Counsel for President Bush compounded the heightened political realities. Justice Kavanaugh, who urged he would “call balls and strikes,” was the same man that helped build a case to impeach President Clinton and peddled many Republican policies in the Bush White House. He was also touted by President Trump as the means to fulfill a campaign promise to nominate a conservative justice willing to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Against this political backdrop was the myth that Senate confirmation hearings are supposed to be apolitical, with the sole inquiry being the qualifications of the nominee. That Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings were politically charged should not be surprising. Half the process required to seat a justice is bestowed upon the Senate—the most deliberative and gridlock-prone political institution in our government. Article II of the Constitution vests the president with the power to nominate justices and checks that power by requiring the “advice and consent” of the Senate. Presidents may nominate justices based on their judicial philosophies and politics. It is likewise appropriate for the Senate to reject nominees based on ideological or political differences. The Constitution does not require deference to the President’s nominee or the majority party.
A fear permeating the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was vesting too much power in the President. With that fear in mind, in July 1787 Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts proposed that judges be appointed “with the advice and consent of the second [legislative] branch.”[1] Gorham believed the president would “trust to information from the members about possible judicial nominees.”[2] At this point, a proposal to allow judges to be “appointed by the National Executive” failed. On September 12, 1787, the final version of the Constitution vested the President with the ability to nominate federal judges “with the advice and consent of the Senate.” In Federalist 76, Hamilton, who favored a strong executive, wrote that “advice and consent” required “co-operation” and that “[i]t would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.”
The history of Supreme Court nominations reaffirms the political nature of the confirmation process. From the first nominations in 1789, the Senate has confirmed 125 of 163 nominations for the Court. Of the 37 unsuccessful nominations, twelve were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, while most of the rest were withdrawn in the face of opposition or postponed and never voted on by the Senate. Unsurprisingly, these nominations were unsuccessful because of ideological and political reasons.

From the earliest days of the Court in 1795, President Washington named John Rutledge to be the second Chief Justice. Rutledge was appointed during a congressional recess and briefly served as Chief Justice. Shortly after his appointment, Rutledge delivered a speech vehemently attacking the controversial Jay Treaty.[3] Disregarding the fact that President Washington supported the treaty and that the Senate approved it, many cited to Rutledge’s political blindness as evidence of mental incapacity. Because the Senate disagreed with Rutledge’s views on the Jay Treaty, the Senate rejected his confirmation by a 14-10 vote.

Over the course of the 19^th  century, the Senate rejected about 20 percent of presidential nominees for the Supreme Court. President Cleveland had particular difficulty filling a Supreme Court vacancy all because of political tension between himself and then powerful New York Senator, David Hill. Senator Hill successfully blocked two of President Cleveland’s nominees. First, Senator Hill managed to block the nomination of William Hornblower in 1893. As president of the New York City Bar Association, Hornblower convened an investigation into a prominent judge who happened to be good friends with Senator Hill. The investigation led to accusations that the judge engaged in improper conduct in a contested election while he was deputy attorney general. The investigation ultimately led to the judge’s defeat for a seat on the New York Court of Appeals. Retaliating against Hornblower for derailing his friend’s seat on New York’s highest Court, and as the political foe of President Cleveland, Senator Hill vigorously campaigned against Hornblower’s nomination. Hill’s efforts were successful: the Senate rejected Hornblower’s nomination by a vote of 30-24. Senator Hill’s forceful opposition continued in 1894 when he also successfully blocked the nomination of Wheeler Peckham. Stuck between the political feud of President Cleveland and Senator Hill, the Senate rejected Wheeler’s nomination by a vote of 42-31.

In the 20th century, high-profile rejections followed. Considered part of the “southern strategy,” President Nixon nominated Clement Haynsworth and Harold Carswell. Both nominees supported segregation and were cynically viewed as Nixon’s way of rewarding southerners after winning the election. The rejection of both nominees was an indictment of President Nixon’s allegiance to his political strategy rather than the qualifications and merits of his nominees. But the rejection train did not stop there. A decade later stark ideological differences fomented the rejection of Robert Bork.
Following Bork’s rejection, the Senate considered two nominees whose pasts caught up to them with now-familiar allegations. Shortly after the Bork debacle, President Reagan nominated Douglas Ginsburg. Before his name was even officially submitted to the Senate, he was forced to withdraw his nomination because of his admission that he used marijuana.

A couple of years after that, allegations of sexual harassment followed Justice Thomas through his confirmation.

History adds up to this point: politics will—for better or for worse—always be part of the of the confirmation process. The reality is that justices will always carry baggage with them onto the Court. But the justices that leave lasting impacts are those that carry principled records of advocacy and judicial opinions. Justices like Thurgood Marshall, Antonin Scalia, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg will always be revered because their judicial philosophies were formed on principles, not politics. Nominating partisan people to fulfill partisan campaign promises will always make the nomination process political. Fears of partisanship will undermine the credibility of the nominee as well as the legitimacy of the Court. The stakes surrounding Kavanaugh’s confirmation were undeniably high. A single justice may tip the scales of justice in favor of a conservative majority for a generation. More than anything, Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation is a reminder of the one place where politics does not belong—on the Supreme Court of the United States.

[1] Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand ed., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911, Vol. II.
[2] Id.
[3] The Jay Treaty was a controversial treaty entered between the United States and Great Britain to relieve post-revolutionary war tension. The treaty was unpopular among the public, but it managed to garner enough support to squeak through the Senate. President Washington implemented the treaty in the face of disapproval, realizing it was the price of peace with Great Britain.

Meet Your SCBA Colleague with Patrick McCormick

By Laura Lane

Early on in your career, from 1988- 1992, you were an Assistant District Attorney in the Bronx, prosecuting felony cases.
There was a significant amount of work then and there were many trials by fire.

Sounds like a real learning experience.
I learned right away about selfreliance and reaching out. In March 1990 I tried my first felony case and in the same week argued a case before the Court of Appeals. You really did have to learn on the job and build relationships with other prosecutors. I was only 26 then.

Do you remember the details of the felony case?
It was a B felony, an undercover buy and bust. A middle school class came to watch the trial and during a break I spoke to them. One of the kids said that he knew who the defendant was and what corner he sold crack on. Unfortunately, I lost. I learned the importance of jury selection and how to try a case.

Was it difficult going to homicide crime scenes?
It was surreal seeing someone dead. When you were on homicide duty you were on 24-hour call and two times a month you went to the crime scene. My first was off the Throgs Neck Bridge.

But you weren’t alone at the crime scene.
No. There were detectives, onlookers, the medical examiner’s office. My job was always to get a visual of what was going on there. I learned to ask the right questions, so we could eliminate the possible defenses later, which I had to do on the fly. And no one was ever killed during the day. The standard time to show up was 2 or 3 a.m. It was great, great training. We did 10,000 indictments a year.

What was the degree of professionalism of the other people that were involved?
We had some of the best lawyers and prosecutors in the city. Relationships were made. Some of those people are floating around in Suffolk County now and some are judges. We have a similar background and there was, and is a mutual respect.

What was your next job?
I went to a small commercial litigation firm for four years in Garden City, which was a natural progression. Then I went to Certilman, Balin, Adler in East Meadow, the second largest firm on Long Island. That was from 1996 to 2010. I was a partner there for 10 years.

That’s where you met Joe Campolo.
Yes. He was an associate there who started when I became a partner. He left and eventually became general counsel at a technology company. Joe hired me as outside litigation counsel. After that company was sold he opened a solo practice. It grew, and during that time he kept asking me to join him. I always joke with him and say he wore me down. In 2010 I joined as a partner. Relationships really are critical.

You are on the Board of Directors for CAPS and DDI. Is volunteerism important to you?
Yes, as it is to the firm. We all worked really hard to get where we are. There was no silver spoon. I worked at Woodbury Country Club doing maintenance when I was in college. We all believe in giving back. Volunteering is part of the firm’s culture.

What do you like about being an attorney?
I like that every day is different. I like to help people who have problems. And I enjoy the intellectual fight with another attorney.

When did you join the SCBA and why?
I joined in 2010 because I knew the value of being involved with a local bar and the relationships that would come from membership. I immediately went to the Academy to attend the CLE’s.

Would you recommend that young attorneys join?
Yes. I tell young associates all the time that it is important to join and become active. You never know who you will meet. A lot of the work I get is referred to me from other members. There are a lot of really, really good attorneys in the SCBA and they have a lot to offer. The bar association is a very welcoming place.