How do you get on the ballot in New York State?

As both an attorney and elected official, people often ask me about the process to get on the ballot to run for public office in New York State. Most people seem to think that a candidate gets endorsed at a political convention, but that is only partly true. While candidates do seek the endorsement of political parties at local or county conventions, that endorsement only means that the district leaders for that political party will support you and help you get on the ballot (which is very important).

However, unless you are running for state-wide office (senator, governor, attorney general or comptroller, who are nominated at state conventions), you must obtain signatures on “designating petitions.” This is the requirement for congress, state legislature, county legislature or local city and town elections (but not villages or supreme court). We are in the final week to collect signatures on designating petitions for New York’s five established parties — Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Working Families and Independence. As a matter of fact, I walked my neighborhood this past Sunday night and collected signatures.

What do I mean by designating petitions? New York State Election Law sets forth the required procedures to collect the signatures on the designating petitions and to get on the ballot — see NYS Election Law Sections 6 – 118, 120, 122, 130, 132, 134, 136, 144 & 146. The Election Law requires candidates to obtain signatures of 5% of the registered voters in the district from the political party whose line they seek. Most candidates try to get about 10% to avoid any legal challenges. Therefore, since the first week of June, volunteers for candidates of all political parties have been ringing door bells and asking voters to sign designating petitions that will get candidates on the ballot, and this Thursday is the deadline to file these petitions with the Board of Elections.

For example, last year I needed about 375 signatures to run for re-election to the Westchester County Board of Legislators on the Republican line, and we were pleased to file more than 700 signatures.

If you are a registered voter in a political party and meet the 5% signature requirement from members of that party, you are on the ballot. If more that one candidate files petitions for a particular seat, they will face-off in a primary in mid-September. For candidates without primaries, they go straight to the November election.

What about seeking the lines of parties for which you are not a member? If you wish to run with a party line besides your own, you must meet the 5% signature requirement, as well as get permission from that party to run on its line.

And if you think your opponent’s designating petitions do not contain enough proper signatures to meet the required number, you can try to knock out those petitions with a legal challenge.

Every candidate across party lines can agree on one thing –- they are incredibly thankful for the great volunteers that have been carrying these designating petitions over the past six weeks. Many dedicated people have worked diligently to get candidates on the ballot for this November — so that voters have a real choice on Election Day. I have been carrying petitions for about twenty years now and am happy to report that most people are friendly in the doorway (but yes, there are a few cretins who are rude or too “busy” to participate in democracy). Thanks so much to all the wonderful volunteers carrying the petitions and to the helpful voters who signed them — you all play an important role in our democratic electoral process. Best of luck to all the candidates this year (especially the ones I am supporting)!

James Maisano, Esq.

Jim@JamesMaisanoEsq.com

www.JamesMaisanoEsq.com

(914) 636-1621

Quick Review of Key Supreme Court Decisions from Past Week

On this blog and my firm’s Facebook page (www.facebook.com/JamesMaisanoEsq), I have been focusing on a few important U.S. Supreme Court decisions that were being closely watched by the legal and political worlds.  Over the past week, the Supreme Court has released three of these decisions:

Arizona v. U.S.

The Court confirmed that “the Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the regulation of aliens . . . the federal power to determine immigration policy is well settled.”  However, the Court did open the door for states to assist the federal government in the enforcement of immigration laws.

A unanimous Court (8-0 with Justice Kagan not taking part) upheld Section 2(B) of the Arizona law requiring police officers to check the immigration status of anyone arrested or detained and allowing them to stop and arrest a person if the officers have “reasonable suspicion” that the person is an illegal immigrant (known as “show me your papers”).  The Court stated there was no showing that this section conflicted with federal immigration law.

The public debate over Section 2(B) being used for racial profiling in violation of the Equal Protection Clause was not addressed by the Court here, and this issue appears to be reserved for future review, although the Court did state and accept that the Arizona law specifically bars its use in racial profiling.

On split decisions, the Court rejected other sections of the Arizona law:

• making it a crime for unauthorized immigrants to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification (6-2).
• prohibiting those not authorized for employment in the US to seek or perform work (5-3).
• authorizing police to arrest illegal immigrants without a warrant where “probable cause” exists that they committed any public offense (5-3).

There was some interesting debate around the internet and media among Supreme Court observers on the rather strong and somewhat politically charged dissent of Justice Scalia, who argued that the entire law should be upheld, and it makes for some interesting reading.  Here is the link to Justice Kennedy’s majority decision and dissents:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

FCC v. Fox:

A unanimous Supreme Court (8-0 with Justice Sotomayor not taking part) sided with Fox over the FCC in holding, “The Commission failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent.  Therefore, the Commission’s standards as applied to these broadcasts were vague, and the Commission’s orders must be set aside.”

This is a narrow decision on due process grounds.  The Court avoided the overarching constitutional challenge to such FCC regulations on 1st Amendment grounds and held that the subject regulations (addressing nudity and profanity) were vague because the FCC failed to give broadcasters fair notice of the changes to its regulations and implementation.  Here is a link to Justice Kennedy’s decision:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1293f3e5.pdf

Dorsey v. U.S.  & Hill v. U.S.

In this narrow 5-4 ruling in a case addressing the evaluation of legislative history, the Court held that the federal Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the disparities in the length of sentences for cocaine offenses, applies to defendants whose cocaine offenses occurred before the law went into effect, but were sentenced after the law’s effective date.

Here is a link to Justice Breyer’s decision and dissent:

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Dorsey_v_United_States_No_Nos_115683_115721_2012_BL_153786_US_Jun

This Thursday morning we will have the opportunity to review the final two cases we have been waiting for, which address Obamacare and its individual mandate and potential free speech issues with a federal law prohibiting lying about your military record.  I will be posting again soon about these two interesting cases.

 

James Maisano, Esq.

Jim@JamesMaisanoEsq.com

www.JamesMaisanoEsq.com

(914) 636-1621

 

U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Reichle v. Howards

Last week, I highlighted the six interesting cases to be decided prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ending its session over the next month.  One of these decisions, Reichle v. Howards, was released this past Monday, June 4.

Upon a quick review of the media coverage, the decision is viewed as a narrow ruling.  The petitioners are two Secret Service agents on assignment protecting Vice President Cheney, and they arrested the respondent following an encounter with the Vice President relating to his objections to the war in Iraq.  Based on physical contact with the Vice President, the respondent was arrested. The respondent then brought a First Amendment claim for retaliatory arrest against the petitioners, and the main question presented was whether the agents had qualified and absolute immunity from said action.

On the excellent website http://www.scotusblog.com/, Lyle Denniston reviewed the decision and stated:

“Sparing two Secret Service agents the legal chore of defending themselves at a civil trial, the Supreme Court on Monday chose to leave unanswered the power of police or federal agents to arrest a political protester whose views the officers find objectionable.  Instead, the Court ruled only that these two agents were legally immune because they had no warning in 2006 that they might face a lawsuit if they retaliated by arresting an individual who approached then-Vice President Dick Cheney and complained about the war in Iraq.”

Here is the link to Denniston’s full review of the decision:  http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/opinion-recap-narrow-ruling-on-arrests/

The New York Times also did a detailed review of the case, which can be found at:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/us/secret-service-agents-cant-be-sued-justices-rule.html?_r=2

I look forward to providing updates on the remaining five Supreme Court cases as they are released.

 

James Maisano, Esq.

Jim@JamesMaisanoEsq.com

www.JamesMaisanoEsq.com

(914) 636-1621

A loved one dies — you are executor in the will — what to do?

A common phone call to my law office is:  “My mother/father passed away, and I’m the executor in the will, what do I have to do?”

As the designated executor in a will, you will need to file a petition, along with supporting documents, in the Surrogate Court in the county where the deceased resided. (This post only addresses NYS law). The petition will seek a decree granting probate and letters testamentary – official court documents legally appointing you as executor, so that you can conduct financial and other transactions on the estate’s behalf. When filing the petition, you are agreeing to act responsibly in a fiduciary capacity in the best interests of the estate and to fully follow the deceased’s wishes in the will.

I recommend retaining an attorney at the outset to represent the estate and guide you through the probate process. You will need to assemble documents, including an original death certificate; the original will (and codicils, if they exist); original trust documents (if they exist); addresses for executors and beneficiaries in the will; and an itemization of assets such as personal property and real property (home, coop or condo) in the deceased’s estate.

You will need to pay a fee to start your probate action in Surrogate Court on a sliding-scale based on the amount of the estate, and it varies from about $420 to $1,250. You will also need to open up a bank account for the estate.

If the deceased’s estate was less than $30,000, you can utilize the easier small estate affidavit program – see link at:  http://www.nycourthelp.gov/diy/smallEstate.html

After the Surrogate Court grants you the letters testamentary, you will begin liquidating the personal and real property and deposit the money into the estate bank account, so that it can be distributed to the beneficiaries as set forth in the will. When you are finished distributing the estate, you will need to file an inventory of assets and affidavit of completion with the Surrogate Court to demonstrate that the will has been fully complied with. You will also be responsible for filing any federal and state tax returns for the estate.

This is merely a general summary of issues to be addressed when you are the executor named in a will. Of course, the issues discussed here can be more complicated, and I have not mentioned every possible issue you may face. However, once again, an executor should meet with an attorney as soon as possible after the death to discuss the estate and probate process. And please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this post or the probate process.

(You can also find this post at www.JamesMaisanoEsq.wordpress.com and please see disclaimer there).

 

James Maisano, Esq.

Jim@JamesMaisanoEsq.com

www.JamesMaisanoEsq.com

(914) 636-1621

 

Upcoming U.S. Supreme Court Decisions – Expected in June

Over the next month, we should be able to review several key decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court usually finishes releasing their decisions for the previous term in June. Here are the six cases we will be reading about soon. For each case, you can find the date argued, a link to entire docket (thanks to the ABA website) and the question(s) presented to the court:


1.  Arizona v. United States – Argued April 25, 2012

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/11-182.html

Question Presented:

Arizona enacted the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (S.B. 1070) to address the illegal immigration crisis in the State. The four provisions of S.B. 1070 enjoined by the courts below authorize and direct state law enforcement officers to cooperate and communicate with federal officials regarding the enforcement of federal immigration law and impose penalties under state law for non-compliance with federal immigration requirements.

The question presented is whether the federal immigration laws preclude Arizona’s efforts at cooperative law enforcement and impliedly preempt these four provisions of S.B. 1070 on their face.


2.  Dorsey v. United States & Hill v. United States – Argued April 17, 2012

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/11-5683.html

Questions Presented:

Did the Seventh Circuit err when, in conflict with the First and Eleventh Circuits, it held that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 does not apply to all defendants sentenced after its enactment?

Whether the District Court erred in not sentencing the Defendant-Petitioner pursuant to the “Fair Sentencing Act of 2010″ where Petitioner was sentenced on December 2, 2010 after the effective date of the FSA and the amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines mandated by the FSA?


3.  National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius & Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services – Argued March 26-28, 2012

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/11-393.html

Question Presented:

Congress effected a sweeping and comprehensive restructuring of the Nation’s health-insurance markets in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 109 (2010) (collectively, the “ACA” or “Act”). But the Eleventh Circuit and the Sixth Circuit now have issued directly conflicting final judgments about the facial constitutionality of the ACA’s mandate that virtually every individual American must obtain health insurance. 26 U.S.C. § 5000A. Moreover, despite the fact that the mandate is a “requirement” that Congress itself deemed “essential” to the Act’s new insurance regulations, 42 U.S.C. § 18091(a)(2)(I), the Eleventh Circuit held that the mandate is severable from the remainder of the Act.

The question presented is whether the ACA must be invalidated in its entirety because it is non-severable from the individual mandate that exceeds Congress’ limited and enumerated powers under the Constitution.


4.  Reichle v. Howards – Argued March 21, 2012

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/11-262.html

Questions Presented:

Petitioners, two Secret Service agents on protective detail, arrested respondent following an encounter with Vice President Richard Cheney. Petitioners had probable cause to arrest respondent, who in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 falsely denied making unsolicited physical contact with the Vice President. Respondent thereafter brought a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim against petitioners.  The questions presented are:

Whether, as the Tenth Circuit siding with the Ninth Circuit held here, the existence of probable cause to make an arrest does not bar a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim; or whether, as the Second, Sixth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, probable cause bars such a claim, including under Hartman v. Moore, 547 250 (2006).

Whether the Tenth Circuit erred by denying qualified and absolute immunity to petitioners where probable cause existed for respondent’s arrest, the arrest comported with the Fourth Amendment, it was not (and is not) clearly established that Hartman does not apply to First Amendment retaliatory arrest claims, and the denial of immunity threatens to interfere with the split-second, life-or-death decisions of Secret Service agents protecting the President and Vice President.


5.  United States v. Alvarez – Argued February 22, 2012

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/11-210.html

Question Presented:

Section 704(b) of Title 18, United States Code, makes it a crime when anyone “falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States.”

The question presented is whether 18 U.S.C. 704(b) is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.


6.  FCC v. Fox Television Stations – Argued January 20, 2012

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/10-1293.html

Whether the court of appeals erred in invalidating a finding by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that a broadcast including expletives was indecent within the meaning of statutory and regulatory prohibitions on indecent broadcasts, on the ground that the FCC’s context-based approach to determining indecency is unconstitutionally vague in its entirety.

Whether the court of appeals erred in invalidating a finding by the FCC that a broadcast including nudity was indecent within the meaning of statutory and regulatory prohibitions on indecent broadcasts, on the ground that the FCC’s context-based approach to determining indecency is unconstitutionally vague in its entirety.

James Maisano, Esq.

Jim@JamesMaisanoEsq.com

www.JamesMaisanoEsq.com

(914) 636-1621

What to do if sued for illegally downloading video or music?

A Minnesota attorney contact from Google+ has a very nice summary on his blog about the issues a defendant faces when accused of illegally downloading a movie, video or song from the internet.  Please check out the blog of Aaron D. Hall, Esq.:

http://minnesotaattorney.com/copyright-infringement-tips-for-illegal-movie-music-download-cases/

Mr. Hall provides a helpful summary on how to evaluate one of these copyright infringement lawsuits, which are usually brought by a big company against a regular person, without the financial resources to battle a team of corporate attorneys.

He makes a good recommendation to communicate directly to the plaintiff’s attorney upon being sued to see if you can work out a settlement, but speak with an attorney before making such a communication to avoid saying something that could hurt you later in the litigation.

An organization with an interesting website is the Electronic Frontier Foundation – www.eff.org. It has an informative page about what to do when notified by your Internet Service Provider (ISP) that due to a subpoena it released your name to a company alleging that you have illegally downloaded copyrighted works, such as movies, videos or songs. Here is the link: www.eff.org/issues/file-sharing/subpoena-defense.


However, of course, the best advice anyone can give you is to be very careful whenever downloading potentially copyrighted items off the internet.  When in doubt – don’t download.

If you want to learn more about copyright law and rules, check out the U.S Copyright office at: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf. In general, having a copyright means a party has the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise utilize a literary, musical or artistic work, whether printed, audio or video, and that work cannot be illegally copied.

James Maisano, Esq.

Jim@JamesMaisanoEsq.com

www.JamesMaisanoEsq.com

(914) 636-1621

Marlee’s Post: Colorado Court Awards Dog Owner $65,000 for Negligence & Emotional Distress

I am dedicating this post to my dog Marlee, because I would bring the same action here in New York if someone caused her death. I am referring to a National Law Journal article that discusses a Colorado case that makes it clear that dogs are more than just property.

In this Denver case, a dog owner sued a house cleaning company, which let her dog, Ruthie, get away and be hit by a car, despite the owner giving specific instructions to not let the dog outside except for the backyard. She sued for negligence and emotional distress and was awarded $65,000. I note these heartless workers merely brought Ruthie inside after she was hit and did not bring her to a vet or even notify the owner the dog was injured. This evidence of negligence was very helpful to plaintiff’s case.

This appears to be a precedent-setting case because courts around the country have a history of treating pets like property such as furniture, by ruling they are only worth replacement value. It appears this case is the highest award for a pet owner in Colorado history.

The article quotes plaintiff’s counsel Jennifer Edwards (and founder of The Animal Law Center), “The ruling sets a damages precedent that animals are worth more than their replacement value. When we lose a pet, we do suffer emotional distress and heartache, just as we would with any other member of our families.”

The article also mentions a recent ruling by a Texas appellate court that modified a 120-year-old precedent where plaintiffs could only recover an animal’s market value. The court held that, “Because of the special position pets hold in their family, we see no reason why existing law should not be interpreted to allow recovery in the loss of a pet at least to the same extent as any other personal property.” This holding allows plaintiffs to seek awards based on intrinsic or sentimental value.

Because I wear two hats in my professional life (lawyer & legislator), I am going to bring this issue to the New York State Legislature and see if we need to adjust New York State law to ensure that pet owners can seek these types of damages when losing a pet due to negligence. We lost our dog Oakley to natural causes last year and that was hard enough – it would have been incredibly worse if he died due to another person’s negligence.

James Maisano, Esq.

Jim@JamesMaisanoEsq.com

www.JamesMaisanoEsq.com

(914) 636-1621

Update from Law Office of James Maisano, Esq.

Over the past few months, I have been engaged in interesting and diverse legal matters:

1) helped a family that could not locate a grandmother’s will – by winning a motion – so they could move forward with a probate action in Surrogate Court;

2) settled a significant collection action for a business client that was owed money;

3) drafted several wills, health care proxies, living wills and powers of attorney;

4) worked on several real estate closings;

5) helped a mother with a name change for her daughter;

6) set up a limited liability company with a “doing business as” name, and then drafted an assignment and assumption agreement for this LLC to take over a lease; and

7) helped a landlord evict tenants that had stopped paying rent.

Do you need any legal assistance?  If yes, just give me a call or send me an email.

James Maisano, Esq.

Jim@JamesMaisanoEsq.com

www.JamesMaisanoEsq.com

(914) 636-1621

White Plains Ethics Law Found To Violate NYS FOIL

An important legal decision relating to the New York State Freedom of Information Law (“NYFOIL”) was released this past week in Westchester, which should place local governments on notice that they cannot pass local laws restricting the availability of documents and information to the public beyond the clear language of NYFOIL, even if the local government does it in the interest of protecting confidentiality.

This decision in the New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County by the Hon. James W. Hubert was filed and entered on March 20, 2012 in the case captioned The Journal News v. City of White Plains.  Here is the opinion:

Judge Hubert Decision

This litigation deals with an attempt by the newspaper The Journal News to acquire documents from the City of White Plains relating to the ethics investigation of former Mayor Adam Bradley.

NYFOIL can be found in the Public Officers Law, Sections 84-90, and Judge Hubert states that NYFOIL “makes all government records ‘presumptively available to the public for inspection’ unless they fall under a limited number of exceptions.  Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v. Burns, 67 N.Y.2d 562, 566, 505 N.Y.S.2d 576 (1986).  The general philosophy underpinning the statute is full agency disclosure in order to ‘achieve maximum public access to government documents.’  Encore Coll. Bookstores v. Auxiliary Serv. Corp. of State Univ. of NY at Farmingdale, 87 N.Y.2d 410, 416, 639 N.Y.S.2d 990 (1995).”

The City of White Plains refused to release some requested documents to The Journal Newsciting Section 2-5-111(a)(14) of its Ethic Code, which states, “the complaint, records and other proceedings related thereto prior to the filing of charges or dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction are deemed confidential.”  Judge Hubert refused to apply this language from the Ethics Code and agreed with the The Journal News in holding, “the Court agrees that FOIL’s statutory disclosure requirements pre-empt any conflicting confidentiality requirements contained in a local ordinance such as the one at issue here.”

Therefore, this section in the White Plains Ethics Code was found to violate NYSFOIL, which demonstrates how strictly courts rely on the express language in this state law, especially since the pre-empted clause does make some sense in seeking to make documents in an ethics investigation confidential prior to charges being filed.  We can understand the logic here – why should the documents from the investigation be publicly released if the Ethics Board decides not to move forward with charges after completing its investigation.  Nevertheless, we see a bright line here in state law that no government can pass a statute at odds with NYFOIL – logical or not.

It should be noted that NYFOIL does provide specific exemptions for when a government may withhold documents to the public in Public Officers Law Section 87(2), and included in these exemptions are protections for confidentiality.  Once again, White Plains was not allowed under NYFOIL to provide greater protections for confidentiality than those set forth in Section 87(2).

If you are an attorney working for local governments or local elected official, please be careful when passing any legislation that may be deemed to place limits on NYFOIL, as you will probably face the same fate as White Plains.   Here is a link to NYFOIL, so that you can review it once again:  http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/foil2.html

We are very lucky to have such a strong Freedom of Information Law in New York State, which is a terrific guarantee that citizens can properly follow the decision-making process by governmental entities, and thankfully, some citizens will utilize this Freedom of Information Law to be “watchdogs” on behalf of their fellow citizens to help make our democracy work better and to make our elected officials more responsive and accountable.

James Maisano, Esq.

Jim@JamesMaisanoEsq.com

www.JamesMaisanoEsq.com

(914) 636-1621

Thoughts on a Difficult Week – Attempt to Say Something Useful

Over the past three days, I had several contacts with death: a high school friend, a colleague’s wife, a client’s mother and a Facebook friend’s dad. That is a lot of sadness in only three days. Two died before they reached 50 – way, way too early. Right now, it is hard to focus on anything else beyond these deaths.

Today, I will be attending the funeral of Dr. Jacqueline Proner, the wife of Legislator David Gelfarb. She was 49 and they have three kids. What is more tragic and sad than her passing? I cannot even imagine what David is going through. I hate that it happened. Several people have said to me over the past two days: “It reminds you what’s really important in life.” And that is certainly true.

So what does one take from a week like this? Obviously, it reminds us that life is fleeting and can disappear quickly. We have no idea how long we will be on this earth, so we better make the most of it right now. Are we spending enough time with our loved ones? For many, the answer is probably “no.” We have created a society where we are working longer hours in this roller-coaster economy, and in many families both parents must work full time to pay the bills. Are we dedicating enough of our time to our kids?

And if you really want to get depressed, turn on the television. You see so much sex and violence, mean and crude political dialogue and idiotic reality shows – nothing we can be very proud of. It really makes you wonder where we are going as a society. How do we change this?

I don’t dare claim to have the answers. I know I need to spend more time with my family immediately, because I could get hit by a bus next week. Yesterday, I was catching up on my law work and my wife mentioned it was a nice day and I should go have a baseball catch with my son. I said I was too busy – that was the definitely the wrong answer.

As an elected official, I am frankly shocked by the polarization I see every day. We so-called leaders are supposed to be improving our society, and we are all fighting. Many of our constituents are doing the same. Too many people have moved to the extremes and are only speaking to people they agree with – rather than engage the other side in a respectful and productive way to find common ground. I do try to make a difference in my position, but it is a tough climate. So now I have another thing to work on, which is doing a better job of bringing people together in our county government. All 17 county legislators and the county executive must work harder at communicating and compromising.

So, maybe this week can be a wake-up call to some degree – I know I need to do better and so do you. I am sharing this post on my county legislator blog because I feel like I had to say something useful to my friends and constituents about what I am feeling today.

I cannot stop thinking about the passing of 49 year old Dr. Jacqueline Proner. I chatted with her several times over the past year, and she was engaging, thoughtful and friendly. She had a terrific personality and worked so hard to advance David’s career and her own, and she was so proud to watch our legislative swearing-in ceremony in January. Why God took her, we may never know. Her death is so damn sad and impossible to explain.

But we are all still here. We just don’t know when our number will be up. I suggest we take a lesson from all this death and focus harder on the important things – spending more quality time with family and friends, being nicer and more respectful to each another, publicly opposing hate, and contributing more to make this world a better place.

Jacqueline will not have a chance to do this, but the rest of us do.

Jim Maisano

County Legislator

CtyLegJimMaisano@gmail.com

914-636-1621