|
DANIEL L. ACKMAN March 29, 2000
BY HAND Re: Ackman v. Giuliani, Index No. 101652/00 Dear Justice Parness: I am reluctant to reply to Mr. Horowitz's letter dated March 28. But it is so full of distortion and falsehood that I feel I must. As to the notice of settlement issue, I served Mr. Horowitz a notice of proposed judgment on March 16. He acknowledged receipt but objected to service by fax, despite our agreement to the contrary. Thus I served him again by hand on March 21. This was before I received his service by mail. It is true that I did not state the address of the courthouse in my notice. But as Mr. Horowitz still remembers where the court is-- it is in his own notice-- that defect was without prejudice. And there is nothing on 22 NYCRR § 202.48 or anywhere else that suggests my service should be a "nullity." This is, rather, another example of respondents inventing law as they go along. As the prevailing party and the first to serve, my return date should govern. I set the return date for March 26. As this date is a Sunday, the CPLR indicates the return date should be the following weekday, March 27. As to the waiting area (or "bridge area") issue, Mr. Horowitz complains that the facts I stated in my letter are unsworn. I hereby affirm them to be true, along with the facts stated in this letter, under penalty of perjury. But the real point is those facts are uncontested. Nor do I need to make a new motion as this matter is still before the Court. Since Your Honor ruled, I have spoken to reporters for The New York Times, Newsday, and the New York Post, all of whom have been denied access to TLC hearings. More important, I have spoken to lawyers representing cabbies who have asked to sit in on hearings in which they were not parties as to better prepare for their own cases on a similar issue. Even the lawyers' requests have been denied! We should not lose sight of the fact that access to judicial proceedings is the issue here-- and not squabbles about service. Respondents have shown every tendency to avoid the merits in this case. Worse, they continue to portray no evidence that they have any intention of complying with the law. This all seems to be a regular part of the city's practice if the attached New York Times article is any indication. I could cite a particular TLC hearing I want to attend, but I won't because I don't think it is relevant. I have been told time and time again that TLC hearings in general are inefficient, unfair, demeaning to cabbies, and even corrupt. I do not know how much of this is true, and that's the point. The public, not just me, has the right to know. That's what this case is about. That's what it has always been about. I ask the Court to sign my proposed judgment-- and to maintain oversight of this action-- forthwith.
Respectfully submitted, Daniel L. Ackman Encls. CC: Jerald Horowitz, Esq.
|