SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK = COUNTY OF NASSAU ei Index #: (5 - GOOUIY In the Matter of the Application of LAURA A. GILLEN, NOTICE OF PETITION Plaintif-Petitioner, For a judgment pursuant to CPLR Article 78 and CPLR Section 3001 TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, 3 ANTHONY J. SANTINO, DOROTHY L. GOOSBY, EDWARD A. AMBROSINO, BRUCE A. BLAKEMAN, ANTHONY P. D’ESPOSITO, ERIN KING SWEENEY, DENNIS DUNNE, SR., TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ARTHUR J. NASTRE, MICHAEL PERRY, GENNARO CESARANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 880 Defendants-Respondents. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Petition of LAURA A. GILLEN (‘Plaintiff-Petitioner”), duly verified on the 11" day of April, 2018, the Affidavits of LAURA A. GILLEN and AVERIL SMITH and upon the entire record of this hybrid proceeding brought under CPLR Article 78 and CPLR 3001 between Plaintiff-Petitioner and Defendants- Respondents herein, the undersigned will move this Court, at an individual assignment part Salthereof, before the Justice presiding, at the Courthouse located at 100 Supreme Court Drive, Mineola, New York 11501, on the 23" day of May, 2018, at 9:30am, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for a judgment: 1) pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR, ordering the Town Board to rescind Town Board Resolution No, 1823-2017; 2) pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR, ordering the Town Board to rescind Resolution No. 1871-2017; 3) pursuant to CPLR 3001, declaring and determining that Town Board Resolution No. 1823-2017 is null and void; 4) pursuant to CPLR 3001, declaring and determining that Town Board Resolution No. 1871-2017 is null and void; 5) pursuant to CPLR 3001 and Article 78, declasing and determining that the personnel actions taken by the Civil Service Commission in furtherance of Resolution Nos. 1823-2017 and 1871-2017 are null and void and ordering the Civil Service Commission to reverse the personnel actions taken pursuant thereto; 6) pursuant to CPLR 3001, declaring and determining that the MOA is unenforceable and mull and void; and7) for such other and further relief 2s the Court deems just, proper and equitable. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a Verified Answer/Retum of the Proceeding and Supporting Affidavits, if any, must be served at least five (5) days before the return date of this application. : Nassau County is designated as the venue of this proceeding on the basis that it is the County in which the Defendants-Respondents undertook the action complained of, and on the basis of the location in Nasseu County of the principal offices of the Plaintiff Petitioner and Defendants-Respondents. a Dated: Valley Stream, New York April 11, 2018 THOMAS A. WILLIAMS, ESQ.SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NASSAU In the Matter of the Application of LAURA A. GILLEN, Plaintifi-Petitioner, oon For a judgment pursuant to CPLR Article 78 and CPLR Section 3001 Index No. ‘TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, ANTHONY J. SANTINO, DOROTHY L. GOOSBY, EDWARD A. AMBROSINO, BRUCE A. BLAKEMAN, ANTHONY P. D’ESPOSITO, ERIN KING SWEENEY, DENNIS DUNNE, SR., ‘TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ARTHUR J. NASTRE, MICHAEL PERRY, GENNARO CESARANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 880 Defendants-Respondents. Plaintiff-Petitioner, LAURA A. GILLEN, by and through her attorney, Thomas A. Williams, Esq., hereby alleges the following claims against Defendants-Respondents TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD; ANTHONY J. SANTINO; DOROTHY L. GOOSBY'; EDWARD A. } Defendants-Respondents, Senior Councilwoman Dorothy L.. Goosby, Councilman Bruce A. Blakeman and Councilwoman Erin King Sweeney voted against the Memorandum of Agreement at issue and are named as Defendant-Respondents only to the extent necessary to accomplish the relief sought hereinAMBROSINO; BRUCE A. BLAKEMAN; ANTHONY P. D'ESPOSITO; ERIN KING SWEENEY; DENNIS DUNNE, SR., in their official capacities as former Supervisor and Councilpersons of the Town of Hempstead (the “Town”); TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION; ARTHUR J. NASTRE; MICHAEL PERRY; GENNARO CESARANO; ROBERT W. SCHMIDT; CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC, LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 880? (the “Union”) (collectively, “Respondents”): 1 * Defendant-Respondent, the Ui INTRODUCTION This is a hybrid proceeding brought under CPLR Article 78 and CPLR 3001. Plait Petitioner requests that this Court vacate and declare illegal, null and void two resolutions authorized by the Town of Hempstead Town Board on December 12, 2017 First, Resolution No. 1823-2017, which was adopted by a 4 to 3 vote of the Town Board on December 12, 2017 and purported to authorize a Memorandum of Agreement (*MOA”) between the Town and the Union to prohibit the Town from laying off virtually all Union employees for almost any reson except misconduct and incompetence. A copy of the MOA is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. A copy of Resolution No. 1823-2017 is annexed hereto as Exhibit B. Second, Resolution No. 1871-2017, which was adopted by the Town Board on December 12, 2017, improperly appointed several political allies of outgoing Town Supervisor Anthony J. Santino into titles that were not included in the 2018 adopted budget, and n, is 2 party to the Memorandum of Agreement at issue and is named as a Defendant-Respondent only to the extent thatthe Union is a necessary party under the CPLR and is required to be named to accomplish the relief sought herein,which no funding for such positions existed’. A copy of Resolution No. 1871-2017 is annexed hereto as Exhibit C. 4, As set forth more fully below, these resolutions were adopted in bad faith to strip the Supervisor and Town Board of powers they were duly elected with, to wreak havoc on the Budget and the Town's finances and to protect former Santino’s political allies still ‘employed by the Town, PARTIES 5. Plaintiff, LAURA A. GILLEN, is the duly-elected and qualified Supervisor of the Town, Supervisor Gillen was elected on November 7, 2017 and was sworn in to office on January 1, 2018. 6. Defendant, TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD was and is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. 7. Defendant, ANTHONY J, SANTINO, is the former duly-elected and qualified Supervisor of the Town. 8. Defendant, DOROTHY L. GOOSBY, is the duly-elected and qualified Councilperson of ‘the Town representing the I council district. 9, Defendant, EDWARD A. AMBROSINO, is the duly-elected and qualified Councilperson of the Town representing the 2"! council district. 10. Defendant, BRUCE A. BLAKEMAN, is the duly-elected and qualified Councilperson of > Resolution No. 1871-2017 contains a total of 192 personnel actions. Plninttf-Petitioner seeks this Honorable Court to declare illegal, null and void 14 of those personnel actions. The names of the 14 employees are set forth in copies ofthe resolutions annexed hereto as Exhibit Cthe Town representing the 3" council district. 11, Defendant, ANTHONY P. D’ESPOSITO, is the duly-elected and qualified Councilperson of the Town representing the 4" council district. 12. Defendant, ERIN KING SWEENEY, is the duly-elected and qualified Councilperson of the Town representing the 5" council district. 13. Defendant, DENNIS DUNNE, SR. is the duly-elected and qualified Councilperson of the ‘Town representing the 6" council district. 14, The above individual elected officers of the Town, except Supervisor Gillen, constitute the Town of Hempstead Town Board as of December 12, 2017. 15. The TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (“CSC”) is an autonomous governmental agency created by the Constitution of the State of New York, Civil Service Law, and Chapter 56 of the Code of the Town of Hempstead whose responsibility is to oversee and ensure that the Town complies with all civil service laws, rules and regulations. 16. Defendant, ARTHUR J. NASTRE is the duly-appointed Chairman of the CSC. 17, Defendant, MICHAEL PERRY is the duly-appointed Commissioner of the CSC. 18, Defendant, GENNARO CESARANO is the duly-appointed Commissioner of the CSC. 19, Defendant, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT is the duly-appointed Executive Director of the ese,20, Defendant, CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 880 is the employee organization recognized to represent the Town’s employees DURAL PREREQUISITES PRO 21. Plaintiff Petitioner does not have, nor is she requited to pursue, any administrative remedies. 22, Plaintiff Petitioner has made no previous application for the relief sought in this ion/Complaint. BACKGROUND > The Collective Bargaining Agreement 23. The Town and the Union are parties to a collective bargaining agreement covering the period from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2021 (the “Contract”. 24. Upon information and belief, the Town and the Union spent many weeks negotiating the Contract in good faith. 25. Upon information and belief, the Town and the Union negotiated all issues that were to bbe negotiated on or before July 11, 2017. 26, The Town Board voted to ratify the Contract on July 11, 2017. 27, Subsequently, former Supervisor Santino executed the Contract. 28, On or after July 11, 2017, former Supervisor Santino issued a news release touting the newly adopted Contract as a “lean labor agreement”; noting that the agreement contained “fa] host of cost-cutting measures”, stating, “I am focused on making government run more effectively and efficiently for our taxpayers”; and concluding by saying that “We're controlling costs and operating in a manner that offers genuine accountability to thetaxpayers, Doing ‘more with less’ is more than just a phrase in Hempstead Town. Itis a way of doing business.” A copy of the news release is annexed hereto as Exhibit D. 29, The printed version of the Contract contains a “Message from Supervisor Santino”, which refers to the Contract as a “fair agreement for CSEA Members and taxpayers alike, respecting precious taxpayer dollars while negotiating benefits for five years, What's more, careful budgeting, strict fiscal discipline and respect of both taxpayers and municipal workers have guided this process.” ‘The message goes on to say “[t]his contract was negotiated in good faith and both sides endured a fair measure of give and take.” A copy of former Supervisor Santino’s message is annexed hereto as Exhibit E. 30. The printed version of the Contract also contains a “Message from [Union] President Sellitto”, which provides “our members have the right to expect a quality contract that protects their interests, provides for their future and makes it possible to live in the very community that we serve, Iam pleased to say that this new Collective Bargaining Agreement accomplishes all of these goals.” (emphasis added). A copy of Union President Sellito’s message is annexed hereto as Exhibit F. 31. Upon information and belief, from the Contract’s ratification date to December 12, 2017, the provisions of the Contract remained unchanged. B. The Budget 32. On October 17, 2017, the Town Board adopted the Town's budget for calendar year 2018 (the “Budget” 33, The Budget set forth the budget of each Town office and department, inclusive of employee salaries, for 2018,34, The adopied Budget contained a “2018 Budget Message”, dated September 30, 2017, from former Supervisor Santino, which stated that “{ojne of my first priorities upon becoming Supervisor...was to rehabilitate Hempstead Town’s finances by dramatically cutting costs, reducing staffing levels, holding managers accountable and slashing our township's budget in a manner that showed the highest level of respect for taxpayers.” Furthermore, former Supervisor Santino’s Budget message stated that “I have trimmed the Supervisor's Office payroll by 5.73%”. A copy of the Budget message is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 35, On October 18, 2017, the Town issued a news release touting the Budget. The news release stated, “[tJhe financial document reflects Santino’s priorities—cutting costs, reducing staffing levels, trimming payroll and holding managers accountable.” A copy of this news release is annexed hereto as Exhibit H 36, Former Supervisor Santino’s news release continued, “I am proud to have crafted a 2018 budget that slashes spending and is accountable to taxpayers.” ‘Further, this financial document is structurally balanced, including sufficient revenues to meet expenses, ‘without any reliance on ‘one shot’ revenues or any other fiscal gimmicks.” See Exhibit Hi 37, Pursuant to Town Law Section 52(2), former Supervisor Santino was the fiduciary and caretaker responsible for the administration of the 2018 annual Budget after it was adopted and until such time he left office. C. The November 2017 Election 38. Anthony J. Santino was elected to the position of Supervisor of the Town of Hempstead on November 3, 2015. He was swom-in to the position on January 5, 2016.39, Former Supervisor Santino is a member of the Republican Patty. 40, Former Supervisor Santino sought re-clection to the Supervisor position in 2017 and ran as the incumbent, 41, Former Supervisor Santino lost the 2017 election on November 7, 2017 to his Democratic Party challenger, Laura A. Gillen. 42. When Supervisor Gillen was elected to office, she was elected by the people of the Town to be Supervisor with the full authority contained in Town Law Section $2, which included being “responsible for the proper administration of town affairs”. Supervisor Gillen also became responsible for the administration of the 2018 annual Budget. 43. Upon information and belief, the election result in the Town Supervisor race was a stunning upset for Anthony J. Santino. 44, Supervisor-elect Laura A. Gillen ran a campaign vowing to make the Town more transparent and efficient and to correct fiscal issues. 45, On November 13, 2017, Supervisor-clect Gillen had a letter hand delivered to outgoing Supervisor Santino, The letter asked former Supervisor Santino to refrain from executing major personnel changes or budgetary decision within the Town before she took office. A copy of Supervisor Gillen’s letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit 1 46. Former Supervisor Santino disregarded Supervisor-elect Gillen’s reasonable and ‘customary request. 47. Instead, on the very same day, November 13, 2017, former Supervisor Santino embarked on a campaign to strip Supervisor-elect Gillen of her lawful authority, to wreak havoc onthe Budget and the Town's finances and to protect his political allies still employed by the Town, 48, Former Supervisor Santino’s actions were retaliatory. 49, Former Supervisor Santino, acting with certain other Defendant-Respondents, installed political allies into classified civil service positions within the Town. 50. Upon information and belief, former Supervisor Santino’s desire to protect patronage jobs and take retaliatory actions was more important to Supervisor Santino and other Town officials than protecting the taxpayers and the Budget. E. The Memorandum of Agreement S1.In November 2017, after the election, the Town, by and through former Supervisor Santino, began having the MOA prepared to protect from layoff or termination, his political allies, who held Town positions. 52. Upon information and belief, according to the January 2018 edition of “the Guardian”, which is the “Official Newsletter of Local 880—Town of Hempstead Employees”, the ‘Town's management approached the Union and offered to extend protections to Union employees. A copy of this newsletter is annexed hereto as Exhibit J 53, Upon information and belief, on or about November 13, 2017, not even a week after the election, William Sammon, the Director of Human Resources for the Town, met with one ‘or more attomeys from an outside law firm, an outside law firm used by the Town, to discuss the “transition” ‘54, Upon information and belief, on or about November 13, 2017, Albina Kataeva, a Deputy Town Attomey, had a conversation with and received correspondence from outside counsel regarding the protection of employees from layoff and termination.55. Upon information and belief, on the 14", 15", 16", and 17" days of November 2017 and on December 8 and December 1i™ 2017, Albina Kataeva and outside counsel exchanged telephone calls and/or correspondence, inchiding research and draft versions of what would come to be the MOA. 56, On December 12, 2017, the Town Board approved a resolution authorizing execution of the MOA. 57. The caption for the resolution, which was Item #17 on the Town Board Calendar, stated as follows: “RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ‘THE SUPERVISOR TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT NEGOTIATED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE 45 OF THE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., AMENDING [ARI COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND SECTION 1.4 OF THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE of the 2017-2021 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT?” 58. On December 13, 2017, then Supervisor Santino executed the MOA. 59, Article 45 of the 2017-2021 Contract is titled “Layoff and Rehiring Procedure for Non- ‘Competitive and Labor Class Employees.” A copy of Article 45 is annexed hereto as Exhibit K. 60, Article 45 grants the Town the ability to lay off certain employees “{iJn the event that a layoff becomes necessary|.}” See Exhibit K. 61. The MOA purports to amend the Contract language contained in Article 45. Specifically, the MOA provides in part that “no employee shall be terminated for reasons due to budgetary, economy, consolidation, abolition of functions, abolition or curtailment of activities but may be terminated only for misconduct or incompetence.” See Exhibit A.62. In addition, the MOA purports to amend the disciplinary procedure set forth in the CBA to provide additional protections to employees who hed not been previously entitled to them. 63. At the December 12, 2017 Town Board meeting, the Town’s Comptroller, Kevin Conroy, was asked by Councilwoman Erin King Sweeney with respect to the MOA, “what impact will that have on the Town?” Comptroller Conroy responded by stating “that remains to that at this point.” A copy of the relevant portion be seen, prospectively, I can’t quar of the transcript is annexed hereto as Exhibit L. 64. At the December 12, 2017 Town Board meeting, the Town's Comptroller, Kevin Conroy, ‘was asked by Councilman Bruce Blakeman with respect to the MOA that “[tjhis would have a deleterious affect (sie) potentially on the Town that is unnecessary at this time, wouldn’t you agree with that?” Comptroller Conroy responded by saying “I would agree, depending upon the function of the economy. If the economy di, in fact, go South, this probably would have an adverse effect.” See Exhibit L. 65. Upon information and belief, the Town failed to undertake an analysis of the financial implications that would result from the adoption of the MOA. 66 Nonetheless, the Town Board approved the MOA providing that no employee would be terminated for budgetary or economic reasons. 67. 1m reference to the MOA’s no layoff protections, the January 2018 edition of the Guardian stated that “[wJhile we were always hopeful that such language would materialize in our Collective Bargaining Agreement, it just never made to the end game as we concentrated on the areas which the members deemed to be the most important; medical benefits and salary.” It further stated that “[lJast year, we were presented with an‘opportunity t0 amend the language that would, in effect, prevent lay-off due to budgetary constraints.” See Exhibit J, 68, Upon information and belief, there was no consideration given by the Union in exchange for the no layoff clause 69. Councilwoman Brin King Sweeney (who voted against the MOA resolution) stated at the December 12, 2017 Town Board meeting that it was her understanding that the Town “vent to the CSEA and said we will give you this and there was nothing that they were giving to us". A copy of the relevant portion of the transoript is annexed hereto as Exhibit M. 70, On December 12, 2017, in casting his vote in approval of the MOA, Couneilman Ambrosino stated that “[t[his clause as drafted does not in any way impede the Town's ability to budget”; that “[iJhe fiscal and no layoff clause is inoperable”; and that “[fJhe future Supervisor and this Town Board because everyone is hired by this Town Board will be able to do whatever they need to do to ensure the taxes in this Town do not go up and we make the necessary budget adjustments.” A copy of the relevant portion of the transcript is annexed hereto as Exhibit N. 71. The MOA, as adopted by Resolution No, 1823-2017, by its terms purports to completely strip the Supervisor and the Town of the ability to layoff almost any union employees, ‘even when faced with a financial crisis. F. The December 12, 2017 Personnel Resolution 72. In addition to adopting the MOA resolution, on December 12, 2017 the Town Board adopted Resolution No. 1871-2017, which, among other things, authorized the transfer ofemployees to various departments and placed certain employees in protected civil service positions. 73, Several of the transfers that were authorized by Resolution No. 1871-2017 sent members of former Supervisor Santino’s staff and members of the Town Clerk’s office, together with their salaries, to departments that were not financially positioned to handle the additional salary expense. 74,No amendment to the adopted 2018 Budget was put forward to account for the increase in wage expenses and benefits required by adoption of this resolution, 75, The additional salaries were unbudgeted in these departments and have caused significant fiscal stress in the 2018 budget hecause it adds $2,249,097 in budget expenses without a corresponding budget appropriation to pay those expenses. 76. The transfer of these employees with their unbudgeted salaries, when taken in conjunction with the MOA, makes them immune from termination as a result of budgetary reasons. 77. Comptroller Kevin Conroy responded to a question posed at the December 12, 2017 ‘Town Board meeting related to the cost efifect of the employee transfers. Mr. Conroy stated that “[lJooking at these transfers... what I see, now, subject to comprehensive review is no real, no monetary adjustment from transfer from Department A. to Department B.” See Exhibit L. See also the Affidavit of Averil Smith annexed hereto. 78. Comptroller Conroy's response was not accurate. 79. Absorbing an amount in excess of two million dollars into an adopted budget that was presumably balanced, without showing offsetting reductions, is not possible and fiscally irresponsible.80, The effect of the two resolutions together is harmful to the taxpayers and unconscionable, G. The Budgetary Impact of the Two Resolutions. 81, Notwithstanding the Town’s failure to fully account for the financial impact of adopting the two resolutions, the negative budgetary impact was immediately apparent. 82, One example of the fiscal stress caused by the personnel actions is the circumstances surrounding former-Town Clerk Nasrin Ahmad. After losing her reelection bid, Ms. Ahmad was transferred to the Department of Occupational Resources (“DOOR”), together with her $129,500.00 salary. 83. Gregory R. Becker, the Commissioner of DOOR, stated his opposition to his department taking on additional personnel without the funding to pay for it. Copies of Commissioner Becker’s memorandums are annexed hereto as Exhibit 0. 84, Commissioner Becker objected fo the transfer based on budgetary concems and stated that an agreement had been reached prior to November 8, 2017 to transfer personnel from DOOR, together with their salaries, to other departments. 85. The budget of DOOR has a deficit of more than $500,000. Even though this deficit amount was known at the time of the preparation of the Town’s 2018 Budget, no provision was made to financially support or reduce the extraordinary expense. 86, Instead, after losing the November 7, 2017 election, former Supervisor Santino, together with the Town Board, sought to inflict catastrophic fiscal pain to an already crippled department by adding additional personnel. 87. On January 9, 2018, Ms. Ahmad resigned her position in DOOR and was appointed as a Deputy Commissioner in the Department of Parks and Recreation. Supervisor Gillen, Plaintiff-Petitioner herein, voted against the appointment,88. Another example is the transfer of former Communications Director Michael Deery. Mr. Deery, and his $203,405 a year salary, was transferred to the Office of the Receiver of Taxes. Even taking into account the vacancies provided for in the adopted budget for the Office of the Receiver of Taxes, Mr. Deery’s transfer would still negatively impact the department’s budget. Sce Affidavit of Averil Smith annexed hereto, 89. Overall, as a direct result of the Santino administrations misfeasance, multiple departments in the ‘Town are now over budget. 90. The fiscal recklessness of former Supervisor Santino and the Town Board’s actions in approving these two resolutions after the 2018 Budget was adopted cannot be understated. 91. The costs associated with former Supervisor Santino and the Town Board’s approval of the two resolutions resulted in adding $2,249,097 dollars to the payroll and benefit related fines in the 2018 Budget without providing any corresponding appropriation, 92. These costs not only impact the 2018 Budget but become an ongoing taxpayer burden, 93. In the United States of America, when there is a peaceful transition of power and an outgoing administration leaves office and an incoming administration takes control, it is | appointments will submit their resignations, customary that officials who hold poli giving the incoming administration the ability to retain the personnel or allow them to leave the government, 94, Instead of eliminating employees in the Town Supervisor’s office and Town Clerk's office, former Supervisor Santino and the Town Board unlawfully attempted to embed their political cronies in various positions in Town governmer95, If the MOA and the employee transfers were lawful, Supervisor Gillen would be required to cut other expenses in order to keep the budget balanced or refrain from hiring people in necessary positions to undertake the tasks of government. 96. Former Supervisor Santino and the Town Board unlawdillly altered the 2018 Budget in violation of Town Law. 97. Former Supervisor Santino unlawfully violated his fiduciary duty to the taxpayers by failing to properly manage the 2018 Budget. H. Civil Service Commission 98. In response to the personnel resolution, the CSC performed the requirements necessary 0 transfer these 14 employees from the Supervisor’s office and Town Clerk’s office to the departments into which they were being transferred, 99. Thus, the CSC assisted and completed the illegal transfer of these individuals to assist former Supervisor Santino and the Town Board in carrying out the personnel moves. 100. ‘The actions of the CSC were carried out by Chairman Arthur J. Nastre, Commissioner Michael Perry, Commissioner Gennaro Cesarano and Executive Director Robert W. Schmidt. 101 The MOA stands in contradiction with the negotiated-for provisions of CBA Article 45, 102. ‘The MOA’s purpose was to wreak havoc on the Budget and protect political cronies, preventing them from “layoff.” 103. ‘The MOA shackles Supervisor Gillen, preventing her from exercising her authority under the Town Law of the State of New York. See Town Law Section 52.104. The MOA prevents Supervisor Gillen from properly managing the Town’s payroll and employce-related expenditures. 105. More importantly, the MOA, as authorized by Resolution No. 1823-2017, needlessly westes public funds and prohibits the Town from modifying its workforce, even in the face of fiscal necessity. 106. Former Supervisor Santino and the Town Board approved the MOA in bad faith, solely to shackle Supervisor Gillen. 107. Former Supervisor Santino’s bad faith is easily recognized. On December 19, 2017, incoming Supervisor Gillen had an appointment at Town Hall to see her new offices. Former Supervisor Santino instead locked her out, refusing her entry to the office. The Town’s Public Safety officials agreed to let incoming Supervisor Gillen into ‘Town Hall. 108. Before Public Safety officials could let Supervisor Gillen into Town Hall, they were ordered to stand down by Stephen D’Esposito, who served as former Supervisor Santino’s Chief of Stal. 109, Former Supervisor Santino and co-Defendant-Respondents’ actions are plainly motivated solely by bad faith, are not in the interests of the Town, will cost the Town significant funds, and constitute waste and fraud. 110. Upon information and belief, former Supervisor Anthony J. Santino’s sister, Rose Santino, is an employee at the Town, and Anthony P. D’Esposito has multiple relatives employed by the Town of Hempstead, all of whom financially benefited from the MOA. WL. ‘These Town Board members voted to adopt Resolution No. 1823-2017, in which their relatives had a financial interest.112. The appointments serve no viable purpose, directly contradict the provisions of the Contract that was entered into only four months before and previous comments made by former Supervisor Santino regarding the need for limited government and less spending, 113. The two resolutions perpetrate a fraud on the Town and constitute a waste of public funds ; the MOA was negotiated without any consideration 114. Upon information and bel given on behalf of the Union i.e, the Union received additional protections but gave up nothing. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Memorandum of Agreement nforceable 115, __Plaintiff-Petitioner repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 116. Former Supervisor Anthony J. Santino, Edward A. Ambrosino, Anthony P D’Esposito and Dennis Dunne, Sr. actions unduly bind Supervisor Gillen and the current Town Board, 117. ‘These Defendants-Respondents approved the MOA, which former Supervisor Santino signed, which modified the CBA, and such modification is not limited to a reasonable time, and may extend in perpetuity under the Zriborough doctrine. 118. ‘The MOA is invalid and unenforceable and must be declared null and void. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION CPLR Article 78: Arbitrary and Capricious 119. __Plaintiff-Petitioner repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein,120, By adopting the two resolutions, former Supervisor Anthony J. Santino, Edward A. Ambrosino, Anthony P D’Esposito and Dennis Dunne, Sr. actions were arbitrary and capricious and not supported by a rational basis, 121 Councilman Ambrosino stated on the record at the Town Board meeting before casting a deciding vote that “the fiscal and no layoff clause is inoperable”. This decision to vote yes was irrational. 122. In view of the Town's Comptroller statement that he had not yet quantified the financial impact of the MOA, it was arbitrary and capricious to vote in favor of the MOA. 123. By reason of the foregoing, the two resolutions should be annulled and the current ‘Town Board should be ordered to rescind Resolution No, 1823-2017 and Resolution No. 1871-2017. 124, The actions taken by the CSC in furtherance of the MOA should be declared null and void. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION CPLR Artic .cted in Excess of Authority 125. __Plaintiff-Petitioner repeats and realleges cach and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein, 126. Former Supervisor Anthony J. Santino acted in excess of his authorized powers under Town Law Section 52 by adopting Resolution Nos. 1823-2017 and 1871-2017. 127. Plaintiff-Petitioner has a clear legal right to probibit such former Supervisor Santino from taking such action under Town Law Sections $1 and 52 128 By reason of the foregoing, Resolution Nos. 1823-2017 and 1871-2017 should be annulled.129. The CSC and its three commissioners, together with the Executive Director should be ordered to void all personnel actions taken in furtherance of the two resolutions, AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Void for Public Policy 130. __Plaintiff-Petitioner repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein, 131 ‘The MOA is invalid, unenforceable and void based on publie policy grounds. 132, The financial harm inflicted upon the taxpaying residents of the Town of Hempstead by adopting the MOA is significant. 133, Former Supervisor Anthony J. Santino was responsible for administration of the annual budget and was obligated to provide appropriations for any expenditure, including employee salaries, 134. After the 2018 Budget was approved, the Town Board, by adopting Resolution No. 1871-2017, added $2,249,097 in budget expenses without a corresponding budget appropriation to pay those expenses. 135. By adopting the MOA, the Town Board improperly and unlawfully stripped the incoming Supervisor and the Town Board of its statutory authority to control budgetary and personnel decisions. This action was contrary to public policy and designed to frustrate the will of the electorate and preempted by New York State Law. 136. At the same meeting, the Town Board approved Resolution No. 1823-2017, which prohibits the Town from terminating employees for budgetary or economic reasons.137, When taken together, the motivation in adopting the two resolutions were intended to exact political retribution on the incoming Town Supervisor, were undertaken in bad faith and shackled the governing abilities of Piaintiff-Petitioner and the current ‘Town Board. AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment Under CPLR 3001 138. Plaintiff-Petitioner repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 139, There is a controversy over whether or not Resolution No. 1823-2017 and Resolution No. 1871-2017 are enforceable. 140. Pursuant to CPLR 3001, Plaintiff-Petitioner requests the Court to render a declaratory judgment that Resolution No. 1823-2017 and Resolution No. 1871-2017 adopted on December 12, 2017 null and void for the reasons set forth herein, M4 No other action has been commenced or any petition or proceeding filed seeking the same declaration under the law. AS AND FOR AN SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Town L: stion 109 142 Plaintifi-Petitioner repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein, 143. The Town Board for the Town of Hempstead adopted its 2018 annual Budget. 144, Thereafter, on December 12, 2017, the Town Board voted to adopt Resolution Nos, 1823-2017 and 1871-2017. 145, The adoption of these resolutions caused employees with unbudgeted salaries tobe transferred to other departments without the ability to terminate such employees for “reasons due to budgetary, economy, consolidation, abolition of functions, abolition or curtailment of activities...” 146. The adoption of the two resolutions by these Town Board members was ultra vires, unlawfully amended the 2018 annual Budget and constitutes a violation of Town Law Section 109. 147, Resolution Nos. 1823-2017 and 1871-2017 must be declared null and void. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Town Law Section 117 148. _Plaintiff-Petitioner repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 149. The adoption of the two resolutions by these Town Board members was ultra vires, is an unlawful expenditure of money without provision in the 2018 annual Budget to pay for the expense and constitutes a violation of Town Law Section 117. 150, Resolution Nos. 1823-2017 and 1871-2017 must be declared null and void. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Memorandum of Agreement Lacks Consideration 151. __Plaintiff-Petitioner repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein, 152, The MOA is invalid and unenforceable because the Town entered into the MOA without receiving any consideration from the Union, 153. Resolution No. 1823-2017 must be declared null and void,AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 154, __Plaintiff-Petitioner repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 155. The MOA is invalid and unenforceable because the terms of the MOA are unconscionable. WHEREFORE, Plaintifi-Petitioner demands judgment as follows: (a) As and for the first cause of action, that pursuant to CPLR 3001, the Court declare and determine that the MOA is unenforceable and null and void; (b) As and for the second cause of action, an order annulling Resolution No. 1823-2017 and Resolution No, 1871-2017 and directing the Town Board to rescind the resolutions. (©) As and for the third cause of action, an order annulling Resolution No. 1823-2017 and Resolution No. 1871-2017 and directing the Town Board to rescind the resolutions. (d) As and for the fourth cause of action, that pursuant to CPLR 3001, the Court declare and determine that Town Board Resolution No, 1823-2017 is null and void based on public policy (c) As and for the fifth cause of action, that pursuant to CPLR 3001, the Court declare and determine that Town Board Resolution No. 1823-2017 is null and void based on former Supervisor Santino’s retaliatory actions.(© As and for the sixth cause of action, that purstant to CPLR 3001, the Court declare and determine that Town Board Resolution Nos. 1823-2017 and 1871-2017 are null and void based on a violation of Town Law Section 109. (g) As and for the seventh cause of action, that pursuant to CPLR 3001, the Court declare and determine that Town Board Resolution Nos. 1823-2017 and 1871-2017 are null and void based on a violation of Town Law Section 117. (b) As and for the eighth cause of action, that pursuant to CPLR 3001, the Court declare and determine that Town Board Resolution No. 1823-2017 null and void based on a lack of consideration, (@ As and for the ninth cause of action, that pursuant to CPLR 3001, the Court declare and determine that the MOA is unconscionable and therefore null and void, and unenforceable. (i) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just, proper and equitable. Dated: April 11, 2018 Valley Stream, New York ) by: omas A. Williams, Es22 NYCRR #13 Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the undersigned, an attomey admitted to practice in Courts of New York State, certifies that, upon information and belief and reasonable inquiry, the contentions contained in the annexed document are not frivolous. Dated: Valley Stream, New York April 11,2018 THOMAS A. WILLIAMS, ESQ.SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU In the Matter of the Application of LAURA A. GILLEN, AFFIDAVIT Plaintiff-Petitioner, For a judgment pursuant to CPLR Article 78 and CPLR Section 3001 Index No. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, ANTHONY J. SANTINO, DOROTHY L. GOOSBY, EDWARD A. AMBROSINO, BRUCE A. BLAKEMAN, ANTHONY P. D’ESPOS! ERIN KING SWEENEY, DENNIS DUNNE, SR., TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ARTHUR J. NASTRE, MICHAEL PERRY, GENNARO CESARANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCMB, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 880 Defendants-Respondents STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF NASSAU) LAURA A. GILLEN, duly sworn deposes and says:I. Tam the duly-elected and qualified Supervisor of the Town of Hempstead (the “Town”). 2. Iwas elected on November 7, 2017 and was sworn in to office on January 1, 2018. 3. have read the Petition herein and agree with all of the allegations contained therein, 4, Thereby incorporate the entire Petition, with its exhibits, in this affidavit as if fully set forth herein, Sworn to before me 1 sy) day of April, 2018 LA Notary Public Teoma 4. noras Pig io 36. Quatea commerSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NASSAU In the Matter of the Application of LAURA A. GILLEN, ARRIDAVIT Plaintifi-Petitioner, For a judgment pursuant to CPLR Article 78 and CPLR Section 3001 Index No. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, ANTHONY J. SANTINO, DOROTHY L. GOOSBY, EDWARD A. AMBROSINO, BRUCE A. BLAKEMAN, ANTHONY P. D’ESPOSITO, ERIN KING SWEENEY, DENNIS DUNNE, SR., TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ARTHUR J. NASTRE, MICHAEL PERRY, GENNARO CESARANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 880 Defendants-Respondents. STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF NASSAU) AVERIL SMITH, duly sworn deposes and says:10, u Tam the Director of Finance for the Town of Hempstead (“Town”) and am fully familiar with the facts stated herein, Lamalso a Certified Public Accountant, 1 began my employment with the Town on January 8, 2018, My responsibilities include overseeing the Town’s finances, overseeing the Office of the ‘Comptroller, reviewing the Town’s budget and preparing reports and recommendations for the development of financial policies I submit this affidavit in support of the instant Petition/Complaint. ‘The Town approved its 2018 annual budget on October 17, 2017, The budget set forth the salaries for each department After the budget was adopted, the Town voted to approvea Memorandum of Agreement (the “MOA") with the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL- CIO, Local 880. ‘The MOA restricts the Town from terminating employees for “reasons due to budgetary, economy, consolidation, abolition of functions, abolition or curtailment of activities...” In addition to adopting the MOA, on December 12, 2017 the Town Board adopted Resolution No. 1871-2017, which, inter alia, authorized the transfer of employees to various departments, Several of the transfers that were authorized by Resolution No. 1871-2017 moved members of former Supervisor Santino’s staff and members of the Town Clerk’ s office, together with their salaries, to departments that were not financially positioned to handle the additional salary expense,12, No amendment to the adopted 2018 Budget was put forward to account for the inerease in salary and benefit expenses required by adoption of this resolution. 13. The Comptroller's office provided me with a breakdown of the cost associated with retaining these 14 employees. 14, The salaries and related expenses, which were not included in the 2018 budget adds $2,249,097 in expenses without a corresponding budget reduction or appropriation to the 2018 budget. 15. The supporting spreadsheet is annexed hereto as Exhibit O. 16, The transfer of these employees and their unbudgeted salaries, when taken in conjunction with the MOA, makes these employees immune from termination for budgetary reasons. 17, In my professional opinion, the Town did not fully account for the financial impact of adopting the two resolutions, 18, One example of the fiscal stress caused by the personne] actions is the circumstances surrounding former-Town Clerk Nasrin Ahmad. Ms, Ahmad was transferred to the Department of Occupational Resources (“DOOR”), together with her budgeted salary and an increase of $23,000.00, bringing her new salary to $129,500.00 19. The budget of DOOR has a deficit of more than $500,000. Even though this deficit was ‘known at the time of the preparation of the Town’s 2018 Budget, no provision was made to financially support or reduce the expenses for this department, In fact, the proposed transfer worsened this department's finaneial position, 20, Another example is the transfer of former Communications Director Michael Deery. Mr. Deery, along with a $203,405 yearly salary, was transferred to the Office of the Receiver of 3‘Taxes. Fiven taking into account the vacancies provided for in the adopted budget for the Office of the Receiver of Taxes, Mr. Deery’s transfer would still have a negative financial impact on the department’s budget. 21. These costs not only impact the 2018 Budget but will become an ongoing taxpayer burden. 22. Ifthe MOA and the employee transfers were laws, Supervisor Gillen would be required to cut other expenses in order to keep the 2018 budget balanced or refrain from hiring people in necessary positions to undertake the tasks of government to provide needed services to Town residents, 23. Finally, | have reviewed some of Comptroller Kevin Conroy's statements from the December 12, 2017 Town Board meeting, Specifically, in response to a question from Councilwoman Erin King Sweeney related to the cost effect of the employee transfers, Mr, Conroy stated that “[lJooking at these transfers... what I see, now, subject to comprehensive review is no real, no monetary adjustment from transfer from Department A to Department B. 24, Comptroller Conroy’s response was clearly not accurate 25, Absorbing an amount in excess of two million dollars into an adopted budget that was presumably balanced, without showing offsetting reductions or appropriations, is not possible. ‘Swom to before me SA" day of April, 2018 Notary Public vor tek 4 Eire Set 2kIndex No. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU LAURA A. GILLEN, Plaintiff-Petitioner, ~against- TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, ANTHONY J. SANTINO, DOROTHY L. GOOSBY, EDWARD A, AMBROSINO, BRUCE A. BLAKEMAN, ANTHONY P. D'ESPOSITO, ERIN KING SWEENEY, DENNIS DUNNE, SR., ‘TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ARTHUR J. NASTRE, MICHAEL PERRY, GENNARO CESARANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 880 Defendants-Respondents, VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT, AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT AND EXHIBITS ‘THOMAS A. WILLIAMS Attorney for Plaintifi-Petitioner LAURA A. GILLEN 164 Hendrickson Avenue Valley Stream, New York 11580 (516) 256-1100