Judge Linda Jamieson Turns Down Appeal to Stop the Ballpark—Puts Ramapo Residents Back on Deck to Pay $30m More

April 5, 2011 The decision from the court was disappointing for what it said and even more so for what it left out. Judge Jamieson seemed to deal with one single issue while disregarding a dozen other legal points in the proceeding.

In the Decision and Order filed by Justice Linda Jamieson, the fundamental reason she gives for denying an injunction to temporarily halt the construction at the site centers around the timing of the lawsuit. "By the time plaintiffs filed their Order to Show Cause," she writes, "the project was approximately 60% complete. This simply is too long for the plaintiffs to wait to obtain injunctive relief."

Laches
The legal principle involved is termed laches. The Nolo Plain English legal Dictionary defines it as: "A legal defense to a claim for equitable relief asserting that the plaintiff’s long delay in bringing the claim has prejudiced the defendant (as a sort of legal ambush). For example, if a homeowner watches while the neighbor builds a house over their property line, and only then brings a suit to have the house removed, the encroaching neighbor may raise the defense of laches."

Judge Jamieson points out in her order that the Town held a Public Hearing concerning the project in May 2010. The plaintiffs (Preserve Ramapo and other concerned citizens) put a referendum on the ballot in August 2010 and defeated the $16.5 million for the Ramapo Local Development Corporation for Project Grand Slam. All of this was going on long before the March 8, 2011 date when the plaintiffs filed their Order to Show Cause to get a preliminary injunction.

The reason for the delay, and this is explained in the court papers, was the Supervisor’s lies about spending no public money on this project after the defeat on the $16.5 million bond. There were his public statements and the attempt to hide and keep from the public the spending of public monies on the project. Jamieson mentions these and then discounts them as no justification for waiting.

She admits that the first clear evidence of the public spending was discovered by the plaintiffs at a Nov. 4, 2010 town board meeting. Almost two weeks later, on Nov. 15, FOIL requests that were returned included resolutions and checks for contracts with several of the companies working on the site. Then, upon learning of the Town’s use of such funds, the plaintiffs immediately retained counsel, and in a letter, dated December 17, 2010, they placed the town and the contractors on notice that they intended to file litigation, which they did in the following month, January 2011.

Apparently, the Judge viewed St. Lawrence’s false statements repeated on several occasions that he had gotten the message and that no taxpayer dollars would be spent on the ballpark as sufficient legal cover to charge the plaintiffs with undue delay in filing their lawsuit. She was also apparently comfortable with the name changes the project has undergone from Project Grand Slam, to Fireman’s Memorial Drive Improvement, to the Fireman’s Memorial Drive Project, all designed to deflect public attention from what the money was going to.

Almost weekly, St. Lawrence also promised there were a number of investors waiting for the opportunity to invest in this project so that there would be no need for taxpayers to foot the bill for a project that began as a $25 million adventure and has recently spiraled into a $60 million vacuum. The investors never showed up, but that didn’t prevent the Supervisor promising on local radio and at meetings that the money would be there.

Lesson learned: Lying works. Even in a New York State Supreme Court setting when you admit that you were not telling the truth, it can function as an effective defense.

The summary remark from the court reads: "Similarly, plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. Considering how much of the project has been built, and how much money has been spent (or committed) at the time plaintiffs sought the preliminary injunction, the harm in not halting the project at this time does not seem to be immense. If the stadium is to be dismantled, it is a huge undertaking, whether it is 70% complete or 100% complete."

There are three serious problems with this statement. It seems to claim that because so much money has been spent, you might as well spend the rest to complete it. How much more can it hurt? "The harm in not halting the project at this time does not seem to be immense." Well, is $30 million inconsequential? So far $30 million has been spent with another $30 million to complete it. So half the total is not significant?

And how did the Judge determine that the project is 70% complete? A site visit? An engineering review? Or maybe the good word of the defendants who from the beginning of this controversy had proven themselves liars about their "getting the message" or telling the truth about who was paying for this?

Then there is the odd suggestion that it would cost a lot "if the stadium is to be dismantled." In the papers presented to the judge, there is the specific suggestion that the work stop and the stadium be scaled back and completed as a much more modest structure for local recreational use. Preserve Ramapo has not asked that the stadium be "dismantled." Did the judge imagine that we were asking that the stadium be dismantled?

On the last page of Jamieson’s order there are these disturbing words: "Yet if the injunction is granted, the project would remain largely built, the trees are still gone, and significant amounts of money will still be spent. Frankly, regardless of whether the construction is halted or not, defendants will still have to pay the balances on those contracts already executed, as well as penalties arising from the breach of those contracts, both direct and indirect. There simply does not appear to be any cost savings from the halting of the project at this late stage." Is this a justice of the state supreme court system telling the taxpayers, Well, you’re hosed so you might as well learn to live with it.

There was a long list of legal complaints in the lawsuit that described breeches in town and state law. Contracts that are entered into illegally do not have standing, yet the judge did not address any of these other issues in her decision to allow the project to go forward.

Disregarded
Legal issues in the 40-page referendum filed by the plaintiffs and left by the wayside in the decision: