You are on page 1of 3

-a-

At an Ex Parte Motion Term of the


L pdt Supreme Court of the State of New
York, held in and for the County of
APPRO.I New York, at the Courthouse
FOR THE PAYM therefore, 60 Centre Street, New
cynOW PE York, N.Y., on the 28
th
day of
September, 2009
PRESENT: HON JOAN B. CAREY
Justice of the Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK


COUNTY OF NEW YORK
x
CHRISTOPER BURKE, CIARAN CANAVAN, JEAN
CANAVAN, ANTHONY BADILLO, and SHARON
CLEMONS, individually and on behalf of the
approximately 52,000 signers of a Petition filed Pursuant ORDER TO
to Sections 37 and 24 of the New York State Municipal SHOW CAUSE
Home Rule Law, Justice Edward H. Lehner

Petitioners
-against- IndexNo2 110779/2009
MICHAEL McSWEENEY as City Clerk of the City of INDEX NBER 110779 ER 2009
New York and Clerk of the City Council of New York, 15 NOTIONS
and the BOARD OF ELECTIONS iN THE CITY OF TOThL
NEW YORK, CREDIT CARD

CONS CASHiER 0TE TIME N


Respondents 01557 2tJ00 09 SEP 25 95i AN
x

Upon reading and filing the affirmation of Dennis P. McMahon, attorney for the Petitioners,

sworn to on September 27, 2009, and upon the two exhibits attached to the affirmation’ and, the

pleadings herein, and on all the proceedings heretofore had herein,

Let the Respondent Michael McSweeney, or his attorney Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation

Counsel of the City of New YorkJhow cause before Hon. Justice Edward H. Lehner atl.A.S. Part 19,

The two exhibits are: Exhibit A, the “Special Referee Report & Recommendation” of Louis Crespo,
Special Referee, dated September 25, 2009, filed in the office of the clerk of this Court on September 25,
2009; and Exhibit B, the transcript of an email thread among Special Louis Crespo, Stephen Kitzinger,
Esq.
(Respondent’s attorney), and Dennis McMahon (Petitioners’ attorney), with messages dated Sept 25,
2009
and September 24, 2009.
óm 2-52, of this Court, to be held at the Courthouse, 60 Centre Street, New York, N Y, on the 29
th

day of September 2009, at 9:30 o’clock in the forenoon, or as soon thereafter as such party or attorney

may be heard, why an order should not be made and entered herein:

(1) Rejecting the Referee’s Report and Recommendations,

(2) Making new findings,

(3) Rendering a decision directing judgment in the action in favor of the Petitioners, and

(4) For such other and ftirther relief as the Court may deem just and proper,

for the reason that the Special Referee’s “Report and Recommendations” in the instant action, dated

September 25, 2009, is fatally flawed.

SUFFICIENT let personal delivery of a copy of this

order, and all other papers upon which this order is granted, upon Respondent’s attorney, Michael A.

Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, 100 Church Stteet, New York, NY 10007, by
th
28
12 o’clock noon on the day of September, 2009, be deemed good and sufficient. An affidavit or

other proof of service shall be presented to this Court on the return date directed in the second paragraph

of this order,

ORAL ARGUMENT

JOAN ARE
(.CEY

You might also like