On Tuesday, September 26, State Supreme Court Justice Frank Caruso opened his courtroom to hear the arguments of the counsel for David Pfeiffer and Man O’Trees, Inc., the plaintiffs who brought an application for a preliminary injunction in his court to prevent the City of Niagara Falls from awarding a contract to a new contractor to finish the road reconstruction on the Roule 104 Lewiston Road construction project.
John P. Bartolomei, counsel for Man O’Trees, opened by presenting the history of the delayed construction project, and attempted to explain how and why the company ended up in court, needing judicial intervention. His attempt to introduce six exhibits on poster board was objected to by counsel for the City and its engineer Wendel Duchscherer, Benjamin M. Zuffranieri of Hodgson Russ LLP and F. Paul Greene of Harter Secrest and Emery LLP, respectively. Undaunted, Bartolomei continued to make the case for radioactive contamination at the Lewiston Road site and the need to put Man O’Trees back on the job.
Pfeiffer’s counsel Donald Alessi concurred with Bartolomei’s arguments, but stressed the personal effect on his client. The defendants objected to Alessi’s arguments, based on perceived violations of the procedural rules. Without ruling directly on the objections, Caruso allowed Alessi to make his points on preventing the City from making disparaging remarks about his client and the danger of radioactive contamination at the site.
The City’s argument, made by Zuffranieri, maintained that the plaintiff’s failed to provide any admissible evidence that there was an actual public threat from radiation under the road. He asserted that the City had provided proper proof from its engineer and other experts that the construction site was safe. Zuffranieri’s co-counsel, Robert J. Fluskey, argued that Pfeiffer and Man O’Trees lacked legal standing to bring a claim based on environmental contamination.
After hearing all the arguments, Caruso said he would make his decision known by Friday whether he would grant the permanent injunction. |