Best Payphones, Inc. v. City of New York, et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment Corrected Defendants' Exhibits In Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

E.D.N.Y.July 21, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------- X DECLARATION OF SUSAN SMOLLENS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 03-CV-0192 (LDH)(VMS) BEST PAYPHONES, INC., Plaintiff, -against- ALLAN DOBRIN, former Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (DoITT) Commissioner, BRUCE REGAL, former DoITT Acting Deputy Commissioner, STANLEY SHOR, DoITT Assistant Commissioner, AGOSTINO CANGEMI, DoITT Deputy Commissioner, DEBRA SAMUELSON, DoITT Deputy General Counsel, and THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X SUSAN SMOLLENS, declares under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 USC § 1746 as follows: 1. I am a Senior Counsel in the office of Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, attorney for the defendants’ Allan Dobrin, former Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (“DoITT”) Commissioner, Bruce Regal, former DoITT Acting Deputy Commissioner, Stanley Shor, DoITT Assistant Commissioner, Agostino Cangemi, DoITT Deputy Commissioner, Debra Samuelson, DoITT Deputy General Counsel, and The City of New York (the “City”), (collectively the “Defendants” or “Municipal Defendants”). I submit this declaration in support of the defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. 2. Annexed hereto are true copies of the following documents: MMM 10/16/02 Transcript of Bankruptcy Court Hearing (01-B-15472) Case 1:01-cv-08506-LDH-ST Document 289 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 4446 2 NNN Transcript Excerpts from the May 14, 2015 Deposition of Debra Z. Samuelson OOO Selected Provisions from the Franchise Agreement Between the City of White Plains and TCG Dated: New York, New York April 1, 2016 ZACHARY W. CARTER Corporation Counsel of the City of New York Attorney for City Defendants 100 Church Street, Room 3-243 New York, New York 10007 (212) 356-2551 By: /S/ SUSAN SMOLLENS (SS 08884) Senior Counsel Case 1:01-cv-08506-LDH-ST Document 289 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 4447 01.-15472-smb Doc 278 Filed 07/14103 Entered 08/1L/03 11:11:31 Main Document Pg 1. of 29 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 I 9 10 11 L3 1.4 1"5 16 L7 18 19 2Q 2t ¿¿ ¿J 24 25 UNITED STATES BÀI{KRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK :( In Þhe Maeber of iitã_i!;,, ÊEST P¡\YPHONES, INC. Þebtor. ------x October 16, 2002 Unit,ed StåEss Customå House One Bawllng creen New York, New York 10004 AdJ, Fromr ta/3r/02 (5) Hrg rer Dieclosure staÈemênt tiled by I'lanhebtan Telecommunical lone Corporat, lon ts E F O R E: ¡ION. STUART M. 8ÊRNSTETN, Bankruptcy uÏudge, Case 1:01-cv-08506-LDH-ST Document 289-1 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 4448 01.15472-smb Doc 278 Flled 07/14/03 Entered 08/1U03 11:11:31 Main Document PgZ ot 29 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 ., I 9 TO 11 I2 13 x4 t5 16 L7 18 19 20 2X., ¿¿ ¿,â 24 25 BEST P.AYHONES, INC, A P P E A R A N C E SI MAYI¡E MlIrIrER, EgO . Attornay for Deþtor 5? Chrlstie gtreêt New York, New Yotk 10116 LARRY T, GLICKT p,C. .qEt,orney for Michael. Chalte 13o5 Franklln Àvenue Gården Cl¡y, New York 11530 NBW YORK CTTY TJÀW DEBÀRTMENT offlce of corpora¿lon coungel 100 Church Streel New York, New York 1000? BYr M. DIÀNE 'JASINSKI, ESQ,,of eÖungêL Case 1:01-cv-08506-LDH-ST Document 289-1 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 30 PageID #: 4449 0L-f.5472-smb Doc 278 Filed 07/L4103 Entered 081L1/03 1L:1.L:31. Main Document Pg3of29 ? t 2 3 4 5 6 7 I q 10 11 t2 t"3 J.{ 16 L't 18 L9 20 2L 22 ¿J 24 25 BEgr PAYHONES, ïNC, PROCEED,INGS THE COURl'r I hâvÊ one mêtter on the cal"endar and bhen I gu66s we ought tg t al k abouÈ the lssue thêt wås ralaed ln tvlr. Mi11er's Ieèter, I don'E know tf he d j.ecuseed 1t, wibh you/ Ms, ,fasinski, about the ciming of the submÍesione, M5, "IÀSINSKI T I received hle letEer this mornlng, MR. MIIJIJERT I Ief Þ somô meseageå and then I faxed somethlng last nighb. THE COURTT leeter you Éent to me, 1Ê MR ' MII¡T¡ER ¡ MS, ùASINSKI r copy of thal lelÈer. THE COURT: ' MR , Mf I¡I¡ER: Bul 1t lB not uhe it? No, I dqn¡l have a Did you submiE a -- I copled fE, to you, f 'm Eure, MR. GI¡ICK ¡ Yo¡¡r Honor, I belleve che natter lhab le before you la Case 1:01-cv-08506-LDH-ST Document 289-1 Filed 07/21/16 Page 3 of 30 PageID #: 4450 01-15472-smb Doc 278 Filed 07/14103 Entered 08/11/03 11":11:31 Main Document Pg4of29 4 t. 6 ,7 U 9 !0 11 L2 13 74 1( 16 L7 18 1,9 20 2I 22 23 24 25 BEST pAYITONES, INC. actually Mr. FrankelrB matLer. I wâan't plannlng on being here. I donre expecb Mr, Frankel to be here, I am here actually in fronc of another judge here E,oday, buÈ I ÉLopped up to say hello and see what Ls goi,ng on, lf you want, T could glve you a report to ay knowledge, of what ie going on. THE COURT: There is only one lseue t,hat remalned opened, ehe NexteL Dj.scloeure Stagement, and thah concerned considerac,ion oÊ possible addj.tÍonal diecuselon of Lha.t cl.ase actl.on, and f an happy [o hear from you, Maybe j,e i.s M¡., Frankel who ehould discue.e [haL,, MR , GLICK: rÏudge , I gave Mr , Frankel some commênts on thåt. We digcuesed it, lâst nighc at about 6r00 or 6r30. I cold him from my perspecLive I wae eatisfied. I obvi.ouely wasn.'t, opeaking for anyone el.se, ancl I goe t,he senFe from hi.m ehåÈ he thoughþ he had everybody else lined up and wasntt plannlng on appearing. That ls Ehe b€st r coul.d recaLl . THFI CoURT: r wl. II mark it e¡ff Case 1:01-cv-08506-LDH-ST Document 289-1 Filed 07/21/16 Page 4 of 30 PageID #: 4451 01-t5472.smb Doc 278 Filed 07/14/03 Entered 08lLL/03 1.L:11-:3L Main Document Pg5of29 Þ L 2 J 4 5 6 I I 10 11 I2 13 15 16 LT Lö 19 20 2T ¿¿ 23 ¿., 25 BEST PAYHONES, IÑC. lhe câlendar, Now to the obher maEter which is the timing of the submiBsion of the briefe, You werenrb here lasÞ Lime, Mr. Miller, r undereband, but i.¿ occurred Lo me -- MR, MILLERT May I just say I did order the transcrlpt, THE COURT¡ Your lecher dldn't quite catch the flavor of whaL. was mentioned and uhaþ iE If the Ci¿y were free l,o granL, revoke, et cetera, franchiee or have the propri.etl.es of franchíse or rlght lo oper:aEe pay phones ås pari of 1Es regulatory powers, bhere waa no purpoee in having a brial because even if you were correct in the argunenL that Lhe corporatl.on counsel couLd not ln that .lanuâr'y 13 th Iette::, could not lmpose a deadline for açcepting che franchise agroemenÈ the Clby couLd just go oul and the franchise commiu.bee could go oub and have another meeting tomorrow/ four are or five daye from now to do th.e same thj.ng, go we could technically have a lrlal for Frlday. It doeanrt €eem !o make a 10r. of sense to me. Case 1:01-cv-08506-LDH-ST Document 289-1 Filed 07/21/16 Page 5 of 30 PageID #: 4452 01-15472-smb Doc 278 Filed 07/14/03 Entered 08/11/03 11:11:31 Main Document Pg6of29 6 1 2 3 4 q 6 1 a 9 10 t2 1"3 L4 -tb 1.6 11 1t r.9 20 22 23 24 25 BEST PÀYHONES¡ fNC. . I thoughc bhe firet lssue that should be addreesed chould be a lega1 matber of whebher the augomalic stay prevented b,he Cit:y from regulating [he right to operîate påy phones, for lack of a ber,ber phrase, and f bri.ed E,o move that up to lry Lo glve me a Ilu.tle tlme to deelde thaE iðBue prior t,o b,he echeduled date of the hearing. In Èhe event, I decide [he City cor¡l"d noè do lt,, I gues6 Lhen we woui,d trave the issue of Lhe efficacy of the prior âþtempts t,o termina[e lhe rlghL to operaee. That, is what my thinking was, In other words, Eo geår up for a two or three day, o,r wha.tever d.ay, hearing lf j.U uurned out, Ehat lhe City could Uermi.n,ate the rlghE to operat,e, even Íf íL doeen't <1o it. right way Lhe last Elme It could cert.alnty do lt thê rlghL way Lhl6 Clme. MR. MILIJERÌ I was concerned abouL when ehe lRO wae lgsued, I did noh Bee ln bhe papero, b.hae L seem b.o remember Your Honor at a hearing some time after Ehe 'IRO wag 'i ssued, buc j- b, was di ecusserj bhat you ha.