YourCT.com header image 2

Norwalk: The Law Bills


by turfgrrl


March 30th, 2008 · 10 Comments

If people were in a frothy lather over Nick Kydes lawyer bills, they must be in a positive washing machine over soap over the first taxing district’s legal bills. Naturally they won’t line item what incident generated what, because that would mean, full disclosure, and disclosure is something the first taxing district is totally unfamiliar with. Remember how they refuse to reveal what the water consumption is by client over to the Water Pollution Authority so that the WPA can bill people correctly?

This time, The Hour, is reporting that the first taxing district, needs to pony up $252,368 for the all encompassing legal work identifier.

The Hour had received numerous calls from residents asking about the amount of the legal fees in light of the nearly year-long dispute over Klondike Park, at Wall and Main streets.

I break here only to point out that any sentence that begins with numerous calls, is just another indicator of political tit for tat that takes up all the oxygen in Norwalk. Of course it was political tit for tat that the first taxing district engaged in the first place. No reasonable person would ever think that a sub contractor who cut a lock on a gate in order to stage equipment to fix a bridge was attempting some sort of “land grab.” Weren’t there residents who called the Hour then too?

But more importantly, the real issue here was that the public works committee of the common council, knew exactly what work was going to performed under the bridge, and approved of that work, which is hardly anything anyone could point to as some vast conspiracy of a city.

We continue:

The spat between the city and the district began in May 2007, when employees for Hartford-based PJF Construction Corp. cut a lock on Klondike Park’s gate to enter the property. At the time, the construction company was doing repair work on the Wall Street Bridge and using Klondike Park to set up and store its equipment.

The action by the PJF employees led the district to file a lawsuit in July 2007 in Stamford Superior Court against Mayor Richard A. Moccia, Harold Alvord, director of Public Works, PJF Construction Corp., and the city of Norwalk.

The case was one of many legal matters in the district. The district also was engaged in various land use negotiations, tax assessment issues and watershed issues in 2007.“Eleven different lawyers with varied specialties worked on District matters in this office,” wrote attorney James Fulton, of the law firm Whitman, Breed, Abbott and Morgan. “The number of cases and wide-ranging legal matters were larger, more complex and more time consuming than in any year since I first started providing legal services to the District in 1977.”

Ya know, why even run this response. It’s a non response. Show us the detailed bill there Fulton. This is the same guy who couldn’t manage to get a meeting to discuss replacement of a $20 lock. Since June of 2007. They settled in February of 2008. Can we see all the billable hours? So the other taxing districts happily explained their legal bills, because, when you have nothing to hide …

The 3rd Taxing District spent an undisclosed amount of money on legal advice, as they thought the Klondike Park case would affect their land ownership, according to 3rd Taxing District General Manager George Leary. In the end, the district found out it owned the deeds to all of its property and the Klondike Park ruling could not affect them.

“There was a concern that, if the ruling was reversed to the 1st District, it could affect us,” said Leary. “We determined, after investigation, that it couldn’t affect us.”

The 3rd District spent $16,852 on legal fees last year, including work on a new lease for the fire house. The district spent an additional $20,966 on its labor attorney, which was not factored into the total legal fees.

John Hiscock, general manager of the 2nd Taxing District, said the topic of Klondike Park came up in “casual conversation” with their legal counsel but the district did not ask for research on the matter.

Hiscock said the 2nd District would have perused legal action if the lawsuit over Klondike Park escalated into a large land ownership issue and it affected property that the 2nd District owned.

“It truly was not a very big to-do for us,” he said. “I think, had the city attacked one of our assets, we would have reacted quite differently but we just didn’t see the issue spilling over in a way that would have affected us.”

Last fiscal year, the 2nd Taxing District spent $89,833 for legal fees, including the hiring of the Robinson Cole law firm to secure a $24 million safe drinking water loan from the state of Connecticut.

Andy Conroy, the treasurer for the 6th Taxing District, said his district would weigh legal action in a land ownership case similar to the Klondike Park dispute depending on the size and value of the land in question.

“You never know until you encounter it,” he said. “I know that we have dodged issues like that because we didn’t want to create a big problem and didn’t think the gain was commensurate with the legal challenges.”

First taxing district residents should be outraged.

source: The Hour, Districts rack up legal fees after ‘07 tax battle over park, March 30, 2008

Tags: Norwalk

10 Responses so far “Norwalk: The Law Bills”



  • 1 Anonymous // Mar 30, 2008 at 10:06 pm

    FIRST TAXING DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NORWALK 01 P . . .
    Attorney: WHITMAN BREED ABBOTT & MORGAN LLC (Juris No. 411131)
    500 WEST PUTNAM AVENUE
    PO BOX 2250
    GREENWICH , CT 06830 2250

    HAROLD F ALVORD 50 D . . .
    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100858)
    POSITION NUMBER 1
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100860)
    POSITION NUMBER 4
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    THE CITY OF NORWALK 51 D . . .
    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100858)
    POSITION NUMBER 1
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100860)
    POSITION NUMBER 4
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    RICHARD A MOCCIA 52 D . . .
    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100858)
    POSITION NUMBER 1
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100860)
    POSITION NUMBER 4
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    PJF CONSTRUCTION CORP. 53 D . . .
    Attorney: ORENSTEIN SCOTT S. ATTY (Juris No. 424138)

    Aug 14 2007 MOT FOR DFLT-APPEARANCE P No Denied Aug 30 2007 BY THE CLERK
    102.00 Sep 04 2007 MOTION TO DISMISS D Yes Denied Sep 24 2007 Hon. DAVID TOBIN
    102.10 Sep 04 2007 BRIEF D No
    103.00 Sep 04 2007 MOT PROTECTIVE ORDER D No
    104.00 Sep 04 2007 MOTION TO QUASH D No
    105.00 Sep 06 2007 OBJECTION TO MOTION P No Sustained Sep 24 2007 Hon. DAVID TOBIN
    106.00 Sep 06 2007 MOTION TO DISMISS D Yes
    107.00 Sep 12 2007 MOTION FOR DEFAULT P No Denied Oct 15 2007 Hon. THOMAS NADEAU
    108.00 Sep 12 2007 BRIEF P No
    109.10 Sep 12 2007 BRIEF P No
    110.10 Sep 14 2007 BRIEF P No
    111.00 Sep 24 2007 REPLY D No
    112.10 Sep 21 2007 BRIEF D No
    113.00 Oct 03 2007 OBJECTION TO DEFAULT D No
    114.10 Oct 11 2007 BRIEF P No
    115.10 Oct 09 2007 REQUEST TO REVISE D No
    116.10 Oct 09 2007 REQUEST TO REVISE D No
    117.00 Nov 08 2007 OBJ REQUEST TO REVISE P No Overruled Dec 10 2007 Hon. KEVIN TIERNEY
    118.00 Nov 08 2007 OBJ REQUEST TO REVISE P No Denied Dec 10 2007 Hon. KEVIN TIERNEY
    119.10 Dec 11 2007 ORDER Court No
    120.00 Jan 22 2008 REQUEST D No
    121.00 Jan 22 2008 MOT PROTECTIVE ORDER D No
    122.10 Jan 22 2008 COUNTERCLAIM D No
    123.10 Jan 22 2008 NOTICE D No
    124.00 Jan 22 2008 REQ EXTND DISCOVERY TIME D No
    125.00 Jan 22 2008 MOTION FOR ORDER D No
    126.00 Feb 19 2008 REQ EXTND DISCOVERY TIME

    Did we end up paying for pjf constructions legal bills as well?

  • 2 Anonymous // Mar 31, 2008 at 9:58 am

    For Gods sake, enough with the copy and paste, Mr. G. Sit on your hands and let someone else play.

  • 3 Anonymous // Mar 31, 2008 at 10:41 am

    #2 I don’t think that is greenpeace with all the copy and paste. I think its someone with more political asperations that is trying to stir the pot because all these court cases just don’t meld into any one subject. I wouldn’t expect that he would waste time on things that do not pertain to a. the environment, b. the city policies and lack there of etc. The court dcuments look more like MrBozak or someone like that or maybe some political opponent of our mayor/someone in a higher position.

  • 4 Anonymous // Mar 31, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    GALL STEPHEN 01 P . . .
    Attorney: CARRON & FINK LLC (Juris No. 105080)
    1698-A POST RD EAST
    PEPPERMILL PLACE OFF BLD
    WESTPORT , CT 06880 9991

    Attorney: DANIEL KRYZANSKI (Juris No. 408785)
    DANIEL H. KRYZANSKI
    30 FERRY BLVD. #2
    STRATFORD , CT 06615

    HARRY W RILLING CHIEF OF POLICE 50 D . . .
    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100860)
    POSITION NUMBER 4
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    NORWALK CITY 51 D . . .
    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100860)
    POSITION NUMBER 4
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    FRANK HOLLAND 52 D . . .
    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100860)
    POSITION NUMBER 4
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    102.00 Jan 25 2007 OBJECTION TO MOTION P No Order Feb 20 2007 Hon. BARBARA BELLIS
    103.00 Jan 25 2007 REQ EXTND DISCOVERY TIME P No
    104.00 Jan 16 2007 MOTION FOR ORDER D No
    105.10 Mar 02 2007 NOTICE P No
    106.00 Mar 09 2007 REQ EXTND DISCOVERY TIME D No

    Last fiscal year, the 2nd Taxing District spent $89,833 for legal fees, including the hiring of the Robinson Cole law firm to secure a $24 million safe drinking water loan from the state of Connecticut.

    What else did Norwalk pay for other than 2cd Taxing district?

  • 5 Anonymous // Mar 31, 2008 at 3:07 pm

    #3 I tend to agree not much ranting just posting doesn’t fit the MO of our environmental crusader.

    Norwalk: The Law Bills ; does however fit the subject and someone smarter in a higher position.

  • 6 Anonymous // Mar 31, 2008 at 3:25 pm

    Case Caption : PRATT VS. CITY OF NORWALK
    Court : Norwalk GA
    Docket No : SCA20-26486 Case Type : Damages
    File Date : 12/18/2007 Amount of Claim : $488.80
    Answer Date : 03/26/2008 Entry Fee : $35.00
    Last Hearing Date: 04/16/2008 10:00 AM Last Hearing Reason : Trial

    Judgment Information
    Magistrate :
    Disposition Date : Disposition :
    Damages Awarded : $0.00 Entry Fee : $0.00
    Interest : $0.00 Service Costs : $0.00
    Attorney Fee : $0.00 Other Costs : $0.00
    Payments Ordered : Date Payment Due :
    Satisfaction of Judgment Filed on:
    Total Amount of Judgment and Costs Awarded : $0.00
    Hearing Notice 4/16/2008 - 10:00 AM for Trial

    We can only trust after all this money spent on legal fees Norwalk wins. $488.80 was worth the fight it appears.

  • 7 Anonymous // Mar 31, 2008 at 4:10 pm

    Wasn’t this one of many people who fell on ice at one of the parking garages? Why be so nit picky it happens everywhere doesn’t it?

  • 8 Anonymous // Apr 1, 2008 at 10:05 am

    Case Type: TORT,OTHER - ALL OTHER
    List Type: HEARING DAMAGES

    NORWALK-CITY 01 P . . .
    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100860)
    POSITION NUMBER 4
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    VINCENZO SR IANNONE 50 D .

    .10 Jul 09 2007 MOT FOR DFLT-APPEARANCE P No Granted Jul 18 2007 BY THE CLERK
    102.00 Jul 30 2007 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT P No Granted Aug 20 2007 Hon. TAGGART ADAMS
    103.00 Aug 20 2007 JUDGMENT WITHOUT TRIAL Yes Aug 20 2007 Hon. TAGGART ADAMS
    104.10 Aug 24 2007 MOT FOR DEFAULT-PLEADING P No Denied Sep 11 2007 BY THE CLERK
    105.00 Nov 28 2007 CASE AT PLEADING STATUS Court No
    106.00 Nov 29 2007 TRIAL LIST Yes
    107.00 Feb 15 2008 REQ TO AMEND COMPLAINT P No
    108.00 Feb 19 2008 AMENDED COMPLAINT P No

    1 4/23/2008 9:30 AM Hearing Proceeding

  • 9 resident // Apr 10, 2008 at 12:26 pm

    That whole thing between the City and the First District should never have happened. There was plenty of time to make arrangements for the City’s contractor to store equipment long before that job started. Somebody at DPW was too lazy to do the planning ahead of time. A quick phone call could have worked out permission to use Klondike park. The City should have been ordered to pay the district’s legal expense, it was Alvord’s fault.

  • 10 Anonymous // Apr 10, 2008 at 12:59 pm

    Nov 09 2004 Return Date: Nov 16 2004
    * Last Action Date: Feb 27 2008 ADR Status: Not Applicable
    Case Type: VEHICLE - MOTOR VEH* DVR AND/OR PSG V DVR
    List Type: .
    Disposition Date: Jan 07 2008
    VINCENZO IANNONE 01 P . . .
    Attorney: DOMBROSKI KNAPSACK & HILLIS LLC (Juris No. 409206)
    129 WHITNEY AVENUE
    NEW HAVEN , CT 06510

    MARK LEPORE 50 D . . .
    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100860)
    POSITION NUMBER 4
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    Attorney: CASPER & DETOLEDO LLC (Juris No. 106056)
    1458 BEDFORD STREET
    STAMFORD , CT 06905

    MELISSA EVANS 51 D . . .
    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100860)
    POSITION NUMBER 4
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    Attorney: CASPER & DETOLEDO LLC (Juris No. 106056)
    1458 BEDFORD STREET
    STAMFORD , CT 06905

    NORWALK-CITY 52 D . . .
    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100860)
    POSITION NUMBER 4
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    CHIEF OF POLICE HARRY W. RILLINGS 53 D . . .
    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100860)
    POSITION NUMBER 4
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS 54 D . . .
    Attorney: NORWALK CORPORATION COUNSEL (Juris No. 100860)
    POSITION NUMBER 4
    PO BOX 798
    SOUTH NORWALK , CT 06856

    Dec 06 2004 MOTION TO DISMISS D Yes Denied Apr 19 2005 Hon. THOMAS NADEAU
    102.00 Dec 06 2004 BRIEF D No
    103.00 Dec 13 2004 COUNTERCLAIM D No
    104.00 Dec 23 2004 MOTION TO STRIKE P Yes Off Mar 14 2005 Hon. DAVID TOBIN
    105.00 Dec 23 2004 BRIEF P No
    106.00 Dec 29 2004 OBJECTION TO DISMISSAL P No
    107.00 Jan 03 2005 OBJ MOTION TO STRIKE D No
    108.10 Jan 03 2005 REQ EXTND DISCOVERY TIME P No
    109.00 Jan 21 2005 BRIEF P No
    110.00 Feb 04 2005 MOT EXTEND TIME P No Off Feb 28 2005 Hon. DALE RADCLIFFE
    111.00 Mar 21 2005 MOT FOR NONSUIT-GENERAL D No
    112.00 Apr 19 2005 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Court No
    113.00 May 05 2005 REQ EXTND DISCOVERY TIME D No
    114.00 May 10 2005 NOTICE D No
    115.00 May 12 2005 NOT RESPONSES TO DISCVRY P No
    116.00 May 11 2005 NOTICE P No
    117.00 Jun 09 2005 NOTICE P No
    118.00 Jun 09 2005 REPLY P No
    119.00 Feb 01 2006 NOTICE D No
    120.00 Apr 12 2006 COUNTERCLAIM P No
    120.70 Aug 26 2006 DOCKET MANAGEMT-PLEADING Court
    121.00 Sep 06 2006 COMPLEX LITIGATION APPL. D No Denied Sep 07 2006 Hon. ARTHUR HILLER
    122.00 Oct 25 2006 ANS AND SPECIAL DEFENSE D No
    123.00 Nov 07 2006 REPLY TO SPECIAL DEFENSE P No
    124.00 Nov 07 2006 MOTION TO DISMISS P Yes
    125.00 Nov 07 2006 BRIEF P No
    126.00 Nov 20 2006 MOT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT D Yes Order May 21 2007 Hon. DAVID TOBIN
    127.00 Nov 20 2006 BRIEF D No
    128.00 Nov 21 2006 REQUEST P No
    129.00 Nov 24 2006 OBJECTION TO DISMISSAL D No
    130.00 Nov 24 2006 MOTION TO IMPLEAD D No Denied May 21 2007 Hon. DAVID TOBIN
    131.10 Oct 25 2006 MOT FOR DEFAULT-PLEADING D No Denied Dec 07 2006 BY THE CLERK
    132.00 Dec 06 2006 OBJECTION TO MOTION P No
    133.00 Jan 03 2007 OBJECTION TO MOTION P No
    134.00 Jan 05 2007 OBJECTION TO MOTION P No
    135.93 Mar 14 2007 DMP-EXEMPT: OTHER P No Granted Mar 19 2007 Hon. EDWARD KARAZIN
    136.00 Apr 26 2007 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS D No Off May 21 2007 Hon. DAVID TOBIN
    137.00 Apr 26 2007 BRIEF D No
    138.00 Apr 26 2007 BRIEF D No
    139.00 Apr 26 2007 NOT OF FILING REQ ADMISS D No
    140.00 Apr 26 2007 REQ TO AMEND/AMENDMENT D No
    141.00 Apr 26 2007 BRIEF D No
    142.00 May 09 2007 OBJECTION TO MOTION P No
    143.00 May 23 2007 WITHDRAW MOTION P No
    144.00 May 25 2007 NOT OF FILING REQ ADMISS P No
    145.00 Jun 04 2007 BRIEF D No
    146.00 Jul 11 2007 BRIEF D No
    147.00 Jul 16 2007 BRIEF D No
    148.00 Dec 07 2007 MOT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT D Yes Granted Jan 07 2008 Hon. DAVID TOBIN
    149.00 Dec 07 2007 BRIEF D No
    150.55 Jan 07 2008 SUMMARY JUDGMENT-DEFDNT Yes Jan 07 2008 Hon. DAVID TOBIN
    151.00 Jan 07 2008 SUMMARY JUDGMENT-DEFDNT Yes Jan 07 2008 Hon. DAVID TOBIN
    152.00 Feb 19 2008 REQUEST D No

    four years in court?

Leave a Reply