Sullivan Af?davit SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ROCKLAND In the Matter of the Application of MICHAEL SULLIVAN, AFFIDAVIT Petitioner/Plaintiff, For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 and for a Declaratory Judgment and other relief Justice Assigned: - against - Hon. GEORGE HOEI-IMANN, Individually and as Town Supervisor of the Town of Clarkstown, Councilman FRANK BORELLI, Individually and as a Member of the Clarkstown Town Board, Councilwoman STEPHANIE HAUSNER, as a Member of the Clarkstown Town Board, Councilman JOHN J. NOTO, Individually and as a Member of the Clarkstown Town Board, Councilwoman ADRIENNE D. CAREY, Individually and as a Member of the Clarkstown Town Board, the TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN and the TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN, Index No.: Respondents/Defendants. State of New York )ss County of Rockland Michael Sullivan, being duly sworn, deposes and states: 1. I am the chief of police of the Town of Clarkstown and the petitioner/plaintiff in this hybrid action. I respect?illy submit this af?davit in support of my application for an emergency stay and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining the respondents from proceeding with the prosecution of charges created by the respondents and for my immediate reinstatement to duty pending the hearing, trial and determination of the issues raised and claims alleged in my veri?ed petition complaint. Some background. 2. My career in law enforcement began in 1983 as a member of the NYPD, where I served until 1987, and received several awards and citations as a patrolman. In 1987, I transferred my service to the Clarkstown Police Department where my father who retired ?'om CPD in the mid-nineties after 30 years of service still worked at the time. 3. Working midnights, I attended the School of Criminal Justice at John Jay College and earned my bachelor?s degree in police science. In addition to my work assignments, I became a member of the Department?s ceremonial honor guard. 4. As a new sergeant in 1995, I was assigned to the Critical Incident Response Team (CIRT), a specialized unit for response to hostage crises, barricaded subjects, high risk search warrants and dignitary protection and I served as an instructor at the Rockland County Police Academy, instructing police recruits on New York?s penal law. 5. I was promoted to patrol Lieutenant in 2001 and assumed responsibility for a squad. With the ?operational? side of policing, I was also gaining experience at some of the administrative aspects of police work like training, purchasing, budgeting, etc. That same year I was selected, and attended, the National Academy in Quantico, Virginia. 6. In 2004, I was appointed to head the CIRT tactical team. During this time I also served as chairperson of the CPD Awards Committee, the Records Management Committee (researching, selecting and implementing the department?s record, dispatch and report writing computer system); as well as working on the department?s Public Answering Point Team (that committee designed new 911 phone, radio and communications center). 7. Attaining the rank of Captain in 2009, I was assigned administrative duties including oversight of all training and the ?business? side of policing (budget and purchasing), and personnel review and other issues concerning the Department?s rank and ?le. 8. In February 201 1, I was appointed Chief of Police (permanent) of the Clarkstown Police Department by a unanimous vote of the Town Board. 9. As Chief of Police, I?ve promoted a community policing philosophy, developed a mission statement and a code of ethics for the department. I have strived to demonstrate, through my own work, the positive traits of a dedicated law enforcement professional. 10. I continue to explore innovative ways to restructure the Department and to cut costs in ways that make sense, but never to the dilution of public safety. By the restructuring of personnel work assignments, ef?ciency increased while the expenditures to run the department decreased. Controlled spending reduced the CPD operating budget from a high of $2,100,000 in 2011 (when I began as chief) to $1.6 million this year.1 I have initiated and overseen the Intelligence Led Policing Program, the community outreach initiative, heroine and narcotics prevention programs and the introduction of CPD to Facebook and other social media programs. 1 1 . When the town board called upon all department heads for a 1 5% reduction of employee overtime (which was later reduced to a 7.5% reduction), the police department responded to the town board?s call by reducing CPD overtime by 20%! 12. Budget and overtime reductions resulted in a smaller, less expensive police department that is more proactive and responsive to the community. 13. I have served in law enforcement for 33 years rising through the ranks of the Clarkstown 1 budget. The operating budget rcpresents the non?salary portion of the Department's annual Police Department to become the town? 5 police chief. I have appreciated nearly every moment of my career but, without a doubt, the last 8 months have proven the most dif?cult in my experience. 14. No amount of on-the-job training or decades of law enforcement experience would prepare me for the malicious, retaliatory personnel action waged against me. 15. It was apparent from our post-election meeting in November 2015, that the supervisor-elect was most interested in procuring my exit as police chief. Since then, Hoehmann has been working towards that goal. His efforts aren?t subtle and his primary motivator is apparent to even a casual observer. Hochmann? campaign and biggest contributor. 16. The administration of disability bene?ts claims for members? injuries suffered in the performance of police duty, including the grant or denial of the bene?t and determinations for the continuation or termination of such bene?ts, are vested in the chief of police. 17. Michael Garvey was a CPD sergeant who claimed an injury in January 2008. After remaining absent from work for over two years during which time he received his full salary and bene?ts Garvey was ordered to retum to a light duty assignment, which he followed until January 2012 when he re?lsed to continue that assignment though he remained able to do so. Rather than work, Garvey spent his leave accruals to remain on payroll. A hearing o?icer ruled against Garvey?s claim for continued bene?ts ?nding that his gouty arthritis wasn?t caused by the claimed work- related injury. 18. At the end of 2012, the town board acted unanimously to terminate Garvey?s salary bene?ts. Garvey sued and lost. He appealed, and lost. 19. When the legal appeals had ended, the town board voted to ?nally separate Garvey from service. By leaving work and having spent his accruals, Garvey could not reach a 20-year service retirement. Had he kept working back in 2012, Garvey would have earned his 20?year service retirement by January 2014. 20. Through entrepreneurial successes Garvey is a millionaire; and he?s never stopped lobbying town of?cials in an effort to try to reach a 20-year NYS service retirement pension he now covets. 21 . On the evening the town board voted to separate Garvey from his town employment last August, then ?candidate? Hoehmann for the ?rst time publically questioned the board?s actions before the assembled audience. 22. Within a few weeks of that August 2015 town board meeting, it was reported that Hoehmann and the Republican Party?s Chair were seen lunching in Congers and Hoehmann was heard loudly demanding money ?'om the party for his campaign. 23. On October 9, 2015, the Journal-News reported a ?mysterious? donation in the sum of $216,000 had been made to the Reform Party of New York ?-om the ?Institute for Municipal Safety Research a Delaware limited liability company with a reported address in the same building and on the same ?oor as the of?ces of the Rockland County Republican Party Chair. The $216,000 was the sole donation made to the Reform Party. The Institute for Municipal Safety has no web presence, no phone number, and no information regarding the principal(s) or its legal representative is readily available. 24. On October 26, 2015, the Journal-News reported that $107,000 of the $216,000 had passed through Robert Astorino?s Reform Party to Hoehmann?s campaign with the balance going to the Rockland Republican Party. In that story, the Westchester County Executive con?rmed that the donor was ?a guy in Rockland.? 25. Research has since linked the LLC and the donation to Michael Garvey. The chief?s list. 26. Less than two weeks after his election as town supervisor, I welcomed the opportunity for an informal meeting with Hoehmann at CPD headquarters. 27. In my of?ce, Hoehmann wondered why the department did not have a current chiefs list, a viable list of ?eligibles? for the position of chief of police. 28. This was no innocent Still, I politely explained the customary process, that when the current chief decides to retire a new chiefs test is scheduled with suf?cient time for the candidates to study, take the exam and have the results in time for the town board to interview the top three candidates and decide on the new appointee before the scheduled departure of the retiring chief. 29. I reminded Hoehmann that I was only 53 and at the present time was not even considering retirement. 30. Hoehmann was uninterested in my explanation and asked that I call for a chief?s exam, in the interests supposed interests of ?continuity? and ?succession.? As an aside, Hoehmann mentioned that he would be seeking proposals for an ef?ciency study of the department. 31. Within days of our meeting people were asking if I was leaving the department? I was told to view Hoehmann?s ?Facebook? page, where the supervisor-elect had posted his pretended ?surprise? at learning there was no current chiefs list and that he had directed me to call for a civil service exam in the interest of ?succession planning? and ?continuity.? There was no mention by Hoehmann of the reason why there would not be a list when the current chief wasn?t 32. As the ?c continued on Facebook, someone posted in reference to the ?mystery donor? of the $216,000 contribution to the 2015 campaign and, almost instantly, all of the posts and comments regarding the chief test were taken down from the supervisor?s Faeebook page. 33. The nexus between that contribution to the supervisor's campaign and Hoehmann?s interest in ?succession planning? was clear. It had nothing to do with ?continuity? and everything to do with Hoehmann?s aim to replace me as chief of police. Don?t call u, we?ll call you. 34. With the New Year and ?transition? under the new town board, I anticipated my opportunities to interact with the supervisor and town board. 35. I had asked that I be allotted some time at January?s ?rst scheduled workshop meeting to talk with the board about hiring new of?cers as we were operating with four open spots and a new police academy class would start in February 2016. Although we were, at the time, within minimum staf?ng requirements, that could quickly change as the status of a police force is always in a state of ?ux. I was also concerned over rumors that the next police academy class (in August ?16) could be cancelled due to the county?s ?scal woes. 36. I felt discussion about the requested of?cers was important and I was also looking forward to meeting with the new town board and to start working with the new board. 37. After the public portion of the meeting, I was told that the board was too busy to talk with me that evening. I told the supervisor that I would call the town board members tomorrow and he agreed that would be a good idea. 38. The next day, Hoehmann called to tell me not to call the town board members. According to Hoehmann, he and Councilmen Note and Borelli had decided not to consider new hires until an ?ef?ciency study? was performed. It seemed that the board had decided a policing issue without even heating my concerns or knowing what I needed to discuss with the board. 39. Hoehmann now sought to limit my access to the town board as a body. I was ?ordered? by the supervisor to have no communication with the town board via email or by telephone to the individual board members. Hoehmann? message was clear, when and if we need to talk to you Chief Sullivan, we?ll call. Exhibit K. 40. As chief of police, I had never been told not to communicate with the members of the town board. The government and control of the police department my duties as chief of police were being usurped by an individual(s) with no law enforcement experience or knowledge of the day-to-day business of the Clarkstown Police Department. The ?ef?ciency study?. 41. For most towns and villages with police the single largest expense of the municipal budget is the police department. CPD is certainly no exception. Of course, the budget ?line? for CPD also represents the greatest number of employees out of all the town?s departments. And since Clarkstown has been consistently recognized as one of America?s safest places to live, the town?s investment in police and equipment, etc., produces areal public safety dividend annually.2 2 Which makes Clarkstown a desirable place to live and work. From a quality of life perspective public safety has an indispensable role. The presence of a well-trained, community oriented local police department provides a sense of security for family, promotes participation and social interaction and commerce within the town and serves to enhance property values. 8 42. Having pledged to lessen the taxpayers? burden by reducing the size and cost of local government, the supervisor announced an intended ef?ciency study of the police department. 43. We anticipated receiving the completed ef?ciency study by the end of June, so that we could hire more of?cers, as needed, in time for the August police academy. 44. I suggested that it would be a good idea to have the police administration and the PBA involved in the process, including assisting in the preparation of the required request for proposals which could make the study ?more ef?cient.? Hoehmann agreed that all parties working together on the ef?ciency study was a great idea. 45. It seemed to me that the chief executive of?cer of the police department would be an essential participant in the preparation of the RFP for the e?iciency study and that I needed to participate in the vetting of the responding ?rms. I was not. 46. Instead, near the end of January, I was given a ?nished copy of the RFP and told that it was being made public that day. The document was handed to me with the warning that I might be called by a reporter for a comment, and if I did speak with the press I was to call and report to Hoehmann what was said. 47. When I returned to my of?ce there was a message from a Journal-News reporter stating that he had a copy of the RFP and asking for my comment. The supervisor?s of?ce had given the RFP for an ef?ciency study of the town?s police department to the media before sharing it with the police chief. 48. While I wasn?t included in the preparation of the RFP, nor had I the opportunity to study the document, I remained steadfast in the department?s cooperation with the anticipated ef?ciency study. 49. But, my involvement wasn?t solicited or welcomed. Despite my requests for information on the entities that had responded to the RFP, I never was provided with that information. 50. On February 25, 2016, I contacted the supervisor?s ?chief of staff?, Vincent Balascio, and requested the names of the companies that had responded to the town?s request for pr0posals. Balascio stated that he would have to ask Hoehmarm if I was allowed to have that information. 51. Two days later, I asked the supervisor for the names of the companies answering the RFP and was told by Hoehmann that he would have to run my request by the town board because it was ?their? project. 52. Since I wasn?t allowed access to the town board except through Hoehmann and Hoehmann could not give me an answer because this was, according to Hoehmann, ?the town board?s proj ec the impossibility of my dilemma was apparent. I was being deliberately misdirected on who to ask for information about the study of the police department after Hoehmann had promised that CPD would be included in the selection process. 53. It was not until the vetting process was completed and the ?rm was chosen that Hoehmann advised me the Bonadio Group (?Bonadio?) would be doing the ef?ciency study and that Westchester County Police Commissioner Longworth and one of his lieutenants (Lt. Weiss) would be assisting Bonadio in the study.3 As it turned out, Bonadio was a strong public accounting and auditing ?rm with no experience in the evaluation of police departments. 54. The next day my captains and myself attended a conference to meet Tim Ball of the Bonadio Group and Lt. Weiss. That meeting con?rmed that Bonadio had never done a study of this 3 I?m uncertain what was the perceived necessity, or the intended roll Bonadio's Westchester ?police liaisons? were to play in the study, or whether their retainer was part of, or in addition to, the $98,000 fee of the original proposal. 10 nature, which was why they included Longworth and Weiss. 55. Hoehmann left the meeting stating ?rmly that ?the town board has thoroughly vetted this company and have made our decision. You are just here to meet them, that?s all!? 56. The town board had indeed made their decision and I was deliberately not included in the vetting process - a fact that Hoehmann would disavow to the media in the days to follow and had contracted with a very ?ne auditing company that had zero experience in performing an ef?ciency study for a large police department. 57. As the chief of police of New York?s largest town police department, I had to state my concerns. 58. As quoted by the Journal-News, my comments were unchanged ?om what I expressed a?er Bonadio had been selected without the department?s participation in the vetting process: have reservations. The company is highly quali?ed but they have never done an ef?ciency study like they are asked to do now, and I am concerned about Clarkstown being the ?rst one. I am not saying that they are not a good company. I am just saying they don?t have the experience. We are going to do everything in our power to make it a success. We?re going to do our duty?. Exhibit L. 59. In short, Itold the reporter that we would cooperate with the study. My statements were professional and honest. 60. Proclaiming his ?mandate? to reduce town costs, Hoehmann described my remarks as ?inconsistent? they weren?t. He claimed I was dishonest when I revealed that I?d been excluded ?'om the vetting process I wasn?t. According to Hoehmann the only reason I would have for questioning the wisdom of hiring Bonadio was because I must have something to hide didn?t and 11 don?t. Exhibit M. 61. I gave my word that the department would cooperate in the study and I have kept my word by honoring commitment to facilitate the ef?ciency study. 62. Whenthe Bonadio Group asked for information and statistics that CPD (and other police departments) did not maintain in the ordinary course of business, I took it upon myself to assemble that information for them. This required the creation of speci?c algorithms and a dedicated computer program to gather the requested information and collate it in a usable format. There was no delay in getting Bonadio Group any of the information they needed. 63. Sgt. Steven Cole-Hatchard was instrumental in getting the data needed to complete Bonadio?s study. I was grati?ed that the collaboration with Sgt. Cole-Hatchard had been suecess??. 64. Bonadio?s report was supposed to be completed by the end of June to allow for the new hires I had requested in January. With time growing short for the August police academy and the ef?ciency study report not rendered as of July 18, I reminded the town board of my request for permission to hire the of?cers. While I had agreed in January to delay the hiring of recruits until the mid-year ef?ciency study, it was my dutyto keep the town board advised of the changes in police personnel as well as my opinion of the necessity for avoiding a shortage of police of?cers. 65. Because the Bonadio ef?ciency study was not ready and because our staf?ng issues had become more pressing, I wrote to the town board on July 18, 2016, detailing the change in status of CPD staf?ng that required me to write and request permission to immediately hire some new police of?cers. 66. I eare?illy explained what had changed since January and went on to describe those 12 changes and wrote, ?[the] problem is compounded by the fact that we have no idea how many of?cers are planning on retiring early 2017.? Exhibit N. 67. I explained all of the other factors leading up to my request so that the Board would have a full picture of the facts and circumstances surrounding the need for me sending my email. 68. This too was assailed by the supervisor. Instead of hearing the thoughts of the town board, I received an email from Hoehmann that same evening that never mentioned the Board? input or opinions addressing my concerns. Hoehmann ended his message writing that ?[t]he inconsistency in your statements are confusing and troubling?. 69. The time has passed to acquire recruits for the August academy. Police department c-mails. 70. In mid-January the supervisor directed that only the town?s network security administrator and his data processing department would have access and total control over all electronic information systems, including the police department's con?dential records and information systems. 71. Granting the town?s IT department total control over the police department?s emails, ?cha etc., presented an immediate problem. CPD would have no idea who was accessing our information, what was being shared or how it was being used. The town now would have unlimited, unchecked access to police information without the department?s knowledge of who was accessing police records. 72. Police undercover operations, con?dential and sensitive investigations are now at risk. Con?dential information can be compromised and rendered unusable for criminal prosecutions. The 13 ability of non-police or unauthorized personnel having access to the department?s data and information violates interagency agreements and security rules governing the exchange of criminal and investigative information by and between law enforcement departments and agencies. First evidence of a leak. 73. Following a CPD arrest on February 22, 2016, a detective asked to send out a press release because there was a chance that there were more victims, possibly minors. ?74. The next morning I received a call from the supervisor?s ?chief of sta?" (or ??nance director?), Vincent Balaseio, who told me he (Balascio) heard that CPD had made an arrest and were planning a press release. I knew for a fact this information had not been disseminated outside the deparlment and there could be no way Balaseio would have this information if there were not some sort of leak. 75. I con?rmed that this was, in fact, what we were doing, and Balaseio immediately said, ?Well, don?t. And, as a matter of fact, all of your press releases now have to be cleared through me.? '76. In the supervisor?s of?ce I asked Balaseio what his interest was in this particular investigation and press release and how he found out about it in the ?rst place, Balaseio stated that it was ?none of my business?. 77. It certainly was my business. I now believed that information on a very sensitive subject was leaked or otherwise obtained by non?police personnel in the town supervisor?s of?ce concerning an investigation dealing with a delicate subject and I needed to locate the source. 78. By now the supervisor?s of?ce had unfettered and undetectable access to the department?s emails, chats, documents, etc., without knowledge. 14 79. At that point in time, the only other possible source of their knowledge about the arrest and CPD investigation was their contact with someone having information on the matter and Hoehma'nn and Balascio were withholding that information ?'om CPD. 80. This information breach proved my concerns that, identi?es, information, con?dential sources, strategies, etc. on the CPD server had been compromised because George Hoehmann and others were so concerned about being tied to Garvey?s $216,000 donation, they were reduced to ?spying? or searching server to glean information about what we were working on. 81. With unauthorized, non-police personnel accessing our system, searching our emails, monitoring our calls, chats, etc., all investigations, past and present, could be jeopardized and we have already been told that other local departments and the District Attorney?s of?ce are now forbidden to share information with CPD unless it is done in person, which seriously hampers the department?s ef?ciency in obtaining and processing information. 82. Hoehmann?s sole purpose for these actions was self-preservation and was undertaken without regard for law enforcement, the public?s safety or the adverse impact upon the day-to-day operations of the police department. My computer is hacked. 83. On April 26, 2016, I was preparing to attend a 3-day training conference. Before leaving the of?ce that evening I powered down my computer. 84. When I returned to work on May 2, 2016, I could not sign onto anything in the network and called my IT of?cer, Sgt. Gorsky, to check my computer. 85. Gorsky noticed an error message which indicated that another computer was using my 15 intemet protocol address Someone had cloned my machine and had access to all my information, emails, chats, etc. 86. Tests con?rmed someone external to the department was using my IP address and now we were faced with the possibility that my computer had been hacked. 87. I called the supervisor?s of?ce to describe our discovery and asked if there were any testing ?penetration? testing) being performed on the system? Hoehmann answered immediately that no penetration testing was being conducted and suggested that it should be okay if we ?turn everything back on?. 88. Considering that just three weeks priorthe supervisor had expressed his serious concerns over cyber security, his suggestion seemed nonchalant. 89. Immediately following my telephone conversation with Hoehmann the connection between my computer and the ?cloned? or hacking computer stopped. 90. The investigation into what was happening to my computer continued and another active computer was found that had been set up with my IP address and computer name (worrisome because the name is inputted manually so this could not be a coincidence). 91. Testing showed that my computer was being used while I was away from the of?ce on April 27, 28 29, and was still showing activity on May 2 when I returned and that the activity originated at an account used by the town?s IT Department at 10 Maple Avenue. 92. It was ultimately learned that the unknown device that hacked my computer was a windows computer using the same address. However since so much of technology is virtual, it is nearly impossible to know where this originated. 93. What we do know is that the ?virtual? clone was listed on the network under the ?10 16 Maple? icon and it appeared that someone was trying to use a naming convention for the virtual clone that would not raise suspicion. 94. The information from investigation was reviewed by the Department of Homeland Security, the NYPD Organized Crime Cyber Security Unit and the Rockland County Bureau of Criminal Identi?cation All agreed my computer had been hacked. Only Hoehmann and the town?s IT administrator disagreed. 95. Since the supervisor?s involvement and adverse employment actions arising from the improper and unnecessary use of server has come to light, Hoehmann has created a story of investing in the Google Vault software4 and checking the police department? emails was to comply with FBI subpoenas that had been served on the prior administration. 96. Hoehmann? explanation has been categorically refuted by the Rockland County District Attorney who has stated that the subpoenas referenced by the supervisor were served and complied with earlier in the corruption task force investigation and, in any event, none of the subpoenas served by the district attorney?s of?ce required any search or information from the Clarkstown Police Department! Sgt. Cole-Hatchard. 97. On June 28, 2016, I was asked to attend a town board executive session. I had hoped to use this opportunity to present and discuss the ?Raids On Line? program I wanted to implement at CPD. 98. InsteadI was informed by the deputy town attorney that the town board had ?uncovered? 4 The same software the supervisor had claimed was necessary for ?data retention?. 17 a very serious breach of security involving a high ranking member of the department. 99. I was told that Sgt. Stephen Cole-Hatchard, (?Sgt Cole-Hatchard? or who helped start and was then directing the Joint Strategic Intelligence Unit had divulged con?dential information to a reporter about a personnel disciplinary matter concerning another of?cer (who was also suing the town over earlier disciplinary matters), and that the information had been divulged prior to formal charges being served on the of?cer. 100. When I asked to be provided with evidence of the leak, the Board refused to inform me as to how they came to have this knowledge, who the reporter was that Sgt. Cole-Hatchard had spoken with, when they spoke or what they discussed. All they would tell me was that they had the information in their possession for ?several days.? 101. The manner in which the Board was making their complaint was irregular at best. Anyone making a police complaint would be required to share with the police any information they had regarding their complaint. Even in the best light, the town board was, in fact, obstructing a police investigation. 102. The fact that they had the information for ?several days? could have also caused a problem. Time is a factor because pursuant to the Rockland County Police Act and the Department? rules, the time to prefer charges is limited. I?m no lawyer, but know enough to be concerned that defense counsel could argue successfully that the limitations period should be calculated from the date the Board had learned of the misconduct. 103. The town board wanted the captains to begin an immediate investigation and called for Cole-Hatchard?s immediate removal ?'om the SIU. Protocol required that, as his immediate supervisor, I would undertake the investigation. 18 104. I voiced my opinion that removing Sgt. Cole-Hatchard from his current assignment could prove damaging to public safety and might be deemed a punitive or adverse employment action since we had not started, much less completed our investigation. 105. I was then directed to immediately conduct an interview with Cole-Hatchard and to make sure my questions were? vague?. The way in which this matter was shared with me, along with the directives I was given as to questioning the sergeant were most unusual. Standard procedure in these matters would be to immediately turn the entire matter over to CPD and allow me to conduct an independent investigation. I assured the Board this matter would have my attention. 106. I commenced the investigation process on June 29, 2016 and informed Sgt. Cole? Hatchard that I was conducting an internal investigation into the allegation made against him and requested an immediate formal interview after he had time to consult with his PBA representative and attorney. 107. Supervisor Hoehmann and Town Attorney Sciarretta were briefed on my progress and advised that Cole-Hatchard was leaving for vacation that evening (June 29) and would not be returning to New York until the evening of July 3rd. They asked that I interview Sgt. Cole-Hatchard before he left for vacation. 108. In my interview on June 29, Cole-Hatchard seemed to remember receiving an email from a Journal-News reporter around the time of the incident that would eventually result in disciplinary charges against the other of?cer and responded that he (Cole-Hatchard) did not want to discuss the matter. Sgt. Cole-Hatchard stated that he did not remember speaking with the reporter about the matter and that he would not have known anything to discuss in any event as the underlying incident was unknown to him. My ?ndings were shared with the deputy town attorney l9 that evening. 109. On Friday a?emoon, July lst, after I had left my of?ce for the weekend, I received a memo from Hoehmann stating that I was to immediately reassign Cole-Hatchard out of the SIU to CPD Headquarters and to assign him duties that would have no access to the media. This directive was to be carried out ?irrespective of the outcome of your investigation?, a decision that was reached after separate consultation with other members of the Town Board serving as the ?Board of Police Commissioners?. The memo demanded con?rmation of this action being taken that very day, despite although Hoehmann knew Sgt. Cole-Hatchard was out of state through July 3rd. See Exhibit D. 1 10. The Board was pressing for the removal of Sgt. Cole-Hatchard from the SIU without consideration for the repercussions of his abrupt removal; he was the key person in the SIU at a time when intelligence is crucial to police departments. 111. At this point, I did not know how or when the town board came to possess its ?evidence? of the alleged misconduct, or even what the ?evidence? was. Hoehmann?s memo described the agreent of the ?other board members.? Exhibit D. 1 12. Absent a vote or other record of the board? adverse personnel action, I contacted the ?other board members? to con?rm their agreement to Cole-Hatchard? reassignment. By contacting the town board I was, in fact, following my direct chain of command protocol. 113. I went to CPD Headquarters on the Fourth of July to advise Cole-Hatchard of his reassignment. Cole-Hatchard had called in sick so I remained at HQ until I could reach him by telephone to convey the reassignment order. I advised the town board and went home to resume my own vacation. 1 14. I did talk with the ?Jomnal-News reporter? who told me that Cole-Hatchard did not 20 answer his (the reporter?s) question about the other of?cer and he had not discussed the pending disciplinary matter with Sgt. Cole-Hatchard after the email. 115. Upon my return from vacation on July 11, I asked CPD Sgt. Gorsky to retrieve Sgt. Cole-Hatehard?s emails for the period March 28, 2016 through June 28, 2016, the date I was made aware of the Board?s allegations. 16. Gorsky advised that since January, he could not access that information and we would have to go through the Bob Paul, the town?s IT administrator as he (Paul) was the only one with the clearance to access that information. 1 17. I received and reviewed the requested emails.? There was one email mentioning the other of?cer?s name. That was sent to Cole-Hatchard on the day the underlying incident that would result in disciplinary charges and there was no information in response as Cole-Hatchard had no information concerning the underlying incident. 118. Had the town board on June 28, shared their ?information? with me, it could have saved everyone a great deal of time and worry. 119. The email exchange between the reporter and Cole-Hatchard that I reviewed discussed the Michael Garvey/George Hoehmann connection to the $216,000 campaign donation, the pending federal litigation and the possibility of the town?s rumored settlement with Garvey. 120. The possible disclosure of con?dential information was simply apretext for removing Cole-Hatchard ?'om the SIU. The primary topic of the discussion between the sergeant and the reporter was the $216,000 campaign contribution. Nothing in the Cole-Hatchard email thread was 5 Since January 2016, non-police personnel at town hall had and still have access to sensitive and con?dential law enforcement information to which my Department lacks access or the ability to track or to know who is accessing police information. 21 privileged or con?dential or a violation of the General Orders of the police department. 121. For the sake of thoroughness, I had also requested that I be provided copies of Sgt. Cole-Hatchard?s emails dating back to January 1, 2016. Nothing further was found inthose emails, but it was my intention to interview Cole-Hatchard further on the subject of Garvey. 122. On July 19, 2016 I received another email ?'om the supervisor, this time accusing me of allowing the Cole-Hatchard investigation to lag and opining that I should have had ?more than enough time to complete the investigation.? Hoehmann demanded my immediate reply with an update. Exhibit 0. 123. I replied to Hoehmann at 12:05 that the investigation was not lagging, that additional information made it necessary for me to have another interview with Cole-Hatchard; however at that point there did not se to be any evidence of misconduct. At 12:07 I wrote to my captains to advise them that the supervisor wanted the investigation completed as soon as possible and asked them to arrange to meet with me that same afternoon. Exhibit 0. 124. Hoehmann?s reply was that he wanted to see me in his of?ce prior to that evening?s town board meeting. Exhibit P. Irreconcilable differences? 125. I arrived at supervisor?s of?ce at 7:30 p.m.,expecting to have a conference with Hoehmann regarding the status of the Cole-Hatchard investigation. I instead walked into an ambush. 126. Lying in wait for me was the entire town board, (with Councilwoman Hausner on speaker phone), the town attorney and deputy town attorney and Hoehmann?s chief of staff. 127. According to the deputy town attorney, who was the spokesman, the town board had 22 discussed the matter and felt there were ?irreconcilable differences? with myself, and they (the Board) wanted to go in a ?di?'erent direction.? 128. I had worked with three of the ?ve current town board members for over 7 years and never had a cross word or serious difference of opinion with any of them. The two newest town board members did not know me at all and given Hoehmann?s directive that I have no contact with them, there really was no way for them to know me. 129. To say I was taken ?by surprise? is an understatement. The attorney did not explain or list what he meant by ?differences? and since I had never been approached by anyone ever stating that my work or my attitude was unsatisfactory and inasmuch as my service record was unblemished, there could be no justi?able basis for the Board?s action. 130. The deputy attorney went on to state that, despite these ?differences?, the town board was o?ering a ?generous settlement? to honor my years of service. 131. The Board?s ?generosity? would allow me to remain as Chief; I could not come to work, or visit police headquarters, and I was not to discuss the matter ever or sue the town. I would then remain on the payroll through December 3 2016 and retire as Chief. They also demanded my irrevocable letter of resignation. See Exhibit F. 132. Alternatively, there were the charges and speci?cations of my purported misconduct that had been prepared. If I declined the ?settlement? I would be suspended immediately with pay pending a disciplinary hearing. 133. I was then advised that the Town?s generosity would end at 3 pm. the following afternoon. The deputy town attorney hoped I would take the settlement so I could leave CPD with ?my dignity intact.? I was further advised that if I told anyone about this meeting, the ?deal was off.? 23 In short, the town board was promising to ruin my career and reputation if I did not accede to their demand and quietly retire. 134. After considering the offer and my options, I decided that to succumb to Hoehmann?s extortionist tactics offended my own sense of ethical behavior and opposed everything that I had worked so hard to achieve during my life. 135. I declined the town?s offer. 136. On July 20, I reported to the supervisor? of?ce and was immediately suspended with pay, made to surrender my badge, gun and police I.D. My access to CPD was revoked and my vehicle was relocated somewhere away from the headquarters parking lot. 137. Instantly a global email and press release?5 was broadcast ?om the supervisor? 3 of?ce announcing my suspension. 138. Before the Board?s action, in Rockland County no chief of police had ever been suspended from duty. Not one. Reinstatement pending the court?s determination. 139. I?ve dedicated my life to a career in law enforcement. I have worked and studied and trained to become the best law enforcement professional I could possibly be. I make this request for a stay and my immediate reinstatement as Clarkstown?s chief of police pending the court?s determination of the issues raised in my veri?ed petition not only to restore my own reputation, but for the reputation of my family who have been subject to unnecessary questions and pressures since According to the town?s press release, ?following a unanimous decision by the Town Board, Chief Michael Sullivan has been suspended.? Exhibit G. There was no vote, there are no minutes or any record of the Board?s closeted meeting. 24 the announcement of my suspension from duty. My father served as a police of?cer for 30 years. My wife and children work in the community. I need to reinstated also to save the Clarkstown Police Department from the town?s current administration who are attempting to seize command and control of the Police Department through usurpation of the powers and duties invested in the duly appointed chief of police. 140. The respondents have knowingly committed egregious acts to cover their own wrongdoing. The charges and allegations of purported misconduct demonstrate unequivocally that the respondents abused their access to information taken from the police department?s computers with intent to advance their retaliatory actions. WHEREFORE, I respectfully request an order granting atemporary stay and pursuant to CPLR 7805 and/or CPLR Article 63: A. Staying and enjoining respondents from taking any steps or action(s) with reference to the continued prosecution of the charges stated in the ?notice and statement of charges? dated July 20, 2016, or any amendment or supplement thereto, pending Supreme Court?s hearing and determination of petitioner?s hybrid CPLR Article 78/Declaratory Judgment action; and B. Staying and enjoining respondents from suspending or otherwise prohibiting the petitioner from the continued uninterrupted performance and exercise of his duties as Chief ofPolice for the Town of Clarkstown pending Supreme Court?s hearing and determination of petitioner?s hybrid CPLR Article 78/Declaratory Judgment action; and C. Directing that respondents return forthwith to the petitioner all of his police identi?cation, weapon(s), vehicle, computers, etc., and all other paraphernalia surrendered by the 25 petitioner on or about July 20, 2016; and D. Dirwting that respondent George Hoebmann communicate, distribute and post conspicuously an announcement to every department head and to each and every employee of the Town of Clarkstown that Michael Sullivan has been fully restored to his position as Chief of the Clarkstown Police Department; and for such other and ?irther relief as the Court deems just, proper and equitable. Sworn to befo me this RICHARDAGLIGKEL State of NewYuK Nam wee-Mm? 26