Kent Manor litigation

There have been some further developments in this long drawn out litigation.  On February 10, 2009, the court ruled against a motion by Putnam County seeking to have itself let out of the litigation.  "The Journal News" picked up on that and wrote a follow-up article to their August 21, 2008 article and August 22, 2008 editorial.

I have prepared a full chronology of this development from documents in my possession (largely copied at the Putnam County Clerk's Office from court records).  It is posted separately, under the Kent Manor heading.

This record shows that I was given misinformation by the Town Attorney at the Town Board meeting of September 22, 2008, when he stated "In the course of this lawsuit, they have just begun to allege damage claims, asserting that they have been injured as a result of, ah, increased Agency approvals that they need for their approvals and they have just asserted this in the July/August timeframe and apparently went to the paper during that timeframe. They have not formally pled any damages in the lawsuit. We have not been advised of formal claims they’ve made."  The record , in fact, shows that he had seen the court filings on Dec. 17, 1999, Mar. 10, 2000, Dec. 28, 2001, May 6, 2008 and the Court Order of Jul. 16, 2008.

This litigation is some way from being final, but it is not looking good from a fiscal view for we taxpayers.  It's a good thing that "The Journal News" has followed this case so well (articles published on Nov. 20, 2001, Jul. 25, 2005, Feb. 1, 2008, Aug. 21, 2008 and Mar. 5, 2009, plus their editorial of Aug. 22, 2008.  Their reporter, Michael Risinit appears to be a careful researcher and stays with the facts, as supported by documents.