Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
King v Hludzenski Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (1)

King v Hludzenski Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (1)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 21|Likes:
Published by pandorasboxofrocks
King v Hludzenski Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
King v Hludzenski Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: pandorasboxofrocks on May 20, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/23/2015

pdf

text

original

 
SUPREME COURT 
OF 
THE 
STATE 
OF 
NEW 
YORK
COUNTY 
OF 
JEFFERSON
GARY 
KING, 
ARVEI' 
HITE,
DONNIE MASON, 
ARTY 
MASON,
PAUL 
MASON, 
ARLENE 
BURTON,
DARREL 
BURTON 
and 
FRANK 
GIAQUINTO
-against-
KATHRYN 
A. 
HLUDZENS~I
T2l[ClE-IARD 
C. 
6'ILEY,
SR. 
nd
JOHN 
DOES, 
-10
Plaintiffs,
Index 
No. 
012-1654
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS' 
VIEM012ANDUM 
OF 
LAW 
IN 
OPPOSITION 
TO
DEFENI)A1~7[''S 
MOTION 
FOR 
SUMMARY 
JUDGMEN7C
 
T. 
PRELIMINARY 
STATEMENT
Defendant Kathryn 
Hludzenski 
("Defendant")
seeks 
Summary 
Judgment
prior
to
virtually
any
discovery
being
conducted
in
this 
case. 
After
receiving 
the
benefit
of 
laintiffs'
responses
and 
corresponding 
supplemental
responses 
to
Defendant's 
discovery requests,
Defendant 
largely 
ignored
Plaintiffs'
own 
discovery 
requests.
Defendant's
blatant 
disregardto
Plaintiffs' 
relevant 
discovery 
requests 
occurred
after
Plaintiffs 
graciously 
allowed 
Defendant 
an
extension 
to
respond. 
As
such, 
Defendant
relies 
solely
on 
aself-serving
affidavit 
that 
at
best
does 
nothing
more 
than
create issues
of fact—which 
cannot 
be 
decided 
on
summary 
judgment
and
certainly 
not 
at
this 
stage
of
he 
litigation
before 
the
Plaintiffs
have 
had
the 
opportunity 
to
conduct
discovery. 
Summary
udgment 
motions 
prior 
to 
the
close 
of 
iscovery, 
much 
Less
before
any
discovery 
has
taken 
place, are contrary 
to the 
CPLR 
and 
highly
disfavored. 
This 
case 
is
no
exception.
Further, the 
particular 
factsin 
this 
case, 
known 
to
Plaintiffs 
at
this 
time, preclude
Defendant's
request 
for 
summary
judgment.
This
is
not 
a 
case 
where 
Plaintiffs 
are relying
on
statements 
made 
by
Defendant 
that
are
opinions,
hyperbole, 
name-calling, 
or 
rhetoric.
Defendant
admittedly 
made 
statements 
on 
the 
Internetthat
Plaintiffs 
haveengaged
in
conduct,
that
if
given 
its 
ordinary 
meaning,
ccuses
Plaintiffs
of 
oterfraud, 
subjects
Plaintiffs 
to 
ridicule,
and
calls
their 
personal 
and
professionalreputations intoquestion.
These 
statements 
arecertainly 
not 
afforded 
the
protection
contemplated
by 
the 
First 
Amendment 
or 
the 
laws 
of 
theState 
of 
New 
York. 
For 
these 
reasons,the
motion 
should
be 
denied.
Finally,despite 
Defendant's
attempt
tomischaracterize 
the
subject matter
of 
his 
lawsuitin
a 
thinly veiled
attempt 
to
recover 
her 
attorneys' fees, 
the 
simple
fact 
is 
that 
Plaintiffs
were
part
~
Plaintiffs
will
onlyrespond
to 
DefendantKathryn 
Hludzenski's
arguments 
in
support 
of
her
Motion 
for
Summary 
Judgment 
as 
Plaintiffs 
andDefendant
Richard 
Wileyhave 
reached an
agreement 
in
principle
to 
settle
their
respectiveclaims.
 
of a 
group 
trying
toprotect
thevoting 
rights 
of 
year-round
residents
of 
Cape
Vincent.
Plaintiffs
simply 
sought 
to 
have 
a 
resolution
passed 
that
protected 
their substantial 
and
continuing 
daily
interests
in 
the 
operation 
of 
Cape 
Vincent 
andadvancement
of
he
Town's 
interests.
Nowhere 
in
the 
petition
or
resolution
cited 
by 
Defendantdoes
the 
issue 
of 
wind, 
wind 
farms, 
or
British
Petroleum
("BP") 
ppear.
Plaintiffs 
are 
not 
acting 
on 
behalf
of 
BP
and
are
certainly 
not 
acting 
in
furtherance 
ofany 
wind 
contracts
they
have
with 
BP.
After standing
idly 
by 
and 
watching
their
reputations 
be 
torn
apartin 
the 
Cape 
Vincent 
community
over
a
period 
of
everal years, 
Plaintiffs
had 
no 
choice
but
to 
take 
the 
next
step 
and 
file
this 
lawsuit
in
order
tostop
Defendant's unlawful
publication.
Defendant's
Motion
for
Summary 
Judgment 
should
be 
denied because 
limited
discovery
has 
occurred 
and 
the
statementsinquestion
are 
unquestionably 
false 
statements
of 
fact.Plaintiffs,
therefore,
ought
o
be
allowed 
to 
pursue
their
claims.
II. 
STATEMENTOF 
FACTS
A. 
Citizens 
For 
Fair 
government
Works 
To 
Stop 
Voter
~+raud.
Defendant's
self-serving
attempt 
torecast 
the 
issues 
in 
this
case
fails. 
Plaintiffs
are
members
and/or
supporters
of
a 
local
organization 
called 
Citizensfor 
Fair 
Government 
("CFG")
(Affidavit 
ofGaryKing 
("King 
Aff."} 
at 
~
.) 
CFG's 
objective 
is 
to
ensure 
that
the
rights
of
he
citizens 
of Cape 
Vincent
areprotected. (Id. at
 
.) 
To 
hat 
end, 
CFG 
has 
undertaken
numerous
measures
to
safeguard
the 
civil
liberties
and 
interests 
of
year-round
residents
of 
the
Town 
of
Cape 
Vincent, 
as
it
is 
these 
very 
residentsthat
realize
the 
daily 
impact
of 
the 
Town's 
elected
officials, 
adopted 
laws
and
ordinances,
and
the
administration 
of 
ocal 
government.
CFG 
does 
not
limit 
the
issues
to 
which 
t 
takes 
an 
interest.
However, 
he 
primary concern
of 
CFG 
is 
to
curtail 
suspected
voter 
fraud 
in 
the
Town 
of Cape 
Vincent. 
(Id. 
at
 
.} 
Issues
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->