Lawyer says Monticello must pay the piper

By TOM RUE

ALBANY - Monticello village attorney Martin Miller argued in Albany on October 24 whether taxpayers should have to cough up $50,000 in legal fees to pay for Milanville lawyer Loran Shlevin's fees in the 1993 Monticello "musical chairs" case.

Any fee payment to Shlevin may not be covered by the village's insurance, sources said, because officials permitted village attorney Mark Schulman of Wurtsboro to defend the action rather than submitting it to the insurance carrier. Schulman was also one of the individuals sued in the action.

Shlevin accepted the case with an understanding she would not charge plaintiffs Victor Gordon and Alex Cherviok for processing an Article 78 petition challenging a wholesale job swap among village officials which took place March 1, 1993, sources close to the case said.

Supreme court justice Vincent Bradley ruled that officials violated the village's Code of Ethics and NYS Open Meetings Law. Bradley ordered the village to pay Shlevin's fees in his January 1994 decision, which Shlevin said at the time surprised her. The award for fees was later overturned by the Appellate Division.

Shlevin took the case to the state's highest court, demanding $44,250 for a reported 295 hours; $4,150 "to compensate Petitioners [Gordon and Cherviok] for volunteer time;" and $1818.75 for out-of-pocket expenses, according to court papers.

"I don't know if we won but I really think we did because, in a nice way, the three judges who were questioning [the lawyers] made mince-meat out of Miller's arguments," Cherviok said.

He said the judges seemed interested in what was described as the village's arrogance and long-term denial of lawbreaking or wrongdoing, despite repeated lower court rulings to the contrary.

"This may put some teeth into the Open Meetings Law," Cherviok added hopefully.

Monticello homeowners Gordon and Cherviok were selected from among the members of the Sullivan County Action Coalition (SCAC) to serve as plaintiffs, SCAC minutes show, with Shlevin taking the stance that she was accepting the case as a public service.

Yard sales and other events were held by SCAC volunteers to raise money for Shlevin's costs during the proceeding. The amount paid to her by SCAC to cover costs has not been made public. Cherviok said he has been paying Shlevin $100 per month to extinguish a debt for recent printing costs.

"I was elated upon leaving the courtroom, said Cherviok. "I felt very optimistic and hopeful. I also felt very strongly that Loran Shlevin prevailed."

Shlevin has publicly denied any interest in making money off the case, stressing what she says would be the benefit to society of the courts opening up a new funding stream for lawyers to sue government when officials disregard the law.

A decision is expected within a few weeks. Cherviok said it is possible the Court of Appeals return the case back to Bradley for a hearing on the precise amount of fees.

Former Thompson town supervisor and taxpayer activist John Barbarite has publicly voiced plans to intervene legally if fees are ordered, seeking to have any amounts ordered paid by the officials who violated the law rather than the taxpayers.

Thursday, November 9, 1995
Letters to the Editor
To the editor:

Your recent article entitled "Lawyer Says Monticello Must Pay the Piper" The River Reporter, October 2 [sic], 1995 attributed two statements to me , which I did not say. I want and expect them to be retracted.

I did not say, "I have been paying Shlevin $100.00 per month..." Nor did I say... "for a hearing on the precise amount of the fees." Ms. Shlevin represented the petitioner's [sic] in the Matter of Gordon v. Village of Monticello (I am one of the petitioners) before the New York State Court of Appeals on October 15, 1995 on the issue of the financial considerations presented to the average taxpayer who seeks to sue a municipality, and the deterrent effect upon another municipal board from attempting a wholesale disregard of the Open Meetings Law, factored into the statute by the New York State Court Legislature in it's [sic] fees.

As you know, we were successful in proving that the respondents in this matter violated certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law and having them removed from offices which the court found they illegally occupied.

Despite the obvious benefit of this proceeding to each and every citizen and taxpayer in the Village of Monticello (of which Mr. Rue is one), Mr. Rue's apparently harbors some reason for arguing against Mr. Gordon and my legal fees being paid in this matter. After I corrected Mr. Rue's misunderstanding of the facts and issues of this case, three times, he still persisted in reporting incorrectly.

Kindly tell Mr. Rue that the public is not dumb.
Alex Cherviok
Monticello

Editor's Note: The above letter, dated November 2, was faxed to The River Reporter from the Callicoon office of lawyer Loran Shlevin on November 6. Cherviok's signature on the letter is initialed "R.W."

When he was contacted by phone at his Greenfield Park residence on October 29, Cherviok did in fact make the reported statements. After the article in question was published on November 2, Cherviok screamed offensive insults into the reporter's home answering machine, including a profanity directed at both the reporter and the reporter's wife.

Cherviok did not explain why he found it necessary to verbally abuse the reporter's wife over the article.

It appears Shlevin became concerned when she saw Cherviok quoted in the media concerning a case still pending before the Court of Appeals.

To the editor:

I hereby demand that you run this communication to you as a Letter to the Editor, placed on page 4, and as a correction column prominently displayed between pages one and three of the next edition of The River Reporter, believed to be cover dated November 9, 1995, regarding your published article "Lawyer says Monticello must pay the piper" by Tom Rue, November 2, 1995.

1. I maintain an office in the practice of law at 87 Main Street, Callicoon, New York and have been located at this address for well over a year. Reference to "Milanville" lawyer is inaccurate as my office and practice of law is located in Callicoon, New York. All pleadings and briefs submitted in this case were submitted by my law office previously located in Cochecton, New York and then from my Callicoon, New York office.

2. The matter of Gordon v. Village of Monticello was argued before the New York State Court of Appeals on October 25, 1995 not October 24th as reported by Mr. Rue. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Cherviok were petitioners not plaintiffs in the proceeding.

3. Attorneys [sic] fees and costs, if awarded, are payable to "the successful parties," the petitioners in the proceeding and not to myself or any other particular attorney.

3. [sic] Mr. Rue did not interview me for your story and accordingly, several quotes attributed to me are inaccurate. I do not recall every saying that Judge Bradley's decision "surprised" me. Judge Bradley's decision was correct as a matter of law, and [sic] not a "surprise." That the Appellate Division erred as a matter of law in reversing that part of the "musical chars" decision which awarded the petitioners their legal fees pursuant to statute, is the sole issue pending before the Court of Appeals. No bill and no monetary amount was presented to the Court of Appeals.

4. If Mr. Rue had taken the time to interview me or was interested in the accuracy of his story, he would know this. I do not recall ever "taking the stance that I was accepting the case as a public service." It was always the understanding between the Petitioners and myself that I was representing them on the basis that my legal fees for representation together with the costs of the action could be recovered pursuant to statute. This again is the sole issue before the Court of Appeals.

5. Furthermore, while I have argued to the courts that an award of attorneys [sic] fees in this matter will allow citizens to access the courts where a violation of the Open Meetings Law has not been corrected by the offending municipal party, I have never "stressed... opening up a new funding stream for lawyers..." If in fact a ruling in favor of Gordon and Cherviok encourage [sic] more attorneys to to represent aggrieved citizens in the future than [sic] the statutes [sic] purpose will be realized.

6. Alex Cherviok could not have said that he has been "paying Shlevin $100 per month to extinguish a debt for recent printing costs" because he had never paid such monies to me nor has anyone else. Further, I have never requested of Mr. Cherviok or anyone else that they pay me these monies.

7. Mr. Rue's statements that I have "publicly denied any interest in making money off this case" implies that I have stated otherwise in private. This too is absolutely untrue.

The editors and writers of The River Reporter have an obligation to present newsworthy information accurately and responsibly which you have failed to do.
Loral Shlevin
Callicoon

Editor's Note: The River Reporter The River Reporter is pleased to open its pages to its readers, including to its own former attorney.

The following items refer to the above numbered paragraphs. Some need no reply.

1 -- We often cite a residence rather than the location of legal offices, since many lawers maintain multiple addresses or mail-drops. It is not Shlevin's role to dictate editorial style.

2 -- We stand corrected on the date of the hearing.

3 (in Shlevin's letter, item 4) -- Shlevin was not "quoted" at all, as she asserts. Paraphrased attributions are accurate, based on numerous past face-to-face and telephone discussions. The "bill" to which Shlevin alludes was marked by justice Vincent G. Bradley, NYS Supreme Court, on November 17, 1994. No suggestion was made that this document was filed with the Court of Appeals.

4 (item 5) -- Minutes of a meeting of the Sullivan County Action Coalition (SCAC) on April 24, 1993, at the Blue Horizon Diner in Monticello, which Shlevin attended, contain her assurance not to seek "personal liability" from petitioners for her fees in the then-proposed Musical Chairs suit. At the same time, Shlevin expressed intent to seek an award of fees. These minutes pledge that SCAC would "not be named in the lawsuit but we will claim custody and pay the legal fees subject to periodic review."

6 (item 7) -- Cherviok made the reported comments on October 29. When he was advised at the start of the interview that it was for publication, Cherviok asked that certain statements concerning which he complained another newspaper had misquoted him be cleared up. This was done with fairness and accuracy.

The River Reporter stands by its story.

Above text is copyright by the author.
Duplication without permission is prohibited.

Front Page| Current Issue| Back Issues| Search
© 1999 by the author(s) — Duplication without permission is prohibited.
Entire contents © 1998, Stuart Communications, Inc.