01/02/2026
On Appeal, Town of Monroe admits to fundamental error in the federal lawsuit for $9.2 million that will require a new federal trial for violating the United States Constitution on nine different counts.
Question is, will Cardone personally be held liable under the color of law act in New York state. Especially when he lied under oath in front of jury!
POINT I: THE JURY VERDICT FORM’S QUESTION “HAVE PLAINTIFFS PROVEN BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT’S ENACTMENT OF LOCAL LAW NO. 3 WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DAMAGES THEY CLAIM TO HAVE SUFFERED” WAS A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR IN THAT IT DEPRIVED THE JURY OF ADEQUATE LEGAL GUIDANCE TO REACH A RATIONAL DECISION OR WAS SO SERIOUS AND FLAGRANT THAT IT WENT TO THE VERY INTEGRITY OF THE TRIAL
The error in this case was “fundamental” because it "deprived the jury of adequate legal guidance to reach a rational decision" and was "so serious and flagrant that it [went] to the very integrity of the trial” (Jarvis v. Ford Motor Co., 283 F3d 33, 62 [2d Cir. 2002] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see, Salamone v. Douglas Marine Corp., 111 F.4th 221, 233 [2d Cir. 2024]).
The Town does not contest that the verdict sheet should have asked “Have plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant’s enactment of Local Law No. 3 was a proximate cause of the damages they claim to have suffered” instead of “Have plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant’s enactment of Local Law No. 3 was the proximate cause of the damages they claim to have suffered” (A536).
Instead, the Town attempts to persuade this court The Town’s first argument on this issue is that the error was not fundamental in light of the jury charge (Town’s Brief, pp. 25-26). However, contrary to its contention, the Town does not cite cases showing that a blatantly wrong verdict sheet
is not a fundamental error when there is a contrary jury instruction.
For example, the Town’s citation to Cash v. County of Erie (654 F3d 324, 341
[2d Cir. 2011]) misses the mark as that case involved a verdict question that this
Court held was proper, and in any event, at most presented the potential for juror confusion. The potential for juror confusion is much less severe of an error than a
verdict sheet that wholly misstates the standard, as is present here. Indeed, Zaratzian v. Abadir (694 F Appx. 822, 824 [2d Cir. 2017]) is the polar opposite of this case because there the verdict question, when read in conjunction with the thorough, accurate jury instructions “implicitly required” the proper legal standard. Here, the legal standard for proximate cause was simply wrong in the
verdict sheet (A536).
Significantly, Perez v. Cty. of Rensselaer (2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27849, at *7 [NDNY Feb. 19, 2020, No. 1:14-CV-950]) does not involve an improperly worded verdict sheet at all. Instead, the issue was an inconsistent verdict.
In contrast, this Court and the New York State Courts have determined that such blatantly improper errors cannot stand (see, Rodick v. City of Schenectady, 1F3d 1341, 1349 [2d Cir. 1993]; see also, Fox v. Tedesco, 15 AD3d 538, 539 [2d Dept. 2005]; Capicchioni v. Morrissey, 205 AD2d 959, 960 [3d Dept. 1994]; Galioto
v. Lakeside Hospital, 123 AD2d 421, 422 [2d Dept. 1986]).
Of course, the Town argues that the holding in Fox was dicta and that Capicchioni used a different standard than the one utilized by this Court. However, other courts have similarly held that this same type of error is “fundamental” (see, Terry v. Nelms, 256 Ala 291 [1951] [Reversing a judgment based upon improper jury charge that misstated the rule of contributory negligence]; Trojanovich v. Marshall, 95 Ariz 145 [1963]). Notably, the Town essentially contends that the error was harmless because the trial evidence shows that Local Law 3 did not cause plaintiffs to sustain any lost rents. However, this case can be summed up in the testimony of plaintiffs’ property manager, Timothy Mitts, that Town of Monroe Local Law 3 of 2023 “literally was what pushed us over the cliff” (A424-A425). Local Law 3’s impact on plaintiffs was
severe. It caused problems because they could not work on the properties or obtain
loans, but still had to pay the bills (A222, A238-A239). It also had a cascading effect
throughout the rest of Ms. Lee’s properties because of the lack of cash flow (A223,
A238-A239). She estimated that she lost $6 million as a result of this local law
(A239).
This verdict in line with the article 78 scraps the town's entire argument in favor of the Plaintiffs.
As each day goes by, the cost to the town will increase. If the town drags us out another year, it will cost the town nearly $12 million if not more.
Remember just because the lawsuit continues does not mean losses do not accumulate.
Farewell to Cardone & Company!!!
The new administration was totally involved with these problems. Now it's time for them to show that what they claim Cardone was doing wrong that they know what's right.
There is NO honeymoon here because Richardson has been on the board for 2 years now.
Too boot, both the building department and town historian agreed in opposition to the town that the property a legal uses!!
Attached is the decision rejected by the ZBA by the building department who's in control of building code.
BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WAS DESIGNATED IN HISTORICAL SITE BY THE TOWN HISTORIAN. UNDER THE ADAPTIVE REUSE FOR THE TOWN OF MONROE THE RECALL CAN BE USED AS A RESTAURANT WHICH AGAIN THE ZBA HAS REJECTED THEIR OWN LAW!!!
TOWN IS FIGHTING A LOSING BATTLE.
