By Kat Leslie
While “zugzwang” in chess refers to the point in the game at which every move causes the player’s position to worsen, it is similar to an unfolding legal drama in the Village of Florida where mayor Daniel Harter Jr., and his legal representative, Elizabeth Cassidy, found themself entangled in a web of accusations and illegal actions. Instead of acknowledging the mistakes and rectifying them, Harter strategically maneuvered to justify his actions, creating bigger problems for himself and people around him. What started as an illegal road change, and manipulation of public perception, grew to failed retroactive approval, misleading court motions and concealed conflicts of interest.
In this political chess game, in an attempt to cover up his illicit deeds and maintain an illusion of innocence, Mayor Harter and his attorney finally navigated a precarious position of zugzwang, where anything they do only deepens the scandal and worsen their position.
Illegal Street Modification and Attempted Cover-Up
The trouble began when Mayor Harter, acting recklessly, without proper approvals, unilaterally transformed a designated emergency access road into a bustling thoroughfare for all types of vehicles. The public uproar prompted reports by a local newspaper, and an immediate reaction by Harter. To sway public sentiment in his favor, Mayor Harter embarked on a smear campaign, falsely portraying himself as the victim of baseless accusations, in his numerous posts on social media.
Meanwhile Village residents, affected by the mayor’s actions, sought legal recourse with the help of an experienced attorney with Residents Against Governmental Excess (“RAGE”). They contacted Dennis Lynch who has represented residents throughout New York State in similar cases by filing litigation concerning actions by municipal officials that violate applicable law.
As the legal proceedings unfolded, Mayor Harter and his Attorney Cassidy engaged in a web of deceit to manipulate not only public opinion, but the court’s judgment. The allegations, outlined in a Cross-Motion, supported by a sworn affidavit by Petitioners, and filed with the Court by Lynch, depict a troubling narrative of abuse of power, ethical breaches, and attempts to mislead the court.
Legal Maneuvers and Hiding Critical Facts
Upon facing legal consequences, Mayor Harter and Attorney Cassidy reportedly sought retroactive approval for the Mayor’s actions. This how it was described in a Court documents, obtained by The Warwick Valley Dispatch:
“37. The Petitioners and others complained that said action by the Respondent Mayor [Harter] was illegal. So, the Respondent Mayor and the Mayor’s Attorney [Cassidy] had to do something to try and “Legalize” what was clearly illegal action by the Mayor.
- This was done by calculated and clever lawyering when the Mayor’s Attorney drafted a Resolution presented to the Village Board on July 5, 2023 to adopt called “A Resolution to Introduce a Local Law to Regulate Traffic on Farries Avenue and Kaye Drive”.
(Lynch, Cross-Motion, par.37/38)
However, the Village Board unanimously rejected the proposal on September 6, 2023, refusing to legitimize or endorse Harter’s actions.
Cross-Motion Seeks Accountability and Sanctions
Still, this did not stop Attorney Cassidy, who skillfully crafted narratives that omitted crucial information about the Village Board’s rejection of the retroactive approval for the mayor’s actions.
“42. Confirming that this proposed Local Law was intended to “legalize” the Mayor’s illegal action, the Mayor’s Attorney in her September 22, 2023 Affirmation advised this Court: “Upon removal of the chain, the Village Board introduced Local Law 1 of 2023, A Local Law to regulate Traffic on Farries Avenue by a vote of 4 in favor, 0 against, and one absent”
(Cassidy, Affirmation , par. 10).”
(Lynch, Cross-Motion, par.42).
What Elizabeth Cassidy never revealed to the Court in her September 22, 2023 Motion to Dismiss and her accompanying Affirmation was that on September 6, 2023, weeks before the Mayor’s Attorney submitted her Affirmation to this Court that the Village Board did NOT adopt any Local Law to change the “emergencyAccess” restriction to the subject road.
“The Mayor’s Attorney never disclosed this critical fact to Your Honor [The Judge] and hid this most important and damning information from this Court that eviscerated her at least implication of Village Board approval of the Mayor’s illegal action at that July 5, 2023 Village Board Meeting.”
(Lynch, Cross-Motion, par.46)
“That type of misconduct is clearly improper under New York Law as Attorney ethics mandate that a Court be provided with a full, complete and truthful record of the events in every legal dispute”, – further writes Lynch to the Court. He further asserts that the motion to dismiss filed by Mayor’s Attorney was not only procedurally and substantively flawed, but also accused Attorney Cassidy of withholding critical information from the Court, and called for sanctions against Mayor Harter and Attorney Cassidy.
Lynch emphasized the rarity of seeking sanction, expressing that he resorted to such measures only three times in 40 years of practising law. “This application is only my fourth time in forty years when I have individually requested sanctions against a Mayor and the Mayor’s Attorney. I do not do so lightly nor without a considerable basis to support this application” writes Lynch to the Court. The attorney argued that the Mayor’s abuse of power and his Attorney’s attempts to manipulate the legal process required a strong response to uphold the integrity of the judicial system.
Truth versus Deception
Unlike Mayor Harter, who from day one was very vocal on social media attacking this newspaper for reporting on scandal, calling charges against him slander and hearsay, Village residents and their Attorney back up their claim by concrete evidence calling it what it is, – undisputed material facts:
“5. This Litigation involves an undisputed material fact that in April 2023 the Respondent Mayor (without any Village Board approval and without any Village Planning Board approval or other municipal approval) decided on his own to change a Village Street that was approved years ago by the Village Planning Board after careful study for “emergency access” only into a busy thoroughfare where all types of motor vehicles could and did start to pass daily.
- It is also an undisputed material fact that after this illegal action by the Respondent Mayor, the Village Board was asked to consider retroactively approving what the Respondent Mayor illegally did and the Village Board by a unanimous vote on September 6, 2023 (when given an opportunity to pass a Local Law to ratify what the Respondent Mayor did illegally) did not pass that proposed Local Law to approve or ratify what the Respondent Mayor did illegally.
- As also set forth in the accompanying Affidavit filed herewith, after Petitioners filed this Litigation and the Respondent Village Mayor needed a legal defense, the Respondent Mayor and a Village Trustee who lives together with the Mayor never disclosed any potential or actual conflict and voted twice to have the Village Taxpayers fund the Respondent Mayor’s defense to this Litigation.
- It is also an undisputed material fact that after the Village Board refused to approve a Local Law that would have purportedly approve the Respondent Mayor’s illegal action in turning an “emergency access” only road into a road that allowed all type of motor vehicle traffic to pass through that was right next to Petitioners’ Home, the Mayor’s Attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss and never provided this Court with that critical information that the Respondent Mayor’s illegal action was never approved by the Village Board on September 6,2023.”
(Lynch, Background to The Cross-Motion, par.5-8)
Conflict of Interest and Misuse of Village Funds
The court documents also allege a potential conflict of interest involving Mayor Harter and a Village Trustee. In the affidavit filed by petitioners in the case, it is claimed that Mayor Harter utilized his position to secure financial support for his legal defense, with assistance of Trustee Alyssa Werner. The pair, reportedly living together and seemingly unconcerned about conflicts of interest, voted twice to allocate taxpayers’ money for the mayor’s defense without disclosing their personal ties. So, instead recusing themself and abstaining from the vote, and instead of the mayor personally funding his legal defense, both officials voted to have Village taxpayers bear the financial burden.
“This is not just a personal issue. Whatever one does in their own personal lives is their decision. Yet, when personal decisions impact Village finances and our taxes, it is no longer just a personal matter,” one Petitioner writes in the affidavit to the Court.
It is worth mentioning that Petitioners in the case were seeking no penalty or money against the Village and its Board of Trustees, but only from the first named Respondent, the Mayor, and only for the funds spent in legal fees to vindicate their rights:
“32. As made clear in the initial part of this Affidavit, we brought this Litigation to address the municipal misconduct of the Respondent Mayor. In our Litigation we did not seek a dime from the Village Taxpayers since that would not be fair as Village Taxpayers had nothing to do with the Respondent Mayor’s municipal misconduct.
- More specifically as earlier noted in this Affidavit, we asked this Court to direct the Mayor alone to pay for the cost of this Litigation.”
(Petitioners Affidavit, par 32-33, Index No. EF005412-2023)
The highly questionable vote by Harter and Werner to allocate taxpayer funds to Dan Harter’s legal defense was perceived as a slap in the face to the very community the duo was supposed to represent, effectively punishing the honest and hardworking residents of Florida for the mayor’s transgressions.
Public Reaction
Many village residents express frustration with the prolonged litigation and the alleged efforts by Cassidy to protract the case, increasing attorney fees, causing unnecessary financial strain on both the plaintiffs and the village taxpayers, while running the meter of billable hours.
Residents argue that the Mayor’s legal maneuvers are an example of the wasteful expenditure of Village taxpayers’ funds, while others view it more seriously as a potential violation of ethical and legal standards. Some even point out additional occurrences where Mayor Harter’s close family members hold positions as village employees under his direct supervision.
In the words of the Florida resident backing legal actions against Mayor Harter: “ In the end, the village of Florida faced a choice: to succumb to the corrupt practices of Mayor Harter and pay for his actions or to stand united against abuse of power and make him pay.”
On October 27, 2023 Village of Florida residents filed a sworn affidavit alleging misconduct by Mayor Harter and his attorney, Elizabeth Cassidy. The affidavit, a key component of the ongoing litigation, sheds light on financial improprieties and attempts to mislead the court. The affidavit contends that Mayor Daniel Harter Jr. has abused his municipal powers for personal and political gain, stating:
“Municipal Misconduct by the Mayor Warrants his Suspension from Office as Mayor.” (Petitioners Affidavit, Index No. EF005412-2023)
This story serves as a cautionary tale, a reminder that even in the face of deception, the pursuit of justice and truth could prevail.
As the court considers the cross-motion and new allegations of misconduct of the Village Mayor and his Attorney, residents eagerly await justice and accountability for what appears to be a breach of public trust and misuse of taxpayer funds.
*Previous details on this story could be found here:
https://www.wvdispatch.com/2023/09/santa-florida-legal-saga-continues/
https://www.wvdispatch.com/2023/10/mysterious-virus-spreads-through-the-area/
