Suffolk County District Court Sixth District: Patchogue ----------------------------------------------------X Carmine F. Vasile, Plaintiff, -against- Index No. BRCS 1089-09 REPLY AFFIDAVIT Suffolk County Water Authority, Defendant. ----------------------------------------------------X State of New York ) } ss.: County of Suffolk ) Carmine Vasile, residing at 60 Herbert Circle, Patchogue, NY, 11772, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. On November 10 th Timothy Hopkins submitted an Answer to my Motion to Restore, Renew & Reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221 --- with no Affidavit of Merit by Herman Miller or the laboratory director referred to on Transcript pg. 69, 4. Instead, Mr. Hopkins further tainted the Record on Appeal with a series material lies and misleading statements contradicting his own witness in Defendant s Answer 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12. 2. Absent an Affidavit of Merit by Mr. Miller or some other purported expert to controvert my testimony after Mr. Miller had ample time to refresh his memory and read my moving papers, I believe the Court must reject the Defendant s Answer and deem my entire testimony and moving papers as Material Fact. 3. If this is not the case, then I hereby address each of Mr. Hopkins 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12. More Fraud Upon This Court 4. Mr. Hopkins Affidavit 3 & 4 contains four (4) material lies and/or misleading statements, e.g.: (i) Plaintiff submitted no evidence that SCWA was blending water served to his residence, when he knew or should have known such evidence was provided by Mr. Miller in his testimony on Transcript pg. 63: The--he's correct that there is blending but it's all water that meet the standard for multiple well fields. It's been done that way since the beginning of time. In water systems it gives you reliability. One well field goes down due to loss of power or some other catastrophic failure, they're served by other wells in the area. (ii) Plaintiff submitted no evidence that SCWA was falsifying public well analyses, which is contradicted by my moving papers. Proof that my May 14 th letter was reserved is provided by the Clerk s clock-stamp on the uncontested Affidavit of Service in Exhibit A. See also my June 1 st note on Exhibit B, also annexed hereto. (iii) Plaintiff submitted no evidence that the water supplied to his premises violated any drinking water standard (v) This analysis showed that Plaintiffs drinking water met all drinking water standards. 5. These latter paragraphs (iii) & (v) are absurd, the Court had before it evidence that the SCDHS failed to test for any of the 4 stable or 16 unstable isotopes of Strontium, so there is no way to know whether or not the water supplied to his premises violated any drinking water standard. 6. Again there is no Affidavit of Merit to controvert material facts in my moving papers or testimony inserted into the following Table from Transcript pg. 46, lines 7-24 1
MR. VASILE: I also asked for Strontium levels and they're not even measured in there. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. VASILE: So I have no way of knowing if they meet the MCL or they don't. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. VASILE: And that's in Exhibit A so you I think you have that too. Exhibit A, I think that was left in which is my request to the Suffolk County Health Department written by Anthony Condose and it says concerned THE COURT: Okay. I got it. MR. VASILE: --there is-- THE COURT: You don't need to read it to me. MR. VASILE: Oh, you have it. THE COURT: I see it. It's right here. MR. VASILE: Oh, okay. I wasn't sure if you had that or not. THE COURT: Okay. I got it. MR. VASILE: --there is-- THE COURT: You don't need to read it to me. MR. VASILE: Oh, you have it. THE COURT: I see it. It's right here. MR. VASILE: Oh, okay. I wasn't sure if you had that or not. 7. Mr. Hopkins Affidavit 5 & 12 are additional frauds on the Court because the April 2, 2009 letter he cited in 5 is also absurd; both the SCWA and SCDHS failed to test for any of the 4 stable or 16 unstable isotopes of Strontium, so the Federal Government had no way to know whether or not the water supplied to his premises violated any drinking water standard. See my annotations in Moving papers Exhibit A-1; the annotated letter Mr. Hopkins mischaracterized as part of an ex parte communication without challenging said Affidavit of Service. 8. Material lies and/or misrepresentations in Mr. Hopkins Affidavit 8 & 9 indicate he didn t understand the new uncontroverted material facts in my moving papers that the Court overlooked or misapprehended. This may explain the lack of an Affidavit of Merit sworn to by Mr. Miller or some other SCWA CEO. Why No Defendant Affidavits of Merit? 9. Had Mr. Miller or the unnamed director filed an Affidavit of Merit, they could have explained to the Court whether or not my testimony was erroneous; especially this passage from Transcript pg. 70, 5.: It says in this Area, Distribution Area 18, Lead-210, 750 is the maximum, 19.7 is the average out of 38 tests. Now in area 20 it says 1080 is the maximum, 20.8 is the average out of 53 tests. Now if I were to tell you that those numbers are orders of magnitude above the MCL for Lead-210, would you agree? & this line of questioning on Transcript pg. 71, 2: Q Okay. The Strontium-80--is Strontium-89 radioactive? THE COURT: Do you know? MR. MILLER: I don't know, Your Honor. & this from Transcript pg. 39, 21 MR. VASILE: Okay. So when--this section here they're--they're supposed to actively pursue permanent corrective measures to provide unblended drinking water. As far as I know that's not being done for my house. & this from Transcript pg. 39, 21 MR. VASILE: Okay. So when--this section here they're--they're supposed to actively pursue permanent corrective measures to provide unblended drinking water. As far as I know that's not being done for my house. & this from Transcript pg. 38, 6: The Lead-210 is in wells in Santamariches [Center Moriches]. Now in 2001 it didn't bother us because they weren't blending--mixing water from Santamariches with the water in Patchogue. But now if you look at the water quality report that is in evidence and the--no I can't--and and the new ones which you should have gotten a copy of, I think there's like 119 wells that are being mixed in my area and that's what they report to the EPA. So we've got a situation here where they have tables and tables of non-detected compounds which are detected by the Suffolk County Health Department in my tap water. So I don't know what I'm getting 'cause it varies from day to day, week to week. 10. I believe any competent SCWA expert would confirm my house is being fed a variable, unknown blend of drinking water, but if they had this Court would know some of the blending-wells should have been removed from service as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act and have to explain to this Court and the EPA why they remain in service and continue sending a radioactive water-blend to my house. 2