STATE OF NEW YORK ~ SUPREME COURT: COUNTY OF ALBANY _— JAMES F. LYMAN, individually and as former President and current Executive Director of the New York State Law Enforcement Officers Union, Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO; and CHRISTIAN M. MESLEY, individually and as President of the New York State Law Enforcement Officers Union, Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, and as President of the Albany Police Officers Union Local 2841; and the NEW YORK STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS UNION, COUNCIL 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, VERIFIED Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT veil INDEX NO: 3QQ /aF-F ~ against - RENO. 2 ASSIGNED JUSTICE: DAVID SOARES, individually and as the District Attorney of the County of Albany, and asa candidate for the Office of the District Attorney of the County of Albany; and the COUNTY OF ALBANY, Defendants, Plaintiffs, James F. Lyman, Christian M. Mesley and the New York State Law Enforcement Officers Union, Couneil 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as ‘ouncil 82”), by their attorney, Ennio J. Corsi, General Counsel of Council 82, as and for their complaint in this matter against the Defendants respectfully show to this Court and allege as follows: 1. Plaintiff, James F. Lyman, at all times relevant herein, was and still is a resident of EEE | oucdonville, County of Albany, in the State of New York, and was and still is the Executive Director of Council 82 2. Plaintiff; Christian M. Mesley, at all times relevant herein, was and stil is a resident of {EY Schenectady, County of Schencetady, in the State of New York, Albany County Clerk Document Number 10523046 J Revd 10/28/2009 3:15.40 PM UN CEand was and still is the President of Council 82, and the President of Council 82's Albany Police Officers Union, Local 2841. 3. Plaintiff, Council $2, at all times relevant herein, was and still is a not-for-profit comporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, was and still is located at 63 Colvin Avenue, Albany, County of Albany, in the State of New York, was and still isa labor union comprised of members who are Jaw enforcement cmployees of the State of New ‘York and many of its municipalities, and was and still is the duly recognized collective bargaining representative for said members with the objectives to achieve the betterment of the wages, hours, working conditions, and benefits of all its members. 4, Defendant, David Soares, at all times relevant herein, was and still isa resident of the County of Albany, in the State of New York, was and still is the District Attorney of the County of Albany, and was the incumbent candidate for the Office of the District Attorney of the County of Albany for the November, 2008 Election. 5. Defendant, County of Albany, at all times relevant herein, was and still is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, and was and still is the employer of the Defendant David Soares. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LIBEL PER SE 6. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every alleyation contained in paragraphs “1” through “5” with the same force and effect as if’ more fully set forth herein. 7. On October 30, 2008, Plaintifi’s issued a public statement to the media conceming Defendant Soares in his eapacity as District Atomey for the County of Albany and the failure of his office to prosecute the Travis Telamaque ease and to make recommendations concerning the bail to be set in the Travis Telamaque case.8. On October 30, 2008, Defendant Soares stated on the WNYT Channel 13 news program that the Plaimtiffs were perpetrating a lie with regard to his recusing himself as the prosecutor in the Travis Telamaque case. Referring to the Plaintiffs, Defendant Soares specifically stated that: “It is very disingenuous and troubling that former law enforcement, people who are familiar with the criminal justice system, are out there perpetrating what is essentially a lie..” 9. Defendant Soares” statement was false and vituperative in character and was made with actual knowledge that it was false or was made in reckless disregard for the truth. 10, Defendant Soares’ statement was per se defamatory to the Plaintiffs. 11. Defendant Soares” statement injured the Plaintiffs’ reputation in the community and injured their reputation and standing in their profession as union leaders of Council 82. 12. Defendant Soares’ statement exposed the Plaintiffs to public hatred, contempt, scom, ridicule and disgrace, both in the community in which they reside and the area in which they conduct their affairs as union leaders. 13. Defendant Soares” statement caused Plaintiffs humiliation and mental anguish in their public and private life 14, Defendant Soares’ statement was made in his capacity as the District Attorney of the County of Albany, and therefore, was made as a public official and employee of the County of Albany. 15. Prior to Defendant Soares making this defamato y statement conceming the Plaintif{s, Plaintiffs each respectively maintained good names and reputations. 16. Asaresult of Defendant Soares” statement, Plaintiffs have been greatly injured and damaged and demand judgment against the Defendants for a sum of money that exeeeds thejurisdictional limits of all lower courts, costs and disbursements of this action and for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LIBEL PER SE 17. Plaintifif repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “1” through “5” with the same force and effect as if' more fully set forth herein. 18. On November 5, 2008, Defendant Soares stated on the WNY'T Channel 13 news Attomey program that the Plaintiffs had lied in their efforts to oppose his re-election as Distri of the County of Albany. Referring to the Plaintiffs, Defendant Soares specifically stated that. “Pm very concerned about the fact that we have representatives from law enforcement lying because if they are willing to lie about the Distriet Attorney of Albany County then what are they willing to do with citizens on the stand. 19. Defendant Soares” statement was false and vituperative in character and was made with actual knowledge that it was false or was made in reckless disrogard for the truth. 20. Defendant Soares” statment was per se defamatory to the Plaintiffs. 21 Defendant Soares’ statement injured the Plaintiffs” reputation in the community and injured theit reputation and standing in their profession as union leaders of Council 82 22, Defendant Soares’ statement exposed the Plaintiffs to public hatred, contempt, scorn, ridicule and disgrace, both in the community in which they reside and the area in which they conduct their affairs as union leaders. 23. Defendant Soares” statement caused Plaintiffs humiliation and mental anguish in their public and private life. 24, Defendant Soares” statement was made in his capacity as the District Attorney of the County of Albany. and as the incumbent candidate for the office of District Attorney of theCounty of Albany, and therefore was made as a public official and employee of the County of Albany. 28. Prior to Defendant Soares making this defamatory statement concerning the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs cach respectively maintained good names and reputations. 26. Asaresult of Defendant Soares” statement, Plaintifls have been greatly injured and damaged and demand judgment against the Defendants for a sum of money that exceeds the of all lower courts, costs and disbursements of this action and for such other jurisdictional ir and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LIBEL PER SE, 27. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “1” through “5” with the same force and effect as if' more fully set forth herein. 28, On November 5, 2008, Defendant Soares stated on the Fox News Channel 23 news program that the Plaintiffs had lied in their efforts to oppose his re-election as District ‘Attorney of the County of Albany. Referring to the Plaintiffs, Defendant Soares specifically stated that: “To be referred to as O1 Simpson, to have police, the labor union conduct a protest outside of your home where your children sleep, to have the Ties being thrown about in ads conservative talk shows, its been very fiustrating,...." 29. Defendant Soares” statement was false and vituperative in character and was made with actual knowledge that it was false or was made in reckless disregard for the truth. 30. Defendant Soares’ statement was per se defamatory to the Plaintifis. 31. Defendant Soares” statement injured the Plaintiffs" reputation in the community and injured their reputation and standing in their profession as union leaders of Council 82.