In my column two weeks ago, I rejoiced that the check would finally be in the mail. The Emperor of New York, Mayor Mike Bloomberg, had relented and was planning to send out those rebate checks.
Ah, but what a difference a day makes. As is with all things Bloomberg, he has backpedaled his decision and will now wait until a judge decides sometime in December if he should or shouldn’t. He has proclaimed that not sending out the rebate is not a matter of politics but a matter of finances. There simply is no money in the budget to cover the checks. Heavy sigh.
Let’s examine this. There is no money, and by the looks of our bank account, there hasn’t been for some time. On top of all his taxes, he still can’t seem to find the funds that he obtained from our real estate taxes in the first place to pay us back. Please don’t insult us. The all-knowing, all-seeing mayor just doesn’t want to.
Not to fear -- I have a few thoughts to present to the mayor.
First: Lower the real estate taxes from the get-go. Then there is no need for a rebate check, and no cajoling and canoodling with the Council. Just think of the money saved on the stamps and the boon to the environment, no more paper for all those checks and envelopes.
Second: Have your friends in the City Council find the necessary cash for this time. Have them dig long and deep into their inflated pockets. There should be enough to go around. After all, just look and see the overabundance of pork that currently exists.
Lastly, I would like to pose a question to our mayor.
Not for nuthin’ Mr. Mayor, but if you are so good for this city that you need to run a third time, why is the city in such a piss-poor financial state after one and one-half Bloomberg terms?? And since you have looked into the future and have seen that you and you alone are the right one for the job, how come you didn’t see the bad moon rising at the end of your first term and set in motion the necessary steps to forestall this present fiscal crisis?
I don’t need a personal answer, just hold a convenient press conference, or better yet, just put the check in the mail.
E-mail “Not for Nuthin’” at JoannaD@co
A judge’s decision to sentence a 29-year-old Brooklyn man accused of killing a 73-year-old with one punch to anger management classes instead of jail time has angered the victim’s family, who said the assailant should be behind bars.
Court officials confirmed this week that Justice Martin Murphy sentenced Ernest Cappello to psychiatric counseling for the April 13 assault that ended the life of Maris Veyberman.
Cappello was charged with misdemeanor assault after he punched Veyberman, who had allegedly groped the young man’s girlfriend as she jogged through Borough Park.
The 29-year-old reportedly told cops that when his girlfriend pointed out Veyberman as the man who had allegedly accosted her, he ran up to the senior, who claimed that he didn’t speak English.
When Veyberman pushed Cappello, the younger man reeled back and punched the senior, knocking him unconscious.
Veyberman never regained consciousness and was in the hospital for a week before he died of his injuries, according to officials and published reports.
Yet witnesses refute some of Cappello’s statements, claiming that the younger man had punched Veyberman two or three times before storming off.
During the sentencing, Veyberman’s widow, Manya, told Judge Murphy that Cappello should serve jail time.
“God will never forgive this -- never,” she said, as recounted by the Daily News. “This person needs to be punished.”
Judge Murphy told the widow that he was “convinced” that Cappello didn’t intend to kill Veyberman.
“He did mean to hit him but not to kill him. And aside from that, I don’t know what else to tell you,” he said.
First he’s accused of stealing. Then he’s fired for stealing.
Adding insult to injury, a judge threw out his case against his former employer, last month, disputing his allegations that the fix was in.
Such is the luck of plaintiff Richard Acosta, who filed suit against both John Giuffre, the vice president of Bay Ridge Toyota as well as the Blockbuster Video chain.
Back in 2001, Acosta was arrested and then summarily fired from Bay Ridge Toyota on accusations that he palmed his boss’s Blockbuster Video Card.
He reportedly rented several movies and never returned him, leaving his boss with the late fees.
When the victim disputed Blockbuster’s claims that he was in arrears, the cops were called.
Investigators pulled the video surveillance tape of the Blockbuster Video store, which reportedly showed that Acosta was the one who had rented the movies.
Acosta was charged with petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property and criminal impersonation, but the charges were later dismissed.
That’s when Acosta filed a lawsuit against his former employers, claiming that he was a victim of “discrimination, malicious prosecution, unlawful arrest and unlawful imprisonment.”
He said that he was unjustly fired by Toyota based solely on the allegations that he had taken the Blockbuster Video Card.
Acosta also sued Blockbuster, claiming that they had given over the surveillance tape to Giuffre “without a warrant based on probably cause.”
Both Giuffre and Blockbuster Video fired back with counter motions, demanding an acquittal.
Giuffre claimed that the reasons for Acosta’s termination were completely legitimate.
Even though the charges were dismissed — not because he was found not guilty, but because the district attorney had dragged their feet in prosecuting the case — the case went before a union arbiter, who claimed that there was “legitimate circumstantial evidence that Acosta intended to use and did use Giuffre’s Blockbuster Card without permission.”
Attorneys for Blockbuster Video said that handing over the surveillance tape to Giuffre was part of general business and that the request actually came from the police.
In her findings, Judge Diana Johnson sided with both Giuffre and Blockbuster Video, claiming that all of Acosta’s arguments had already been raised during the union arbitration.
“The issue presented to the arbitrator was whether Toyota violated the collective bargaining agreement when it terminated [Acosta’s] employment,” she wrote in her decision. “Indeed, the arbitrator found sufficient evidence that plaintiff engaged in a crime involving employment so as to justify plaintiff’s summary dismissal from employment. Thus, the burden of proof shifted to plaintiff, who failed to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial.”
©2008 Community News Group
By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:
You agree that you, and not BrooklynDaily.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to BrooklynDaily.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.