Photo by peterkreder, courtesy of Flickr Creative Commons.

A State Supreme Court justice has overturned a tariff meant to bolster income for the Metropolitan Transit Authority.

The tariff, called the metropolitan commuter transportation mobility tax, requires employers in all 12 New York counties served by the public transportation provider to contribute 34 cents to M.T.A. for every $100 in payroll costs. The State Legislature passed tariff in May 2009 to save M.T.A. from an annual $2 billion short fall.

Suburban government officials and business owners opposed the law, however, because they believed that it forced them to support an agency that mostly benefited New York City. Counties including Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester filed a lawsuit which claimed the tax unconstitutionally appropriated public funds for a local project.

Justice R. Bruce Cozzens Jr. agreed. In a six-page decision, he stated, “The M.T.A. payroll tax is a special law, which does not serve a substantial state interest,” his 6-page decision stated. “This law should have been, according to the State Constitution, passed with either a Home Rule message or by message of necessity with two-thirds vote in each house. This did not occur, therefore this law was passed unconstitutionally.”

M.T.A. would lose $1.26 billion in revenue this year if the tax is eliminated, according to spokesman Aaron Donovan. The tax’s supporters believe this loss would have far reaching consequences for the entire state.

“This decision threatens the foundation of the state’s economy,” said Paul Steely White, Executive Director of the transportation advocacy group Transportation Alternatives.
“Public transportation is critical to the New York City metropolitan area — an area which provides 45 percent of the state’s tax revenue, paying for countless public services from Niagara Falls to Montauk.”

M.T.A. “will vigorously appeal today’s ruling,” a spokesperson told NY1.

The authority’s chances may be high: they pointed out in a statement that four previous challenges to the tax “making the same argument” have already been dismissed.

Reporters swarm Espaillat campaign spokesman Ibrahim Khan outside Manhattan Supreme Court

At a hearing in State Supreme Court in lower Manhattan today, State Sen. Adriano Espaillat’s counsel Martin Connor announced the campaign’s intention to file a petition that could potentially pave the way for a do-over of last week’s Congressional primary election.

Espaillat lost to Rep. Charlie Rangel by what was initially reported as several thousand votes, but Rangel’s margin of victory is now about 2 percent, or 802 votes. The Espaillat campaign is hoping that voter complaints about irregularities at polling places and the existence of roughly 2,000 uncounted affidavit ballots could reverse the election’s outcome.

On Friday, Connor filed a petition against Rangel, the New York Police Department and the City Board of Elections asking the Court to watch over the counting of outstanding votes, a process that is not scheduled to begin until Thursday.

The new petition, which the campaign intends to file tomorrow, will include another statute covering “irregularities” in the primary process. If a judge does find evidence of irregularities, it could give Espaillat grounds to ask for a new primary election, said campaign spokesman Ibrahim Khan.

“The petition allows you to file for the election to be redone,” Khan said. “Today was about preserving all of our legal options.”

Initial reports from the BOE on primary night showed Rangel winning the race by roughly 2,000 votes out of more than 40,000 cast, but by last week’s end, an error that left votes from 79 of the 506 district precincts unaccounted for lowered the Board’s accounting of Rangel’s victory margin to 800 votes.

Rangel campaign manager Moises Perez would not comment on the reports of problems from primary night, including voters’ complaints about a lack of available bilingual poll-workers to help Spanish speaking voters.

To read the full article at City & State click here.

Photo by Mr. Adrian Camera. Photo courtesy of Flickr Commons.

By Paul Bisceglio

South Bronx residents and community groups filed a lawsuit last Wednesday to halt online grocery delivery service FreshDirect’s relocation from Queens to a new 500,000 square-foot facility in the Harlem River Yards. The residents argued that the city failed to account for the new facility’s adverse environmental effects, the consequence of what residents claim will be the grocery deliverers’ nearly 2,000 daily truck trips.

In February, the announcement of FreshDirect’s move won the praise of city and state officials, who were happy they did not lose the company to New Jersey, according to the New York Times. Locals in the proposed construction area, however, were unwilling to add to neighborhood’s already high levels of noise, pollution and asthma.

The lawsuit was filed in the State Supreme Court in the Bronx. Its defendants include the New York City Industrial Development Agency, FreshDirect and Harlem River Yard Ventures, the Times reports.

FreshDirect contended that the residents’ delivery truck figures were grossly exaggerated. “FreshDirect has 225 trucks and does not come close to making 2,000 trips per day,” a representative told New York Press.

The grocery delivery service also issued the following statement: “Contrary to the assertions made in the recent lawsuit, a thorough environmental impact review commissioned by FreshDirect was already conducted. It showed the new facility will generate far fewer truck trips and result in less traffic when compared to the 1993 approved uses of the Harlem River Yard.”

The lawsuit, however, aims to annul a declaration by the Industrial Development Agency that affirmed FreshDirect’s negligible environmental impact.  If the suit succeeds, FreshDirect would be forced to reevaluate its effects on the environment.

A memorial outside of Graham's home. Photo by Hobo Matt.

Richard Haste, the 31-year-old New York City Police officer indicted in the shooting death of an unarmed 18-year-old in the victim’s Bronx home, pled not guilty to charges of first- and second-degree manslaughter on Wednesday.

After turning himself in to the Bronx district attorney’s office, Haste appeared in State Supreme Court along with other officers and the victim’s relatives and supporters. According to the New York Times, Haste’s lawyer, Stuart London, argued that his client had “no choice” but to shoot Ramarley Graham, whom Haste followed on a drug pursuit on February 2 as part of a street narcotics unit. London claimed that Haste had heard from other officers that Graham was armed and fired in self defense when the teen appeared to reach for his waistband.

“ ‘I thought he was going to kill me, so I shot him,’ ” read London from a statement by Haste after the incident.

The Times reported that Robert T. Johnson, the Bronx district attorney, did not think the shooting was justified. “There’s a major difference between exercising caution and pulling the trigger and using deadly force,” he said after the hearing. The Huffington Post reported that he also said, “[Haste] had to know that he did not see a gun.”

About a dozen supporters of Graham’s family gathered outside the courthouse in protest of police aggression, according to the Times. They chanted, “NYPD, KKK, how many kids did you kill today?”

Police union president Patrick Lynch, meanwhile, stood by Haste. “Today, we’re here to show support for a New York City police officer who was put in a terrible position doing a difficult job,” he told the Huffington Post.

Haste was released after posting $50,000 bail.

– Paul Bisceglio