RSS Feed
 |
|
|||||
Village Court reviewing appeal on multi-family violations case The attorney for Mary Glaser who is being charged by the Village of Amityville with having an illegal multi-family residence at a property she owns at 51 Bergen Avenue is asking Amityville Village Justice Debra DiSalvo to dismiss the case on the basis that the information presented by the Village's Building Inspector was "hearsay." In addition, the attorney, Douglas Durnan of Massapequa, states that the case against his client relies upon statements made by the building inspector concerning Village records, and that he is not a custodian of such records. "...the accuser is not and makes no allegations that he is a records' custodian ...and his findings are "pure hearsay," the papers noted. "They (the charges) are not made by him from personal knowledge of the contents of the public records because he is not a custodian of those records and his job as building inspector is not a job classification that would imply that he is a custodian of records." Amityville executed a search warrant at 51 Berger Avenue in March of 2007 and found, said officials, that the single-family home had three kitchens, two separate dwelling units, and a single room occupancy. The owner was identified as Mary B. Glaser, though other information following that raid indicates the home is being maintained by her son. Glaser faces up to $53,000 in fines, if found guilty of violating the Village's ordinances. The case was the first brought under a strengthened code in the Village that permitted the building inspector to seek a search warrant from the court when he saw a situation that pointed to the likelihood that a home or business was in violation of local codes and ordinances. Under the law, the inspector would need to see evidence of such a violation including but not limited to numerous telephone lines, gas lines and electric meters, as well as separate mailboxes at a single family residence. The law was a "common sense" approach to the problem of prosecuting and shutting down illegal multi-family dwellings,said Village officials. Durnan also told the court that there was no evidence in the charges that the Village's records were even checked, and no evidence that the defendant committed any of the acts alleged, and that the Village did not comply with adequate discovery of the facts to his client. In response the Village countered that while discovery is not required under the law in this type of case, it will give the defendant and her attorney every opportunity to respond to the charges. "To date the people have provided full and complete responses to the defendant's formal and informal requests for discovery and will continue to provide whatever is discovered until a disposition is reached on the charges," the formal response stated. The response continued that there is "no requirement that the building inspector be a custodian of the records of the People.... and that his information is based on personal knowledge...following his inspection of the premises." A check with Village Court showed that the Village Justice is still reviewing the request for a disposition of the case and has not made a final decision.
Calls to the defendant's attorney Douglas Durnan were not returned.
|
for larger version       Ads have a Patent Pending. Click Here for More Information |
||||
