FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/05/ :53 AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/05/2017

Transcription

1 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/05/ AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF 10/05/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK SAL F. ALBANESE, as aggrieved ballotaccess candidate for the Public Office of Mayor of the City of New York, CURTIS SLIWA, as Chair of the New York State Reform Party, a ballot-access party as defined under 1-104(3) of the Election Law, and FRANK MORANO, as Chair of the Interim County Organization for Richmond County, in the City and State of New York, Petitioners, -vs.- THE NEW YORK CITY CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondents-State Actors, -and- CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS (DE), INC. d/b/a SPECTRUM NEWS NY1, SYMPHONY SPACE, MARIST INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC OPINION AT MARIST COLLEGE, QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY, and JOHN DOES 1-10, said names representing potential respondents unknown at this time, Respondents-Quasi-State Actors, INDEX NO /2017 EMERGENCY AFFIRMATION OF RICHARD A. LUTHMANN, ESQ. RICHARD A. LUTHMANN, ESQ., of the Luthmann Law Firm, PLLC, respectfully affirms as follow 1. I represent Petitioners, SAL F. ALBANESE, CURTIS SLIWA, and FRANK MORANO. 1 1 of 16

2 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/05/ AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF 10/05/ Petitioners bring this action under Article 78 of the CPLR, seeking immediate and emergency determination and the interim equitable relief requested. 3. This is a proceeding related to the conduct of public elections, namely the arbitrary and capricious determinations made by the Respondent THE NEW YORK CITY CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD ( CFB ), an administrative agency of the Respondent THE CITY OF NEW YORK (the City ), that is responsible for, inter alia, the publiclyfunded NYC Votes Debate Program, the first of which for the pubic office of the Mayor of the City of New York is scheduled to occur on or about Tuesday, October 10, 2017, at 700pm, at Symphony Space on the Upper West Side (the Debate ). 4. Petitioners are aggrieved to the extent that the CFB has administratively ruled that the ballot-access candidate of the New York State Reform Party for the public office of Mayor of the City of New York, SAL F. ALBANESE, has not qualified for the Debate stage. Petitioners believe that any determination excluding said SAL F. ALBANESE from the Debate stage is erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, and is in violation of the applicable law, rules, and regulations. 5. Also, the time-frame of the CFB administrative determination creates an exigency, as there are only two (2) business days as between the CFB s determination and the actual Debate (Monday is Columbus Day, a public holiday), necessitating swift action by this Court to review any and all erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, and / or unlawful determinations made by the CFB with respect to SAL F. ALBANESE s inclusion in the Debate and on the Debate stage. 6. Accordingly, Petitioners requests that the Court give this matter emergency status. 2 2 of 16

3 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/05/ AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF 10/05/ No prior application has been made requesting the relief requested herein. 8. Notice was previously given to Respondents comply with Court Rule on Monday, October 3, See Exhibit 1 attached herewith. 9. The CFB has made an administrative determination excluding Sal Albanese from the Debate stage. See Exhibit 2 attached herewith. Said determination is erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. 10. We rely on the facts as presented in the Verified Petition in this Special Proceeding with Exhibits, attached herewith (see Petition ) and the brief summary of facts that follows herewith. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS 11. At the core of this Petition is whether Sal Albanese, the ballot-access candidate of the NYS Reform Party 1 for the public office of the Mayor of the City of New York, should be excluded from participating in the publicly-funded NYC Votes Debate Program, funded by dollars from the City and administered by the CFB, a City agency, based upon an erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, and illegal determination of the CFB made in conjunction with its Debate sponsor / private sector agent, the Debate s broadcaster Spectrum NY The Debate is produced by the CFB in coordination with its private-sector agent Spectrum NY1 News, the Debate s broadcaster. See EXHIBIT A. 1 The NYS Reform Party is a ballot-access party as defined under 1-104(3) of the Election Law. 3 3 of 16

4 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/05/ AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF 10/05/ The CFB published a 2017 Debate Criteria publication that gives its interpretation of the requirements for candidate participation in the Debate and is branded the non-partisan, objective, and non-discriminatory criteria that candidates must meet in order to participate in the debates. See EXHIBIT B. 14. The actual criteria for Debate participation is found as part of the NYC Administrative Code, Mandatory debates. See EXHIBIT C CFB has erroneously ruled that Sal Albanese will not be included on the Debate State on Tuesday, October 10, 2017, at 700pm, at Symphony Space. 16. A letter dated September 20, 2017, was sent to the CFB questioning whether trickery was afoot. See EXHIBIT D. 17. The Response Letter from the CFB was cryptic at best. See EXHIBIT E. 18. Said Response Letter references a Memorandum of Understanding as between the CFB and NY1 entered in to June 7, 2017 (the "MOU"). 19. Moreover, the Response Letter says [P]ursuant to the MOU, eligibility for the Debate will be determined based on the last filing statement prior to the Debate, which must be filed by Friday, October 6, All candidates on the ballot for Mayor will be notified whether they have met the eligibility criteria to participate in the Debate after October 6, If you need further assistance, please contact your Candidate Services Liaison. 3 2 Notably, the private-sector agents of the City and the CFB are indemnified under the Administrative Code 12. The city of New York shall indemnify each sponsor for any liability of such sponsor arising out of the acts or omissions of the city of New York in connection with the selection of candidates for participation in any debate held pursuant to this section As discussed infra., the CFB cannot delegate its official duties under the NYC Administrative Code, , by contract or otherwise. The result of this overreach by 4 4 of 16

5 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/05/ AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF 10/05/ On October 4, 2017, CFB made an administrative determination excluding Sal Albanese from the Debate stage. See Exhibit 2 attached herewith. Said determination is erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. 21. The MOU is and represents the PRIVITIZATION of PUBLIC ELECTIONS which, as in this case, leads to insidious and invidious results including but not limited to the censorship of political speech in publicly-funded electoral forums, a lack of diversity of choice with respect to candidates, arbitrary and capricious classification of ballot access candidates, and an illegal publicly-funded debate system that functions not based on ideas, expression or political discourse, but rather by MONEY and PAY TO PLAY. 22. The CFB violates the administrative mandate under of the New York City Administrative Code a. The section relied upon by the CFB ( (1)(a)) is void for vagueness. It literally and textually says that the CFB is free to contract with anyone it so chooses. So the CFB could, under this section contract with ROCKET MAN Kin Jung Unh of North Korea in the conduct of the elections. And it appears that the CFB may have contracted with someone just that sinister. b. The contract in place is with Spectrum NY1 News. That company is a North Carolina-based entity that is de facto manipulating local New York City the CFB (coupled with indemnification provisions covering sponsor / private-sector agents) the is the MOU is rendered a legal nullity. Moreover, the date of the selected determination (2 business days before the debate) does not allow for meaningful administrative or judicial review of the CFB s determinations, which appears on its face to arbitrarily and capriciously influenced by sponsor / private-sector agents of the CFB. Thus, the offending language in NYC Administrative Code (1)(a) should be disregarded. 5 5 of 16

6 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/05/ AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF 10/05/2017 elections. Spectrum NY1 News and its parent company does not embrace New York values, including the protection of workers rights, and has misrepresented their position and performance to the Governor in the merger agreement that approved their entry into the New York marketplace. See EXHIBIT H. Neither law, nor equity, nor good conscience should allow this out-of-state interest to WAG THE DOG on the election for the Mayor of the City of New York. Mayor Bill de Blasio has effectively cowtailed to these monied interests. The CFB under his administration has allowed Spectrum NY1 to be a Debate Sponsor and de Blasio has said nothing about his participation in the Debate with respect to the thousands of families on strike against Spectrum NY1 who screws its workers out of pensions and hires out-of-state SCABS. Sal Albanese is the only candidate that respects workers rights and upon information and belief, Spectrum NY1 seeks to exclude Sal Albanese for the Debate stage on this basis because it would be bad PR for a company that would violate its own agreements with the State of New York and defecate all over workers rights in our state. Only our State Courts are the last bastion to protect the public interest and the interests of New York State from the de facto PRIVITIZATION of PUBLIC ELECTIONS and actual governmentsponsored censorship of POLITICAL SPEECH. c. The term DEBATE SPONSOR is not defined, so the polling entities of Marist and Quinnipiac apparently fall under that ambit. As such, REQUIRES that agreement is had between the CFB and the debate 6 6 of 16

7 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/05/ AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF 10/05/2017 sponsors. There is no evidence that the CFB communicated polling procedures and criteria under its 2017 rules to Quinnipiac OR to Marist prior to the most recent round of polling. As such, Sal Albanese s detrimental reliance on the CFB s violation of the NYC Administrative code should not be punished. Rather, he should be permitted on the Debate State because he has clearly complied with all other delineated criteria absent the poll criteria where the CFB poll criteria is void for vagueness and in violation the applicable laws, rules, and regulations. 23. As detailed in the September 20, 2017 Letter, in the Petitioners opinion, SAL F. ALBANESE has qualified for the Debate Stage a. SAL F. ALBANESE is and will be the ballot access candidate of the NYS Reform Party as of the date of the Debate (Admin. Code (1)(a)); b. SAL F. ALBANESE does now and will meet all other minimum criteria under the Campaign Finance Act ( the Act ) as of the day of the Debate (Admin. Code (5)(b)(i)); c. SAL F. ALBANESE has already and will have raised and spent 2.5% of the expenditure limit for Mayor ($174,225) in compliance with the Act as reflected in the last filing statement prior to the Debate, which must be filed by Friday, October 6, 2017; AND d. SAL F. ALBANESE has met the polling requirements with respect to the Act (as discussed infra.) as the CFB, by its own Rules and applicable Administrative Regulations. 7 7 of 16

8 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/05/ AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF 10/05/ Accordingly, the Petitioners petition should be granted for the reasons detailed herein. LEGAL ARGUMENT Petitioners are Entitled to the Entry of a Temporary and a Preliminary Restraining Order. 25. The grounds upon which restraints can be granted are set forth in CPLR 6301, which provides as follows A preliminary injunction may be granted in any action where it appears that the defendant threatens or is about to do, or is doing or procuring or suffering to be done, an act in violation of the Petitioners's rights respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual, or in any action where the Petitioners has demanded and would be entitled to a judgment restraining the defendant from the commission or continuance of an act, which, if committed or continued during the pendency of the action, would produce injury to the Petitioners. A temporary restraining order may be granted pending a hearing for a preliminary injunction where it appears that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result unless the defendant is restrained before the hearing can be had." (Emphasis supplied.) 26. Thus, by statute a Preliminary Restraining Order may issue where the Respondents commission or continuance of an act, which, if committed or continued during the pendency of the action, would produce injury to the Petitioner tending to render the judgment ineffectual. A preliminary injunction should be granted "where it appears that the defendant threatens or is about to do, or is doing or procuring or suffering to be done an act in violation of Petitioners's rights respecting the subject of the action". 28 NY Jur, Injunctions, of 16

9 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/05/ AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF 10/05/ In order to establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction, the Petitioners are required to demonstrate (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent the grant of such preliminary injunctive relief, and (3) a balance of the equities favoring its position. Di Fabio v. Omnipoint Communications, Inc., 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7049, 2009 NY Slip Op 7223 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't Oct. 6, 2009); Ingenuit, Ltd. v. Harriff, 33 A.D.3d 589, 822 N.Y.S.2d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006); Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748, 750, 536 NYS2d 44 (1988); W.T. Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496, 517, 438 NYS2d 761 (1981); Manhattan Real Estate Equities Group, LLC v Pine Equity, NY, 16 AD3d 292, 791 NYS2d 418 (2005); Battenkill Veterinary Equine v Cangelosi, 1 AD3d 856, 857, 768 NYS2d 504 (2003); Bollengier v Gulati, 233 AD2d 721, 650 NYS2d 56 (1996). 28. A temporary restraining order should be granted where it appears that "immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result". Consequently, Petitioners must show immediate and irreparable injury and must establish that the Respondents have threatened or are about to do, or are doing, an act in violation of their rights. 28 NY Jur, Injunctions, Irreparable injury has been defined as "that which cannot be repaired, restored, or adequately compensated in money, or where the compensation cannot be safely measured." 28 NY Jur, Injunctions, 5. A party seeking a temporary restraining order must establish that a real threat of irreparable injury exists by factual demonstration. Injury of an inconsequential nature will not qualify as irreparable injury, or justify the issuance of a temporary restraining order. 9 9 of 16

10 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/05/ AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF 10/05/ Injunctions with reference to their terms of command may be classified as "prohibitory" or "mandatory". A mandatory injunction is affirmative in character and directs the performance of an act, whereas a prohibitive injunction is preventive in character and forbids the continuance of a wrongful act, or the doing of some threatened or anticipated injury. 28 NY Jur, Injunctions, The injunctions sought in the case at bar are not "mandatory" in nature; rather, they are prohibitive -- to restrain. They are a provisional remedy sought which is temporary in nature which seeks to maintain a status quo and to avoid a clear injustice related to the voting franchise and the conduct of elections perpetrated by governmental authorities. 32. Under the flexible test used by the courts particularly where there are political / election law-related issues, where a balance of equities normally tips rather heavily in favor of granting a preliminary injunction as a protective / prophylactic measure, Petitioners need only demonstrate a likelihood of irreparably injury in the absence of an injunction, and "serious questions going to the merits" rather than a "likelihood of success on the merits." See Green Party v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 389 F.3d 411, 418 (2d Cir. 2004). See also Adams v. Warner Brothers Pictures Network, 2005 WL , at * 1 (E.D.N.Y. November 22, 2005) of 16

11 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/05/ AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF 10/05/2017 Petitioners Will Suffer Immediate and Irreparable Harm If the Injunction Is Not Granted. 33. The term "irreparable harm" means injury for which monetary damages cannot be adequate compensation. McLaughlin, Piven, Vogel, Inc. v. W. J. Nolan & Co., 114 A.D.2d 165, 498 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1986). 34. The instant proceeding is palpably about access to a public forum for political expression. There are (and should not be) any money at stake, per se On this TRO application, Petitioners can demonstrate that they would suffer immediate and irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted. By denying ballotaccess candidate Sal Albanese the Debate Stage in a publicly-funded Debate for ballotaccess candidates for the public office of Mayor of the City of New York, not only will Sal Albanese be denied an opportunity to express his political thoughts and expressions in a public forum funded with taxpayer dollars, the CFB and the City will have selectively, erroneously, arbitrarily, capriciously, and illegally sanctioned censorship of political expression. There is immediate and irreparable harm to both Sal Albanese and the NYS Reform Party, as the candidate s views and political expressions will be stifled and not have an opportunity to be heard. 4 Which goes to the central question in this proceeding Whether publicly-funded forums for otherwise qualified ballot access candidates be so blatantly PAY TO PLAY so as to exclude certain candidates based solely on the amount of money that they have raised and spent. Is not the entire 2017 administrative Debate qualification system concocted by the CFB and its Debate Sponsor, Spectrum NY1, erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, illegal and offensive to political expression and the conventional notions of fair play and ballotaccess in elections? of 16

12 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/05/ AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF 10/05/ But there will also be an immediate and irreparable harm to the public interest as a whole in allowing for governmental censorship and exclusion on political issues and expression. The public has a right to be free from government suppression and censorship of political discourse in all of its forms, and any such invidious activity by the government creates immediate and irreparable harm to the public as a whole. 37. Accordingly, Petitioners TRO applications should be granted on this basis alone given the relaxed standard for injunctions as articulated in Green Party and Adams. Petitioners have a Likelihood of Success on the Merits. 38. The Petitioners are likely to succeed on all of its claims against Respondents on several fronts ANY DECISION TO SAL F. ALBANESE S INCLUSION ON THE DEBATE STAGE BY THE CFB SHOULD BE EXAMINED WITH STRICT SCRUTINY AS TO THE MOTIVES OF THE CFB AND ITS AGENTS 39. The authority to decide whether Sal Albanese should be included on the Debate Stage lies solely with the CFB, a governmental agency and cannot be delegated to a Debate sponsor / private sector agent without all applicable protections given to the integrity of the elections and the applicable freedom of political expression by the ballot access candidates anything less would be state-sponsored censorship of political speech. 40. Strict scrutiny should apply here as Sal F. Albanese, as a ballot access candidate for the Public Office of the Mayor of the City of New York, cannot have his political speech stifled in a publicly-sponsored forum of 16

13 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/05/ AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF 10/05/ The Court should look no further than the actual motives of the CFB and its agents / Debate sponsors / public actors and see whether the actions of the CFB and/or its agents are erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, and illegal with respect to the applicable laws, rules and regulations. See Elena Kagan, Private Speech, Public Purpose The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine, 63 U. CHI. L. REV. 413, 414, (1996); Jed Rubenfeld, The First Amendment s Purpose, 53 STAN. L. REV. 767, 768, 776 (2001) (arguing that First Amendment cases should be decided exclusively on the question of motive). 42. The CFB, in its discharge of NYC Administrative Code, (1)(a) has offended this basic principle of political open expression, through an arbitrary and capricious agreement with a Debate sponsor / private sector agent, having responsibility for any part of the CFB determination as to a ballot access candidate s inclusion on the Debate Stages A participating candidate or limited participating candidate for nomination or election to a city-wide office is eligible to participate in a debate for each election in which he or she is on the ballot if he or she has met such criteria for participation as specified in this section, and as shall be further specified in any agreement between the debate sponsor and the board. 43. Under the NYC Administrative Code, , there are three types of candidates, to wit a participating candidate, a limited-participating candidate, and a nonparticipating candidate. SAL F. ALBANESE cannot be said to be a non-participating candidate. Thus, the ability of a Debate sponsor / private sector agent is very limited under the NYC Administrative Code, In fact, that section was written to allow a Debate sponsor / private sector agent to permit MORE candidates on the debate stage and not of 16

14 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/05/ AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF 10/05/2017 LESS (non-participating candidate Debate Sponsor exclusion) and consequentially MORE POLITICAL SPEECH and MORE POLITICAL CHOICE (5)(b)(ii). POLLING IS NOT A NECESSARY ELEMENT TO DEBATE INCLUSION BUT STRICTLY AND INORDINATELY HIGH MONETARY REQUIREMENTS ARE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND STIFLE POLITICAL SPEECH OF BALLOT ACCESS CANDIDATES 44. The word poll is not defined in Admin. Code Moreover, the recent Marist Poll did not include all of the ballot access candidates in the poll. The Marist Poll from September 19, 2017, is a Defective Poll for measurement purposes under the CFB rules. 45. Additionally, Sal Albanese had been included in previous Marist and Quinnipiac Polls. Why he was now suddenly and inexplicably dropped reeks of political trickery. The voters of the City of New York have a right to hear the views of the candidates, and it seems someone or something wants to muzzle and stifle Sal Albanese message of Reform and the end of Pay-To-Play. 46. If there is no Valid Poll from Marist or Quinnipiac, then the only criteria as per the 2017 CFB Rules is fundraising and spending. However, the NYC Administrative Code contains no such limiting language as to polls. In fact, the word Poll does not appear anywhere within NYC Administrative Code, Moreover, such a reading of the 2017 CFB rules is arbitrary and capricious and stifles and creates GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED chilling effect on the protected political speech of ballot access candidates for NYC Mayor in a GOVERNMENT- SPONSORED forum of 16

15 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/05/ AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF 10/05/2017 THE POLLING WAS DEFECTIVE, BUT SAL ALBANESE IS NOT TO BLAME 48. On September 20, 2017, Lee Miringoff, the director of Respondent Marist s polling operation spoke to Petitioner Curtis Sliwa. See Affidavit of Curtis Sliwa attached hereto as EXHIBIT G. 49. Lee Miringoff admitted that Sal Albanese was not included in the Marist polling that was published on September 19, 2017 (Ex. F hereto). Sal Albanese is a ballot access candidate and this was a mistake on Respondent Marists part. 50. Accordingly, Petitioners should not be penalized for the inadvertent mistakes of pollsters. CONCLUSION 51. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court should grant the Petition. 52. No previous request for the relief herein has been made. 53. The Petitioners are at jeopardy of immediate and irreparable harm for which monetary damages cannot adequately compensate. WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request for the Court to grant an Order a. Preliminarily and Temporarily Restraining the CFB, the City, CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS (DE), INC. d/b/a SPECTRUM NEWS NY1 ( Spectrum NY1 ), and Symphony Space from conducting, broadcasting, hosting, transmitting, holding, and/or going forward in any way, with the Debate for NYC Mayor on or about Tuesday, October 10, 2017, at 700pm, at Symphony Space on the Upper West Side without ballot access candidate for the NYS Reform Party, SAL F. ALBANESE, participating in said Debate on said Debate Stage; and of 16

16 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/05/ AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF 10/05/2017 b. Staying the Hearing of and determination of this Petition until after the administrative determination of the CFB, which is scheduled to be made on Friday, October 6, 2017; and c. Declaring that the Petition should be granted and that SAL F. ALBANESE, ballot access candidate for the NYS Reform Party, shall be entitled to appear on the Debate Stage and participate in the Debate for NYC Mayor on Tuesday, October 10, 2017, at 700pm, at Symphony Space on the Upper West Side; and d. Granting such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and equitable. DATED Staten Island, New York October 5, 2017 Respectfully submitted, THE LUTHMANN LAW FIRM, PLLC By Richard A. Luthmann 1811 Victory Boulevard Staten Island, NY Tel (718) Fax (347) of 16