LAW OFFICES OF TACOPINA 8c SEIGEL A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 275 MADISON AVENUE 357" FLOOR JOSEPH or CHAD D. 55.65? NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10018 GEORGE A STUDI LEGALI c. ?or? TELEPHONE tale] 227-3677 natal 6194028 9 ALSO Apul'r'rcu no new JERSEY 5? .. ?so ADMITTED IN SUITE 703-704 . ?so FLORIDA - ALsa nomrreo "unease: NEW 07"? - ALSO WASHINGTON, Dc .00 ONLY ADHITTED IN October 8, 2019 p- Via Federal Express i (t mm: (518) 285-4315 Hon. George R. Bartlett, Schoharie County Court 290 Main Street Schoharie, New York 12157 Re: People v. Nauman Hussain Indigmem 2019-33 Your Honor: The defense respectfully submits this letter, on behalf of defendant Nauman Hussein, to notify the Court of an urgent matter that requires its attention, for reasons relating to the case and the safety of the general public. By letter dated October 7, 2019, a copy of which is annexed hereto, the People provided information to us of ?a billing practice at Mavis in which certain services were submitted on invoices for the ones actually performed, in order for the store to meet sales quotas established by the corporate of?ce.? Signi?cantly, Mavis is the company that performed work on the 2001 Excursion litnousine involved in the accident which is at the center of this case. And, even more signi?cantly, according to the People?s October ?Pil letter, such work on the limousine for which Mavis fraudulently submitted invoices - but which it actually failed to perform includes that relating to the limousine?s brakes. Speci?cally, as detailed in the People?s October letter, Mavis dishonestly purported to: (1) install in the limousine a ?brake master cylinder? (which is a control device that converts force from a driver?s foot into hydraulic pressure to slow or stop a vehicle); 8c SEIGEL. RC. Hon. George R. Battlett, October 8, 2019 Page Two (2) perform a ?brake ?ush? (which is the process of removing the brake ?uid ?om a vehicle?s brake system and replacing it with new and clean brake ?uid, so as to remove air, moisture, sludge and other contaminants that impair braking ability); and (3) perfonu other unspeci?ed brake labor. Despite billing for the preceding services, Mavis never performed them. Stated otherwise, Matis?s ?audulent conduct not anything undertaken by defendant Nauman Hussein - was the true legal cause of the accident. As a reminder, and as set forth in the defense?s motion to dismiss dated September 4, 2019, the accident, according to the People, was the product of ?catastrophic brake failure? in, meaning a failure of the very braking sYstem which Mavis ??audulently claimed to have serviced. In short, this new infonna?on provided by the People further exonerates Mr. Hussein. Yet, the People, in their October letter, equivocally state that it ?may or may not" qualify as Brady material. In light of the People?s shocking inability to de?nitively characterize such material as favorable to the accused, we are concerned about their capability of identifying other such material, in order to discharge their obligations under thc?Constitu?on. Accordingly, we look to the Court for assistance in this regard so as to fashion any remedy it deems appropriate. In addition, while the defense?s motion for dismissal based on Grand Jury insui?ciency is pending, we highlight this new information to further demonstrate, by contrast, just how de?cient the proof against Mr. Hussein is with respect to the critical elements of causation and foreseeability. Unlike Mavis which consciously failed to perfonn services on the limousine?s brake system, and which deceptively concealed that omission through false invoices no such evidence exists as to Mr. Hussein. Consequently, for reasons fully stated in our September 4st motion, the defense respectfully maintains that the Indicmtent must be dismissed in its entirety. Lastly, but also of critical concern, this new information provided by the Peeple - regarding Mavis fraudulently biliing customers for automotive services it did not perform reveals a potential ongoing jeopardy to the public at large. In the event other wstomers are presently operating vehicles, under the sham disillusion that their brakes or other mechanical devices were properly serviced by Mavis, it is inctunbmt that they be alerted otherwise as soon as possible, so as to avoid any further and needless tragedies from occurring. We similarly look to the Court, as well as to the People, for assistance in how best to address this public safety 001106111. TACOPINA 8c SEIGEL. P.C. Hon. George R. Bartlett, October 8, 2019 Page Three Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Respectfully sub 'tted, cc: Susan J. Mallery, Esq. District Attorney Via Federal Express and Facsimile: (518) 29542273 Lee C. Kindlon, Esq. Via Federal Express and Facsimile: (518) 935-9336 SCHOHARIE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SUSAN J. MALLERY, ESQ. P.O. BOX 888, Yublic Safety Facility Schoharie, New York 12157 Tel. (518) 295-2272 Fax (518) 295-2273 Michael L. Breen I Lora J. Tryoa Assistant District Attorney Assistant District Attorney October 7, 2019 Via Email and Mail Lee C. Kindlon, Esq. The Kindlon Law Firm, PLLC 52 James, Street Albany, New York l2207 RE: Pe av. 21 Dear Mr. In an cxooss of caution,vthe People are providing the following inflammation, which may or may not be deemed material subject to disclosurc pursuant to People v. Bragg and/or gh?glig v, united States. On September 17, 2019, the People Virgil Parks. The following is a summary of some of the statements Mr. Parks made. Mr. Parks discussed the work that was performed on the 2.001 Excursion limousine (the ?limousine?) referenced on the May 11, 2018 invoice. In preparation for this work, Mr. Parks infmmod us that he purchased a brake master cylinder, healing pm number MCA3 90530, from Advamce Auto Parts on May 4, 2018. Although the invoicc from May 11, 2018 indicates that this part was installed, MI. Parks informed us that an employee, Cl?kezie Cicero, told him that the part was not installed. Inmad, this part was returned to Advance Auto Parts on May 12, 2018. Mr. Parks stated that he leaned this information fi?om Mr. Okoro shortly before Mr. Parks was terminated by Mavis in Febmary 2019. In addition, Mr. Parks told us he did not perform the DMV inspection of the limousine, but gave Mr. Klingman (lie NYS DMV certi?cation card he needed for the inspection. During the interview, Mr. Parks also informed us of a billing practice at Mavis in which certain sewices were substituted on invoices for the ones actually performed, in order for the store to meet sales quotas established by the caiporate of?ce. In essence, this practice - would result in inaccurate information on invoices. Mr. Parks identi?ed the following specific examples that relate to the limousine. I. Mavis invcice 755988! Order #171371, dated January 25, 2018, hadicate that a power steering flush service was performed at a cost of $79.99. Mr. Parks stated that in reality, this service was not performed. Instead, it was substituted for labor costs in the same amount, associated with the exhaust repaim an the invoice ?n order to meet sales quotas. 2. Mavis invoice 760285! Order 177859, dated 6/25/18 and 6! 8f 18 indicate that brake labor and a power steering ?ush was performed on the limousine. Mr. Parks informed us that brake service was not performed. Instead, work associated with the power steering system was performed. Again, the items listed on the invoice were substituted to meet sake quotas. Mr. Parks also stated that while the May 11, 2018 invoice states that a ?brake ?ush? was performed, in fact, the brakes were just bled. Lastly, Mr. Parks informed us that the limousine was occasionally listed on paperwork as a 2002 Excursion as well as an F350. Very trul urs, SUSAN J. MALLERY, ESQ. District Attorney SIMllq