Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.
John J. Tormey III, PLLC
1636 Third Avenue, PMB 188
New York, NY 10128 USA
(212) 410-4142 (phone)
(212) 410-2380 (fax)
jtormey@optonline.net
https://www.tormey.org
Friday, October 18, 2024
VIA FAX: 1-845-364-3435, U.S. MAIL, and E-MAIL:
schuetzd@co.rockland.ny.us
schiafor@co.rockland.ny.us
Mr. Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner
Mr. Rich Schiafo, Deputy Commissioner
Rockland County Department of Planning
50 Sanatorium Road, Building T
Pomona, NY 10970 USA
VIA FAX: 1-845-364-3435, U.S. MAIL, and E-MAIL:
feidenl@co.rockland.ny.us
housmanm@co.rockland.ny.us
Larraine S. Feiden, Esq., Principal Assistant County Attorney
Mark Housman, Esq., Principal Assistant County Attorney
Office of Thomas E. Humbach, County Attorney
11 New Hempstead Road
New City, NY 10956 USA
VIA FAX: 1-845-364-3435, U.S. MAIL, and E-MAIL:
carsena@co.rockland.ny.us
Mr. Adam Carsen, Associate Planner
Rockland County Department of Planning
50 Sanatorium Road, Building T
Pomona, NY 10970 USA
Re: The October 10, 2024 Section 239 GML Referral Made By The Village Of Piermont, NY
Dear Acting Commissioner Schuetz, Deputy Commissioner Schiafo, Attorney Feiden, Attorney Housman, and Mr. Carsen:
I write this letter to each of you as a concerned citizen of Rockland County, New York and the Town of Orangetown, New York. I represent no client in this matter.
I vehemently OPPOSE the October 10, 2024 Section 239-a GML referral (the “Piermont October 10 Referral”) wrongfully made by the Village of Piermont, New York and its Mayor Bruce Tucker, seeking implementation of a new “Central Business Multiuse Zone” (“CBM Zone”) for the 2,500-resident Village of Piermont:I urge you and your colleagues to summarily reject and dismiss the Piermont October 10 Referral for the following reasons:
1. Procedural Posture. The litigation history of this matter, Young v. Piermont et al., is linked here:
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=RJq7nHtE18Bw8zpsaHieVw==&display=all&courtType=Rockland%20County%20Supreme%20Court&resultsPageNum=1
You will please recall that in the context of that litigation, on Thursday, October 10, 2024, Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker and his associates purposefully tried to pre-empt Justice Greenwald’s decision in connection with the 447-477 Piermont Avenue project and village-sought CBM Zone. Mayor Tucker and his associates effectively surrendered in the litigation, but at the same time tried to arrogate the Rockland County zoning process and General Municipal Law (GML) to themselves:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/newsflash-humiliated-piermont.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/piermont-garmento-mayor-tucker-violate.htmlhttps://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/october-10-2024-piermont-referral-to.html
That led to Justice Greenwald effectively chastising and neutralizing them on Friday morning, October 11, 2024 with the upload of His Honor’s landmark Decision and Order against the Village of Piermont government parties and the developer:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/in-shape-of-l-on-their-foreheads.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/for-immediate-release-piermont-ny.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-courts-decision-in-young-v-village.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/piermont-mayor-bruce-tucker-hides-from.html
2. The Piermont October 10 Referral Is Defective On Its Face. As you know, Mayor Tucker and the Village of Piermont, through outside counsel, submitted a 30-page packet (“Packet”) of fiction to your office – constituting the Piermont October 10 Referral – now under review by your office.
That Packet is re-printed as annotated at the following URLs:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-piermont-mayor-lies-through-his.htmlIn the Packet’s transmittal letter, Piermont Village outside litigation counsel therein attests that the Packet was furnished to the individual known as “To Whom It May Concern” [emphasis added] at “Rockland County Planning Department”[sic]. It is remarkable that the Village of Piermont did not take the time to learn the names of the individuals at the Rockland County Department of Planning (proper name), responsible for adjudicating the Piermont October 10 Referral:
In any event, the Piermont October 10 Referral was not properly-addressed to any identifiable individual, is therefore defective on its face, and for this reason alone should be rejected and dismissed with prejudice.
3. The Piermont October 10 Referral Was Untimely, And Violated A Court Order. Additionally, the Village of Piermont’s outside litigation counsel submitted the Packet to your office on Thursday, October 10, 2024 - again, a day before Justice Greenwald’s written Decision and Order was rendered, directing them to make the self-same referral:
The Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet should therefore be treated as a nullity and a failure for these additional reasons. For one thing, it is premature, if not arrogant to the extreme, for a party to do something before actually being ordered by a court to do it. Mayor Bruce Tucker and the Village of Piermont jumped the gun instead. By doing so, they rendered the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet technically-defective, and thus null and void, by mistiming it.
Moreover, the action taken on October 10, 2024 by Mayor Bruce Tucker and the Village of Piermont violated Justice Greenwald’s prior Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which prohibited them from processing the 447-477 Piermont Avenue matter as described here:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/piermont-garmento-mayor-tucker-violate.html
For these additional reasons, the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet should be rejected and dismissed with prejudice.
4. The Daniel Spitzer Certification And Attestation On Each Document, Is False. Former Piermont Planning Board Chair Daniel Spitzer's printed name is indicated as subscribing to two (undated) documents included by the Village of Piermont in the Packet. Dan Spitzer is identified on both subject instruments as "Responsible Officer" of the "Village of Piermont Planning Board". These attestations and certifications are false. The Packet should be treated as a nullity and a failure for these additional reasons.
On two separate undated pages re-printed here at these links and below:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-piermont-mayor-lies-through-his.html
... Daniel Spitzer is therein indicated as having attested, certified, and signed-off on a “Short Environmental Assessment Form – Part 3 Determination of Significance”, as the “Name of [the] Responsible Officer in [the] Lead Agency”. Daniel Spitzer, or perhaps some toady acting at his behest, therein checked the box indicating that he, Spitzer, has “determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts”. [Emphasis added]. That assertion is absolutely and utterly false – both times when subscribed-to. (Of course, if someone else forged Dan Spitzer's printed name and check-mark on the document and thereafter caused it to be submitted to the Rockland County Department of Planning, then that would merit its own separate investigation of a very different sort. In either scenario, each document is a false instrument and a lie):
By way of background, Daniel Spitzer was the Chair of the Planning Board of the Village of Piermont. Daniel Spitzer quit the Planning Board in disgrace in late April of this year - half a year ago:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/04/spitzer-quit-sir.html
By quitting in April, Daniel Spitzer thought that he could somehow escape liability from Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker’s dirty real estate deal planned for 447-477 Piermont Avenue. Yet Daniel Spitzer shepherded that same real estate deal with Mayor Bruce Tucker and others. Daniel Spitzer’s own handprints are all over the file and the bad-faith Piermont October 10 Referral to the County, whether he acknowledges that now or not.
The 447-477 Piermont Avenue location, the real focal-point of Mayor Bruce Tucker’s intended and environmentally-injurious CBM Zone, is itself known to be the site of a former Sunoco gasoline station that had underground gasoline tanks. The entire Village of Piermont was aware of that fact as of April, and in many cases much earlier:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/04/bringing-it-on-home-sunoco-gasoline.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/05/flashback-to-april-23-2024-first.html
447-477 Piermont Avenue is also known to be less than 800 feet from a Superfund site, located at 100 Paradise Avenue, which was subject to a clean-up commencing in 2017:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/05/why-dig-because-there-is-superfund-site.html
Yet, astoundingly, Daniel Spitzer name is still affixed to a signed writing attesting and certifying that the CBM Zone “will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts” - a writing caused to be submitted, through Mayor Tucker and outside counsel, to you and your office:
Even considering all the due diligence that Daniel Spitzer and his listless fellow members of the Piermont Planning Board failed to perform in relation to the 447-477 Piermont Avenue development and the proposed developer, Daniel Spitzer at all times knew full well of the manifold adverse environmental impacts that the 447-477 Piermont Avenue development, and CBM Zone generally, would have on the small Village of Piermont. The lie became manifest when, by affixation of Daniel Spitzer's name to these two “Short Environmental Assessment Forms”, they were submitted, as false instruments, to your office:
For these additional reasons, the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet should be rejected and dismissed with prejudice.
5. Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker Lied When Causing The Two Dan Spitzer Documents To Be Filed. Next, Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker and his cohorts submitted the two subject false instruments bearing Daniel Spitzer’s name and a corresponding scrawled signature to your office, a Rockland County governmental agency, in the October 10, 2024 Packet:
For one thing, I note that, given the six-month gap since Daniel Spitzer last held governmental office in Piermont, and assuming that Bruce Tucker did not confer with Daniel Spitzer before doing so, Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker really threw Daniel Spitzer under the bus when causing the Packet to be issued to your office – exactly the type of thing that I would expect the disreputable former sheet and towel salesman out of Elizabeth, New Jersey to do. However, there is probably less than a 5% chance that Spitzer was not made aware of the impending submission of the October 10 Packet bearing his name. If Tucker did forge, fake, or fudge a signature directly over Spitzer's signature-block attempting to defraud or deceive the document-recipients, then that is a whole 'nother proceeding.
In any event, both Bruce Tucker and Daniel Spitzer should be prosecuted criminally for their respective on-record and in-writing roles in the submission of these two false instruments to your office. For these additional reasons, the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet should be rejected and dismissed with prejudice.
6. Daniel Spitzer’s Unsavory Litigation History. I would like to say that I was surprised to see the lies propagated by Daniel Spitzer in this matter. But I’m not. While I understand that Daniel Spitzer no longer practices as a neurosurgeon, I ask that you please take notice of the unconscionable way in which Daniel Spitzer proceeded in the epic Rockland County medical malpractice and cover-up case of Jones and Jones v. Daniel Evan (Dan) Spitzer, M.D. et al., Index # 31649/2011 (Sup. Ct. Rockland Co. 2011); please see:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/dan-spitzer-ex-chair-piermont-planning.html
Even given the fact that the US$56,000,000 medical malpractice monetary damage award to the plaintiff-widower against Spitzer and others was later reduced by further proceedings, after reading the Jones v. Spitzer case file, no one should be surprised that a false instrument bearing Daniel Spitzer's name, government title, and a signature would certify and attest to wholly-fictitious statements in the two “Short Environmental Assessment Forms” included in the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet. I would expect nothing less from the brother of disgraced former State of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer of “Client 9”, black socks, Ashley Dupré, and mistress-folded-into-hotel-luggage infamy:
https://www.recordonline.com/story/news/2007/03/25/dan-spitzer-gov-s-brother/52945306007/
7. Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker Filed Additional False Instruments. The October 10 Piermont Referral and Packet should be treated as a nullity and a failure for these additional reasons. Again, Daniel Spitzer quit the Village of Piermont Planning Board in late April, 2024. Yet Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker and his affiliates included two undated Daniel Spitzer certifications and attestations in the Piermont October 10 Referral. An examination of the 30-page Packet finds no attendant explanation therein of Daniel Spitzer’s April 2024 departure from his government seat:
Mayor Bruce Tucker and the Village of Piermont thereby misrepresented to your Rockland County Department of Planning that Daniel Spitzer somehow continued to hold the same office that Spitzer instead quit in disgrace half-a-year ago as the Chair, as the "Responsible Officer", of the Village of Piermont Planning Board. By doing so, Mayor Tucker and his associates rendered the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet technically-defective on its face, and therefore null and void. Worse yet and again, Tucker and his cronies thereby filed false instruments with a Rockland County governmental agency. For these additional reasons, the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet should be rejected and dismissed with prejudice.
8. The Statutes. A summary review of the New York State Penal Law reveals that one or more of these statutes were broken when Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker and former Piermont Planning Board Chair Daniel Spitzer engaged in their respective participations in the submission of the several false instruments contained within the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet:
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.40
Section 175.40, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title K, Article 175.
§ 175.40 Issuing A False Certificate.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/195.00
Section 195.00, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title L, Article 195.
§ 195.00 Official Misconduct.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.30
Section 175.30, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title K, Article 175.
§ 175.30 Offering A False Instrument For Filing In The Second Degree.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.35
Section 175.35, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title K, Article 175.
§ 175.35 Offering A False Instrument For Filing In The First Degree.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.05
Section 175.05, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title K, Article 175.
§ 175.05 Falsifying Business Records In The Second Degree.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10
Section 175.10, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title K, Article 175.
§ 175.10 Falsifying Business Records In The First Degree.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/195.05
Section 195.05, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title L, Article 195.
§ 195.05 Obstructing Governmental Administration In The Second Degree.
For these additional reasons, the Piermont October 10 Referral should be rejected and dismissed with prejudice.
9. Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker And Piermont Village Government Made Additional False Statements. Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker made these additional false statements to your Rockland County Department of Planning in the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet. Bruce Tucker therein attests that the referred CBM Zone will have either a “small impact” or else no impact on any of the following:
-Existing land use plans and zoning regulations.
-Intensity of land use.
-The existing community’s character.
-The existing community’s quality.
-Traffic.
-Infrastructure.
-Energy use.
-Water supply.
-Wastewater treatment.
-Historic resources.
-Architectural resources.
-Aesthetic resources.
-Natural resources like wetlands, waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora, and fauna.
-Erosion.
-Flooding.
-Drainage.
-Environmental resources.
-Human health.
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/october-10-2024-piermont-referral-to.html
These written statements made by Bruce Tucker are patently preposterous and false, as even a mere ocular review of the Village of Piermont will tell you. The flooding in the Village, particularly, has been catastrophic in recent years, causing some houses in Piermont to be re-built on stilts. Mayor Bruce Tucker, having recklessly spent the small Village into the ground and now desperate for incoming money, decided to sell the Village out to out-of-state developers at the expense of the residents. Mayor Tucker has purposefully held-off on real flood remediation efforts for fear of scaring-away the developers that he hopes to bring the Village cash. Tucker’s false attestation of “small impact” or “no impact” is made with scienter. For these additional reasons, the Piermont October 10 Referral should be rejected and dismissed with prejudice.
9. Conclusion. I could further burden this letter with 50 pages of case law precedent, Bluebook cite-checking, and legalese. Yet that’s not what this situation calls for. This situation calls for plain English and simplicity of conclusion. Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker and former Piermont Planning Board Chair just collaborated with others to submit a written pack of lies to your own office. The Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet should be rejected and dismissed with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
John J. Tormey III, Esq.
Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.
John J. Tormey III, PLLC
1636 Third Avenue, PMB 188
New York, NY 10128 USA
(212) 410-4142 (phone)
(212) 410-2380 (fax)
jtormey@optonline.net
https://www.tormey.org
Friday, October 18, 2024
VIA FAX: 1-845-364-3435, U.S. MAIL, and E-MAIL:
schuetzd@co.rockland.ny.us
schiafor@co.rockland.ny.us
Mr. Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner
Mr. Rich Schiafo, Deputy Commissioner
Rockland County Department of Planning
50 Sanatorium Road, Building T
Pomona, NY 10970 USA
John J. Tormey III, PLLC
1636 Third Avenue, PMB 188
New York, NY 10128 USA
(212) 410-4142 (phone)
(212) 410-2380 (fax)
jtormey@optonline.net
https://www.tormey.org
Friday, October 18, 2024
VIA FAX: 1-845-364-3435, U.S. MAIL, and E-MAIL:
schuetzd@co.rockland.ny.us
schiafor@co.rockland.ny.us
Mr. Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner
Mr. Rich Schiafo, Deputy Commissioner
Rockland County Department of Planning
50 Sanatorium Road, Building T
Pomona, NY 10970 USA
VIA FAX: 1-845-364-3435, U.S. MAIL, and E-MAIL:
feidenl@co.rockland.ny.us
housmanm@co.rockland.ny.us
Larraine S. Feiden, Esq., Principal Assistant County Attorney
Mark Housman, Esq., Principal Assistant County Attorney
Office of Thomas E. Humbach, County Attorney
11 New Hempstead Road
New City, NY 10956 USA
VIA FAX: 1-845-364-3435, U.S. MAIL, and E-MAIL:
carsena@co.rockland.ny.us
Mr. Adam Carsen, Associate Planner
Rockland County Department of Planning
50 Sanatorium Road, Building T
Pomona, NY 10970 USA
Re: The October 10, 2024 Section 239 GML Referral Made By The Village Of Piermont, NY
Dear Acting Commissioner Schuetz, Deputy Commissioner Schiafo, Attorney Feiden, Attorney Housman, and Mr. Carsen:
I write this letter to each of you as a concerned citizen of Rockland County, New York and the Town of Orangetown, New York. I represent no client in this matter.
I vehemently OPPOSE the October 10, 2024 Section 239-a GML referral (the “Piermont October 10 Referral”) wrongfully made by the Village of Piermont, New York and its Mayor Bruce Tucker, seeking implementation of a new “Central Business Multiuse Zone” (“CBM Zone”) for the 2,500-resident Village of Piermont:
I urge you and your colleagues to summarily reject and dismiss the Piermont October 10 Referral for the following reasons:
1. Procedural Posture. The litigation history of this matter, Young v. Piermont et al., is linked here:
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=RJq7nHtE18Bw8zpsaHieVw==&display=all&courtType=Rockland%20County%20Supreme%20Court&resultsPageNum=1
You will please recall that in the context of that litigation, on Thursday, October 10, 2024, Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker and his associates purposefully tried to pre-empt Justice Greenwald’s decision in connection with the 447-477 Piermont Avenue project and village-sought CBM Zone. Mayor Tucker and his associates effectively surrendered in the litigation, but at the same time tried to arrogate the Rockland County zoning process and General Municipal Law (GML) to themselves:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/newsflash-humiliated-piermont.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/piermont-garmento-mayor-tucker-violate.html
1. Procedural Posture. The litigation history of this matter, Young v. Piermont et al., is linked here:
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=RJq7nHtE18Bw8zpsaHieVw==&display=all&courtType=Rockland%20County%20Supreme%20Court&resultsPageNum=1
You will please recall that in the context of that litigation, on Thursday, October 10, 2024, Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker and his associates purposefully tried to pre-empt Justice Greenwald’s decision in connection with the 447-477 Piermont Avenue project and village-sought CBM Zone. Mayor Tucker and his associates effectively surrendered in the litigation, but at the same time tried to arrogate the Rockland County zoning process and General Municipal Law (GML) to themselves:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/newsflash-humiliated-piermont.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/piermont-garmento-mayor-tucker-violate.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/october-10-2024-piermont-referral-to.html
That led to Justice Greenwald effectively chastising and neutralizing them on Friday morning, October 11, 2024 with the upload of His Honor’s landmark Decision and Order against the Village of Piermont government parties and the developer:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/in-shape-of-l-on-their-foreheads.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/for-immediate-release-piermont-ny.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-courts-decision-in-young-v-village.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/piermont-mayor-bruce-tucker-hides-from.html
2. The Piermont October 10 Referral Is Defective On Its Face. As you know, Mayor Tucker and the Village of Piermont, through outside counsel, submitted a 30-page packet (“Packet”) of fiction to your office – constituting the Piermont October 10 Referral – now under review by your office.
That Packet is re-printed as annotated at the following URLs:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-piermont-mayor-lies-through-his.html
That led to Justice Greenwald effectively chastising and neutralizing them on Friday morning, October 11, 2024 with the upload of His Honor’s landmark Decision and Order against the Village of Piermont government parties and the developer:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/in-shape-of-l-on-their-foreheads.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/for-immediate-release-piermont-ny.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-courts-decision-in-young-v-village.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/piermont-mayor-bruce-tucker-hides-from.html
2. The Piermont October 10 Referral Is Defective On Its Face. As you know, Mayor Tucker and the Village of Piermont, through outside counsel, submitted a 30-page packet (“Packet”) of fiction to your office – constituting the Piermont October 10 Referral – now under review by your office.
That Packet is re-printed as annotated at the following URLs:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-piermont-mayor-lies-through-his.html
In the Packet’s transmittal letter, Piermont Village outside litigation counsel therein attests that the Packet was furnished to the individual known as “To Whom It May Concern” [emphasis added] at “Rockland County Planning Department”[sic]. It is remarkable that the Village of Piermont did not take the time to learn the names of the individuals at the Rockland County Department of Planning (proper name), responsible for adjudicating the Piermont October 10 Referral:
In any event, the Piermont October 10 Referral was not properly-addressed to any identifiable individual, is therefore defective on its face, and for this reason alone should be rejected and dismissed with prejudice.
3. The Piermont October 10 Referral Was Untimely, And Violated A Court Order. Additionally, the Village of Piermont’s outside litigation counsel submitted the Packet to your office on Thursday, October 10, 2024 - again, a day before Justice Greenwald’s written Decision and Order was rendered, directing them to make the self-same referral:
3. The Piermont October 10 Referral Was Untimely, And Violated A Court Order. Additionally, the Village of Piermont’s outside litigation counsel submitted the Packet to your office on Thursday, October 10, 2024 - again, a day before Justice Greenwald’s written Decision and Order was rendered, directing them to make the self-same referral:
The Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet should therefore be treated as a nullity and a failure for these additional reasons. For one thing, it is premature, if not arrogant to the extreme, for a party to do something before actually being ordered by a court to do it. Mayor Bruce Tucker and the Village of Piermont jumped the gun instead. By doing so, they rendered the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet technically-defective, and thus null and void, by mistiming it.
Moreover, the action taken on October 10, 2024 by Mayor Bruce Tucker and the Village of Piermont violated Justice Greenwald’s prior Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which prohibited them from processing the 447-477 Piermont Avenue matter as described here:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/piermont-garmento-mayor-tucker-violate.html
For these additional reasons, the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet should be rejected and dismissed with prejudice.
4. The Daniel Spitzer Certification And Attestation On Each Document, Is False. Former Piermont Planning Board Chair Daniel Spitzer's printed name is indicated as subscribing to two (undated) documents included by the Village of Piermont in the Packet. Dan Spitzer is identified on both subject instruments as "Responsible Officer" of the "Village of Piermont Planning Board". These attestations and certifications are false. The Packet should be treated as a nullity and a failure for these additional reasons.
On two separate undated pages re-printed here at these links and below:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-piermont-mayor-lies-through-his.html
Moreover, the action taken on October 10, 2024 by Mayor Bruce Tucker and the Village of Piermont violated Justice Greenwald’s prior Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which prohibited them from processing the 447-477 Piermont Avenue matter as described here:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/piermont-garmento-mayor-tucker-violate.html
For these additional reasons, the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet should be rejected and dismissed with prejudice.
4. The Daniel Spitzer Certification And Attestation On Each Document, Is False. Former Piermont Planning Board Chair Daniel Spitzer's printed name is indicated as subscribing to two (undated) documents included by the Village of Piermont in the Packet. Dan Spitzer is identified on both subject instruments as "Responsible Officer" of the "Village of Piermont Planning Board". These attestations and certifications are false. The Packet should be treated as a nullity and a failure for these additional reasons.
On two separate undated pages re-printed here at these links and below:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-piermont-mayor-lies-through-his.html
... Daniel Spitzer is therein indicated as having attested, certified, and signed-off on a “Short Environmental Assessment Form – Part 3 Determination of Significance”, as the “Name of [the] Responsible Officer in [the] Lead Agency”. Daniel Spitzer, or perhaps some toady acting at his behest, therein checked the box indicating that he, Spitzer, has “determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts”. [Emphasis added]. That assertion is absolutely and utterly false – both times when subscribed-to. (Of course, if someone else forged Dan Spitzer's printed name and check-mark on the document and thereafter caused it to be submitted to the Rockland County Department of Planning, then that would merit its own separate investigation of a very different sort. In either scenario, each document is a false instrument and a lie):
By way of background, Daniel Spitzer was the Chair of the Planning Board of the Village of Piermont. Daniel Spitzer quit the Planning Board in disgrace in late April of this year - half a year ago:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/04/spitzer-quit-sir.html
By quitting in April, Daniel Spitzer thought that he could somehow escape liability from Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker’s dirty real estate deal planned for 447-477 Piermont Avenue. Yet Daniel Spitzer shepherded that same real estate deal with Mayor Bruce Tucker and others. Daniel Spitzer’s own handprints are all over the file and the bad-faith Piermont October 10 Referral to the County, whether he acknowledges that now or not.
The 447-477 Piermont Avenue location, the real focal-point of Mayor Bruce Tucker’s intended and environmentally-injurious CBM Zone, is itself known to be the site of a former Sunoco gasoline station that had underground gasoline tanks. The entire Village of Piermont was aware of that fact as of April, and in many cases much earlier:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/04/bringing-it-on-home-sunoco-gasoline.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/05/flashback-to-april-23-2024-first.html
447-477 Piermont Avenue is also known to be less than 800 feet from a Superfund site, located at 100 Paradise Avenue, which was subject to a clean-up commencing in 2017:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/05/why-dig-because-there-is-superfund-site.html
Yet, astoundingly, Daniel Spitzer name is still affixed to a signed writing attesting and certifying that the CBM Zone “will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts” - a writing caused to be submitted, through Mayor Tucker and outside counsel, to you and your office:
Even considering all the due diligence that Daniel Spitzer and his listless fellow members of the Piermont Planning Board failed to perform in relation to the 447-477 Piermont Avenue development and the proposed developer, Daniel Spitzer at all times knew full well of the manifold adverse environmental impacts that the 447-477 Piermont Avenue development, and CBM Zone generally, would have on the small Village of Piermont. The lie became manifest when, by affixation of Daniel Spitzer's name to these two “Short Environmental Assessment Forms”, they were submitted, as false instruments, to your office:
For these additional reasons, the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet should be rejected and dismissed with prejudice.
5. Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker Lied When Causing The Two Dan Spitzer Documents To Be Filed. Next, Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker and his cohorts submitted the two subject false instruments bearing Daniel Spitzer’s name and a corresponding scrawled signature to your office, a Rockland County governmental agency, in the October 10, 2024 Packet:
5. Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker Lied When Causing The Two Dan Spitzer Documents To Be Filed. Next, Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker and his cohorts submitted the two subject false instruments bearing Daniel Spitzer’s name and a corresponding scrawled signature to your office, a Rockland County governmental agency, in the October 10, 2024 Packet:
For one thing, I note that, given the six-month gap since Daniel Spitzer last held governmental office in Piermont, and assuming that Bruce Tucker did not confer with Daniel Spitzer before doing so, Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker really threw Daniel Spitzer under the bus when causing the Packet to be issued to your office – exactly the type of thing that I would expect the disreputable former sheet and towel salesman out of Elizabeth, New Jersey to do. However, there is probably less than a 5% chance that Spitzer was not made aware of the impending submission of the October 10 Packet bearing his name. If Tucker did forge, fake, or fudge a signature directly over Spitzer's signature-block attempting to defraud or deceive the document-recipients, then that is a whole 'nother proceeding.
In any event, both Bruce Tucker and Daniel Spitzer should be prosecuted criminally for their respective on-record and in-writing roles in the submission of these two false instruments to your office. For these additional reasons, the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet should be rejected and dismissed with prejudice.
6. Daniel Spitzer’s Unsavory Litigation History. I would like to say that I was surprised to see the lies propagated by Daniel Spitzer in this matter. But I’m not. While I understand that Daniel Spitzer no longer practices as a neurosurgeon, I ask that you please take notice of the unconscionable way in which Daniel Spitzer proceeded in the epic Rockland County medical malpractice and cover-up case of Jones and Jones v. Daniel Evan (Dan) Spitzer, M.D. et al., Index # 31649/2011 (Sup. Ct. Rockland Co. 2011); please see:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/dan-spitzer-ex-chair-piermont-planning.html
6. Daniel Spitzer’s Unsavory Litigation History. I would like to say that I was surprised to see the lies propagated by Daniel Spitzer in this matter. But I’m not. While I understand that Daniel Spitzer no longer practices as a neurosurgeon, I ask that you please take notice of the unconscionable way in which Daniel Spitzer proceeded in the epic Rockland County medical malpractice and cover-up case of Jones and Jones v. Daniel Evan (Dan) Spitzer, M.D. et al., Index # 31649/2011 (Sup. Ct. Rockland Co. 2011); please see:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/dan-spitzer-ex-chair-piermont-planning.html
Even given the fact that the US$56,000,000 medical malpractice monetary damage award to the plaintiff-widower against Spitzer and others was later reduced by further proceedings, after reading the Jones v. Spitzer case file, no one should be surprised that a false instrument bearing Daniel Spitzer's name, government title, and a signature would certify and attest to wholly-fictitious statements in the two “Short Environmental Assessment Forms” included in the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet. I would expect nothing less from the brother of disgraced former State of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer of “Client 9”, black socks, Ashley Dupré, and mistress-folded-into-hotel-luggage infamy:
https://www.recordonline.com/story/news/2007/03/25/dan-spitzer-gov-s-brother/52945306007/
7. Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker Filed Additional False Instruments. The October 10 Piermont Referral and Packet should be treated as a nullity and a failure for these additional reasons. Again, Daniel Spitzer quit the Village of Piermont Planning Board in late April, 2024. Yet Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker and his affiliates included two undated Daniel Spitzer certifications and attestations in the Piermont October 10 Referral. An examination of the 30-page Packet finds no attendant explanation therein of Daniel Spitzer’s April 2024 departure from his government seat:
https://www.recordonline.com/story/news/2007/03/25/dan-spitzer-gov-s-brother/52945306007/
7. Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker Filed Additional False Instruments. The October 10 Piermont Referral and Packet should be treated as a nullity and a failure for these additional reasons. Again, Daniel Spitzer quit the Village of Piermont Planning Board in late April, 2024. Yet Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker and his affiliates included two undated Daniel Spitzer certifications and attestations in the Piermont October 10 Referral. An examination of the 30-page Packet finds no attendant explanation therein of Daniel Spitzer’s April 2024 departure from his government seat:
Mayor Bruce Tucker and the Village of Piermont thereby misrepresented to your Rockland County Department of Planning that Daniel Spitzer somehow continued to hold the same office that Spitzer instead quit in disgrace half-a-year ago as the Chair, as the "Responsible Officer", of the Village of Piermont Planning Board. By doing so, Mayor Tucker and his associates rendered the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet technically-defective on its face, and therefore null and void. Worse yet and again, Tucker and his cronies thereby filed false instruments with a Rockland County governmental agency. For these additional reasons, the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet should be rejected and dismissed with prejudice.
8. The Statutes. A summary review of the New York State Penal Law reveals that one or more of these statutes were broken when Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker and former Piermont Planning Board Chair Daniel Spitzer engaged in their respective participations in the submission of the several false instruments contained within the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet:
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.40
Section 175.40, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title K, Article 175.
§ 175.40 Issuing A False Certificate.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/195.00
Section 195.00, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title L, Article 195.
§ 195.00 Official Misconduct.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.30
Section 175.30, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title K, Article 175.
§ 175.30 Offering A False Instrument For Filing In The Second Degree.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.35
Section 175.35, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title K, Article 175.
§ 175.35 Offering A False Instrument For Filing In The First Degree.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.05
Section 175.05, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title K, Article 175.
§ 175.05 Falsifying Business Records In The Second Degree.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10
Section 175.10, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title K, Article 175.
§ 175.10 Falsifying Business Records In The First Degree.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/195.05
Section 195.05, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title L, Article 195.
§ 195.05 Obstructing Governmental Administration In The Second Degree.
For these additional reasons, the Piermont October 10 Referral should be rejected and dismissed with prejudice.
9. Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker And Piermont Village Government Made Additional False Statements. Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker made these additional false statements to your Rockland County Department of Planning in the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet. Bruce Tucker therein attests that the referred CBM Zone will have either a “small impact” or else no impact on any of the following:
-Existing land use plans and zoning regulations.
-Intensity of land use.
-The existing community’s character.
-The existing community’s quality.
-Traffic.
-Infrastructure.
-Energy use.
-Water supply.
-Wastewater treatment.
-Historic resources.
-Architectural resources.
-Aesthetic resources.
-Natural resources like wetlands, waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora, and fauna.
-Erosion.
-Flooding.
-Drainage.
-Environmental resources.
-Human health.
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/october-10-2024-piermont-referral-to.html
8. The Statutes. A summary review of the New York State Penal Law reveals that one or more of these statutes were broken when Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker and former Piermont Planning Board Chair Daniel Spitzer engaged in their respective participations in the submission of the several false instruments contained within the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet:
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.40
Section 175.40, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title K, Article 175.
§ 175.40 Issuing A False Certificate.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/195.00
Section 195.00, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title L, Article 195.
§ 195.00 Official Misconduct.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.30
Section 175.30, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title K, Article 175.
§ 175.30 Offering A False Instrument For Filing In The Second Degree.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.35
Section 175.35, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title K, Article 175.
§ 175.35 Offering A False Instrument For Filing In The First Degree.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.05
Section 175.05, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title K, Article 175.
§ 175.05 Falsifying Business Records In The Second Degree.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10
Section 175.10, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title K, Article 175.
§ 175.10 Falsifying Business Records In The First Degree.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/195.05
Section 195.05, Penal (PEN) Chapter 40, Part 3, Title L, Article 195.
§ 195.05 Obstructing Governmental Administration In The Second Degree.
For these additional reasons, the Piermont October 10 Referral should be rejected and dismissed with prejudice.
9. Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker And Piermont Village Government Made Additional False Statements. Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker made these additional false statements to your Rockland County Department of Planning in the Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet. Bruce Tucker therein attests that the referred CBM Zone will have either a “small impact” or else no impact on any of the following:
-Existing land use plans and zoning regulations.
-Intensity of land use.
-The existing community’s character.
-The existing community’s quality.
-Traffic.
-Infrastructure.
-Energy use.
-Water supply.
-Wastewater treatment.
-Historic resources.
-Architectural resources.
-Aesthetic resources.
-Natural resources like wetlands, waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora, and fauna.
-Erosion.
-Flooding.
-Drainage.
-Environmental resources.
-Human health.
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/october-10-2024-piermont-referral-to.html
These written statements made by Bruce Tucker are patently preposterous and false, as even a mere ocular review of the Village of Piermont will tell you. The flooding in the Village, particularly, has been catastrophic in recent years, causing some houses in Piermont to be re-built on stilts. Mayor Bruce Tucker, having recklessly spent the small Village into the ground and now desperate for incoming money, decided to sell the Village out to out-of-state developers at the expense of the residents. Mayor Tucker has purposefully held-off on real flood remediation efforts for fear of scaring-away the developers that he hopes to bring the Village cash. Tucker’s false attestation of “small impact” or “no impact” is made with scienter. For these additional reasons, the Piermont October 10 Referral should be rejected and dismissed with prejudice.
9. Conclusion. I could further burden this letter with 50 pages of case law precedent, Bluebook cite-checking, and legalese. Yet that’s not what this situation calls for. This situation calls for plain English and simplicity of conclusion. Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker and former Piermont Planning Board Chair just collaborated with others to submit a written pack of lies to your own office. The Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet should be rejected and dismissed with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
9. Conclusion. I could further burden this letter with 50 pages of case law precedent, Bluebook cite-checking, and legalese. Yet that’s not what this situation calls for. This situation calls for plain English and simplicity of conclusion. Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker and former Piermont Planning Board Chair just collaborated with others to submit a written pack of lies to your own office. The Piermont October 10 Referral and Packet should be rejected and dismissed with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
John J. Tormey III, Esq.
