If Jesus returned to earth we would kill him again, but this time we wouldn’t nail him to a cross. Instead we would strap him to a gurney, put him to sleep, and drip poison into his veins until he expired.

And so it is with our new eugenics. We don’t geld men and women any more, like we did back in the thirties to poor people in Appalachia, so they wouldn’t bring any more “white trash” or n—gers into the world, and we don’t spay the mentally handicapped anymore either.

Read the rest of the story.

Dirt road somewhere in Town of Charlton, Montgomery County. Copyright 2009 Rachel Weaver

The Road Not Taken-Robert Frost

TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth; 5

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same, 10

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back. 15

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Even though today is a holiday, the Book Hound is open today from Noon until 5pm so if you have nothing better to do, how about taking a nice ride out to the Mohawk Valley and visiting our store.

The store is located at 16 East Main Street.

I have been busy assembling bookcases and stocking shelves with new books. If you are interested in ephemera (paper items), I have just put out a lot of Amsterdam and Mohawk Valley items for sale. I also have old Amsterdam postcards and High School yearbooks for sale.

Some of the ephemera includes advertising items from downtown Amsterdam stores that are no longer in existence, some old photos of the demolition of downtown Amsterdam, an aerial view of Hagaman, old Mohawk Mill items, etc.

I also have some ephemera from Fulton, Schenectady, Schoharie, Saratoga and Albany Counties.

I buy books regularly so there are always new items to look at.

If you are new to this blog, the store is located at 16 East Main Street in Amsterdam. Our current hours are Mon-Fri Noon-5pm and Saturday 11am until 3pm. Other hours are available by appointment.

Website is www.thebookhound.net. Not all of our books are on the website, especially the cheaper ones.

Why did it take me until this year to discover Chris Rea? He’s one of the top guitarists and musicians of all time as far as I am concerned. In the past he did play and sing a lot of junk, trying too hard to be popular. Now he has turned away from that and only plays quality stuff. Check it out.

In the Matter of Thomas B. v Lydia D. the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ruled on Thursday, October 1, that parents in New York State cannot contract away their obligation to take care of their children until age twenty-one. The issue before the court was whether or not a child’s full-time employment by itself constituted emancipation and therefore released the parents from child support obligations.

Read the entire article.

Dayana Perez spent almost an hour interviewing me yesterday and taking video of my bookstore in Amsterdam. The finished story was on Capital News 9 last night.

You can read or watch the story here.

Thanks Dayana!

The Van Alstyne Homestead Society is holding an Antiques Appraisal Day at the Van Alstyne Homestead, 43 Moyer Street, Canajoharie, NY, from 11a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday, October 3, 2009.

Come to find out what your favorite object is worth – or even, what it is. There is a $5 charge per item, with a four item limit. Expert appraisers will be available to appraise dolls, 18th and 19th century art, china glass, furniture. textiles, jewelry, tools, watches and clocks.

Refreshments will be available for purchase, and will include sandwiches, coffee, donuts, cookies and cider.

This is a benefit for the Van Alstyne Homestead Society, a not-for-profit organization devoted to the restoration and preservation of the Van Alstyne Homestead and its collection of historical artifacts documenting the history of the Mohawk Valley.

For more information, call 673-3066.

Kings County (Brooklyn, NY) Family Court Judge J. Alan Beckoff denied a petition to terminate the parental rights of an incarcerated father late last week. In the matter of Jayquan J., SCO Family of Services, a foster care agency, petitioned the court to terminate the parental rights of Clint J., saying that he had made no efforts to contact his child and had abandoned the child, therefore his consent was not needed to put Jayquan up for adoption.

“Teresa Tucker, the SCO caseworker, testified that Jayquan has been in a non-kinship foster home since entering foster care; that Respondent had no contact with him in the six-month period preceding the filing of the petition; that the agency had not discouraged Respondent from visiting or contacting Jayquan; that Respondent had not sent any cards, gifts, or letters to Jayquan; and that no one had come forward on Respondent’s behalf. Ms. Tucker also testified that going back to May 2006, when Jayquan first came into SCO’s care, Respondent did not have any contact with the child or the agency and had paid no support.”

Read the entire article.

Decided on September 29, 2009

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION
First Judicial Department
Luis A. Gonzalez, P.J.
John T. Buckley
James M. Catterson
James M. McGuire
Dianne T. Renwick, JJ.
475-475A-475B-475C
603121/07

[*1]Dan Rather, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant,

v

CBS Corporation, Defendant-Appellant-Respondent, Viacom, Inc., et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Plaintiff Dan Rather appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered April 14, 2008, dismissing the complaint as against the individual defendants, and bringing up for review an order, same court and J.H.O., entered April 11, 2008, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent of dismissing the causes of action for fraud, breach of the implied covenant of fair dealing, and tortious interference with prospective business relations, and denied the motion to the extent it sought to dismiss the causes of action for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, and from a judgment, same court and J.H.O., entered September 30, 2008, dismissing the amended complaint as against Viacom, Inc. and dismissing the causes of action for fraud and tortious interference with contract as against CBS Corporation, and bringing up for review [*2]an order, same court and J.H.O., entered September 23, 2008, which granted CBS and Viacom’s motion to the extent it sought to dismiss the causes of action for fraud and tortious interference with contract and denied the motion to the extent it sought to dismiss the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. Cross appeals from the aforesaid orders.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York (James W.
Quinn, Mindy J. Spector and
Yehudah L. Buchweitz of
counsel), and CBS Law
Department, New York (Anthony
M. Bongiorno and Mary
Catherine Woods of counsel),
for appellant-respondent and
respondents.
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, New York
(Martin R. Gold, Gary
Meyerhoff, Edward J. Reich, Daniel
Pancotti, and Zhubin Parang
of counsel), for respondent-
appellant.

CATTERSON, J.

This action asserting breach of contract and related tort claims arises out of a September 8, 2004 broadcast that plaintiff Dan Rather narrated on the CBS 60 Minutes II television program about then President George W. Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard. Rather alleges that CBS disavowed the broadcast after it was attacked by Bush supporters, and fraudulently induced him to apologize personally for the broadcast on national television as well as to remain silent as to his belief that the broadcast was true. Rather alleges that, following President Bush’s re-election, CBS informed him that he would be removed as anchor of the CBS Evening News. Rather claims that although his employment agreement required that, in the event he was removed as anchor, CBS would make him a regular correspondent on 60 Minutes or immediately pay all amounts due under the agreement and release him to work elsewhere, CBS kept him on the payroll while denying him the opportunity to cover important news stories until May 2006 when it terminated his contract, effective June 2006.

Rather commenced this action against CBS Corporation, Viacom Inc., and individual defendants Leslie Moonves, Sumner Redstone and Andrew Heyward in September 2007. He asserted, inter alia, claims of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty against CBS; claims of fraud against CBS and the individual defendants and a claim of tortious inducement of breach of contract against Viacom and the individual defendants.

Now, Rather appeals and defendants CBS Corporation and Viacom Inc. cross-appeal from orders entered by Supreme Court on April 11, 2008 and September 25, 2008, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims for fraud, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with contract, and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

For the reasons set forth below, this Court finds that the motion court erred in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, and [*3]therefore we find the complaint must be dismissed in its entirety.

As a threshold matter, we find that Rather’s appeal from the portion of the April 11, 2008 order that dismissed his fraud claims against the individual defendants was not rendered academic by his service of an amended complaint against the remaining defendants. See Velez v. Feinstein, 87 A.D.2d 309, 312-313, 451 N.Y.S.2d 110, 113 (1982), lv. dismissed in part, denied in part, 57 N.Y.2d 737, 454 N.Y.S.2d 987, 440 N.E.2d 1334 (1982). Moreover, for reasons set forth below, we find that Rather’s service of a second amended complaint does not render moot his cross appeal from that portion of the September 25, 2008 order that dismissed his fraud claim. On the record before us, we assume, without deciding, that Rather’s claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing asserted as against CBS in the original complaint may also properly be reviewed. cf. O’Ferral v. City of New York, 8 AD3d 457, 459, 779 N.Y.S.2d 90, 91 (1st Dept. 2004) (since court granted leave to file amended complaint that superseded original complaint, issue of disposition of claim included in original but not in amended complaint is academic).

At the outset, we find that Supreme Court erred in declining to dismiss Rather’s breach of contract claim against CBS. Rather alleges that he delivered his last broadcast as anchor of the CBS Evening News on March 9, 2005, and that, since he was only nominally assigned to 60 Minutes II and then 60 Minutes, he should have received the remainder of his compensation under the agreement in March 2005. Rather claims that, in effect, CBS “warehoused” him, and that, when he was finally terminated and paid in June 2006, CBS did not compensate him for the 15 months “when he could have worked elsewhere.” This claim attempts to gloss over the fact that Rather continued to be compensated at his normal CBS salary of approximately $6 million a year until June 2006 when the compensation was accelerated upon termination, consistent with his contract.

Contractually, CBS was under no obligation to “use [Rather's] services or to broadcast any program” so long as it continued to pay him the applicable compensation. This “pay or play” provision of the original 1979 employment agreement was specifically reaffirmed in the 2002 Amendment to the employment agreement.

That Amendment also provided, in subparagraph 1(g), that if CBS removed Rather as anchor or co-anchor of the CBS Evening News and failed to assign him as a correspondent on 60 Minutes II or another mutually agreed upon position, the agreement would be terminated, Rather would be free to seek employment elsewhere, and CBS would pay him immediately the remainder of his weekly compensation through November 25, 2006.

We agree that subparagraph 1(g) must be read together with the subparagraph 1(f), which provided that if CBS removed Rather from the CBS Evening News, it would assign him to 60 Minutes II “as a full-time Correspondent,” and if 60 Minutes II were canceled, it would assign him to 60 Minutes as a correspondent “to perform services on a regular basis.” However, this construction does not render any language of the agreement inoperative, since, consistent with the “pay or play” clause, neither subparagraph 1(g) nor 1(f) requires that CBS actually use Rather’s services or broadcast any programs on which he appears, but simply retains the option of accelerating the payment of his compensation under the agreement if he is not assigned to [*4]either program.

It is clear that subparagraph 1(g) applies only to a situation where CBS removed Rather as anchor of CBS Evening News and then failed to assign him “as a Correspondent on 60 Minutes II.” The amended complaint alleges that when Rather no longer performed anchor duties at CBS, he was assigned to 60 Minutes II. Thus, Rather implicitly concedes that CBS fully complied with subparagraph 1(g).

Supreme Court erred in finding that subparagraph 1(g) modified the “pay or play” provision when it ignored the initial prefatory clause to the rest of that subparagraph, which states “[e]xcept as otherwise specified in this Agreement.” As the defendants correctly assert, the seven words are crucial because they require subparagraph 1(g) to be read together with the “pay or play” provision, and thus, subparagraph 1(g) cannot modify the “pay or play” provision to mean that CBS must utilize Rather in accordance with some specific standard by featuring him in a sufficient number or types of broadcasts. As the defendants aptly observed, “the notion that a network would cede to a reporter editorial authority to decide what stories will be aired is absurd.”

Rather’s claim for lost business opportunities due to CBS’s failure to release him to seek other employment is insufficiently supported. Since, according to Rather’s own allegations, an immediate result of the September 8, 2004 broadcast was criticism that he was biased against Bush, it would be speculative to conclude that any action taken by CBS would have alone substantially affected his market value at that time. Rather’s claim for damages for loss of reputation arising from the alleged breach of contract is not actionable. Dember Constr. Corp. v. Staten Is. Mall, 56 A.D.2d 768, 392 N.Y.S.2d 299 (1st Dept. 1977).

Rather’s cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty must also be dismissed. Supreme Court held that the issue of “whether a fiduciary duty has been created in the course of the long relationship between Rather and CBS is really a question of fact.” Previously, the court determined that “the length of [Rather's] contractual relationship with [CBS], and the nature of the service that [Rather] performed under his contracts” created an issue of fact that could not be resolved on motion. This was error.

Rather claims that his “four-decade history” with CBS constituted a “special relationship that imposed fiduciary duties upon CBS toward [Rather].” The law in this Department, and indeed enunciated in every reported appellate-division-level case, is that employment relationships do not create fiduciary relationships. Simply put, “[the employer] did not owe plaintiff, as employee, a fiduciary duty.” Angel v. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ltd., 39 AD3d 368, 370, 835 N.Y.S.2d 57, 60 (1st Dept. 2007), citing Weintraub v. Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon, 172 A.D.2d 254, 568 N.Y.S.2d 84 (1st Dept. 1991); see Schenkman v. New York Coll. Of Health Professionals, 29 AD3d 671, 672, 815 N.Y.S.2d 159, 161 (2d Dept. 2006) (“[employees] failed to plead any facts demonstrating how the arm’s-length, employer-employee relationship [...] gave rise to any fiduciary duty.”); Cuomo v. Mahopac Natl. Bank, 5 AD3d 621, 622, 774 N.Y.S.2d 779, 780 (2d Dept. 2004), lv. denied, 3 NY3d 607, 785 N.Y.S.2d 25, 818 N.E.2d 667 (2004).

The length of Rather’s tenure at CBS is irrelevant to, and does not support, this claim of a [*5]fiduciary relationship (see e.g., Michnick v. Parkell Prods., 215 A.D.2d 462, 626 N.Y.S.2d 265 (2d Dept. 1995)), nor does Rather’s status as “the public face of CBS News after Walter Cronkite retired [...].” See e.g. Maas v. Cornell Univ., 245 A.D.2d 728, 666 N.Y.S.2d 743 (3d Dept. 1997).

Supreme Court’s reliance on Apple Records v. Capitol Records (137 A.D.2d 50, 529 N.Y.S.2d 279 (1st Dept. 1988)) and Wiener v. Lazard Freres & Co. (241 A.D.2d 114, 672 N.Y.S.2d 8 (1st Dept. 1998)), was also error. Unlike in Apple Records, where fledgling musicians ultimately became a worldwide music phenomenon known as the Beatles, Rather was an established correspondent represented by a leading talent agent, who negotiated a contract that was extensively amended several times, that paid Rather a lucrative salary, and that detailed, in 50 pages, everything from his assignments and on-air work at CBS Evening News to requirements that he attend rehearsals and join the union. See Faulkner v Arista Records LLC, 602 F.Supp.2d 470, 484 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“there are no facts here to suggest that the dealings between the Rollers and Arista were anything other or more than garden-variety arm’s length transactions”).

The Apple Records court also made plain that the defendant was not only the exclusive distributor of and manufacturer of the Beatles’ recordings but also that the Beatles “entrusted their musical talents” to the defendant over a period of many years commencing when the Beatles were “still unacclaimed.” Apple Records, supra, 137 A.D.2d at 57, 529 N.Y.S.2d at 283. No such exclusive distributor relationship exists in the instant case. (See e.g. Zimmer-Masiello, Inc. v. Zimmer, Inc., 159 A.D.2d 363, 552 N.Y.S.2d 935 (1st Dept. 1990)), nor can Rather argue that he “entrusted” his particular talents to CBS. Indeed, it may well be that Apple Records will remain a singular holding because of its application to a phenomenon (unacclaimed artists who were also unsophisticated businessmen thrust to the pinnacle of success at warp speed) that’s not likely to be seen again, not even on American Idol.

Similarly, Supreme Court improperly relied on Wiener, where we found that the plaintiff specifically alleged that employees of the defendant acted on the plaintiff’s behalf in conducting negotiations with a bank, and that they relied on the defendant’s “expertise and reputation” as well as certain connections inside the management of the bank. 241 A.D.2d at 123, 672 N.Y.S.2d at 15. It simply cannot be argued that CBS acted as Rather’s agent when Rather employed his own agent to negotiate with CBS for Rather’s benefit. Any claim to the contrary is belied by both the evidence and common sense.

We affirm dismissal of Rather’s fraud claims against CBS and the individual defendants although we find that Supreme Courterred in its rationale for the dismissal as it also erred in rejecting the defendants’ other challenges to the fraud claim.

We take judicial notice of Rather’s second amended complaint (hereinafter referred to as “SAC”) filed by leave of Supreme Court on July 27, 2009, and by separate order, as a matter of discretion in the interest of judicial economy, we deny Rather’s motion to withdraw that portion of his appeal relating to the dismissal of his fraud claim.

The SAC repleads the fraud claim in an attempt to remedy the defects to which Supreme Court pointed in its dismissal of the claim in its September 25, 2008 order. However, Supreme [*6]Court erred in its rationale for the dismissal in holding that Rather “failed to allege [...] that his financial compensation at HDNet [...] is less than he would have received had his contract been renewed.” Thus, the mere inclusion of Rather’s actual annual compensation at HDNet is not helpful to his case, and would not be helpful to his case before this Court at any future date.

Rather alleges that various misrepresentations ( e.g., promises to publicly defend his reputation and to conduct an independent investigation into the 2004 broadcast, and assurances that CBS intended to use his talents fully and to extend his contract, which was due to expire on November 25, 2006) induced him to remain silent about his role in the broadcast and to remain with CBS, where he was allegedly “warehoused” until thecompletion of his contract. As a result, he alleges he suffered money and reputation damages. Relying on Rather’s well-footnoted appellate brief, this Court was already cognizant of his argument that, following the completion of his CBS contract, his compensation at HDNet was less than the $4 million a year established as an approximate market rate for comparable journalists. However, for reasons set forth here, this information was not required for our analysis, and the lack of it was not the reason for affirming dismissal.

It is hornbook law that,

“In an action to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff must prove a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to reply upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission, and injury.”

Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney, 88 N.Y.2d 413, 421, 646 N.Y.S.2d 76, 80, 668 N.E.2d 1370, 1373 (1996), citing Channel Master Corp v. Aluminum Ltd. Sales, 4 N.Y.2d 403, 176 N.Y.S.2d 259, 151 N.E.2d 833 (1958). Supreme Court properly dismissed Rather’s fraud claims for failure to allege pecuniary loss.
“The true measure of damage is indemnity for the actual pecuniary loss sustained as the direct result of the wrong or what is known as the out-of-pocket rule. Under this rule, the loss is computed by ascertaining the difference between the value of the bargain which a plaintiff was induced by fraud to make and the amount or value of the consideration exacted as the price of the bargain. Damages are to be calculated to compensate plaintiffs for what they lost because of the fraud, not to compensate them for what they might have gained. Under the out-of-pocket rule, there can be no recovery of profits which would have been realized in the absence of fraud.” Lama, 88 N.Y.2d at 421, 646 N.Y.S.2d at 80 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Thus, under Lama Holding Co. and its progeny, Rather was required to plead that he had something of value, was defrauded by CBS into relinquishing it for something of lesser value, and that the difference between the two constituted Rather’s pecuniary loss.

Rather’s claim that, but for CBS’ fraud, he could have had more remunerative employment than that which he ultimately obtained at HDNet is unavailing. “[T]he loss of an alternative contractual bargain [...] cannot serve as a basis for fraud or misrepresentation damages because the loss of the bargain was undeterminable and speculative.’” Lama, 88 N.Y.2d at 422, [*7]646 N.Y.S.2d at 80, quoting Dress Shirt Sales v. Hotel Martinique Assoc., 12 N.Y.2d 339, 344, 239 N.Y.S.2d 660, 664, 190 N.E.2d 10, 13 (1963); see Geary v. Hunton & Williams, 257 A.D.2d 482, 684 N.Y.S.2d 207 (1st Dept. 1999).

Rather claims, based on his value and the value of similar professionals in the industry, that he would have been paid $4 million annually from 2005 through 2010. However, while claiming that he had an “agreement-in-principle” with CBS in the summer of 2004 to extend his contract, he alleges in the amended complaint that he had an unwritten “proposal” that “contemplated” a contract extension, and the terms of the proposal were compensation of $4 million for the first 19 months and $2 million annually thereafter. Rather admits that, the broadcast and its aftermath aside, CBS was already contemplating that he would step down from the anchor position in 2006 and assume a reduced role.

As to lost opportunities in the trade, while Rather has shown his own track record of earnings and the earnings of other trade professionals, his future earnings are speculative, because there is no basis to conclude that his employment status would not have changed, regardless of CBS’s actions, once he determined to make the broadcast. Rather never identified a single opportunity with specified terms that was actually available to him and which he declined to accept because of CBS’ actions.

Even if Rather pled pecuniary loss sufficiently to satisfy the Lama standard, his claim would nonetheless fail. Although allegations that defendants made statements to the general public, for example, that they falsely blamed Rather for alleged errors in the broadcast, may constitute a defamation claim (see Morrison v. National Broadcasting Co., 19 N.Y.2d 453, 458-459, 280 N.Y.S.2d 641, 644, 227 N.E.2d 572, 574 (1967)), they are time-barred. Furthermore, Rather’s claim of under-use merely recasts his breach of contract claim in terms of fraud. See Wegman v Dairylea Coop., 50 A.D.2d 108, 113, 376 N.Y.S.2d 728, 734-735 (1975), lv. dismissed, 38 N.Y.2d 918, 382 N.Y.S.2d 979, 346 N.E.2d 817 (1976), and CBS’s alleged promise to extend Rather’s contract constitutes a non-actionable statement of future intent. See Laura Corio, M.D., PLLC v R. Lewin Interior Design, Inc., 49 AD3d 411, 412, 854 N.Y.S.2d 55, 56-57 (1st Dept. 2008).

Even if Rather had alleged “a breach of duty which is collateral or extraneous to the contract between the parties” Krantz v Chateau Stores of Canada, 256 A.D.2d 186, 187, 683 N.Y.S.2d 24, 25 (1st Dept. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), he failed to adequately allege damages.

To the extent Rather claims that he should have been released from the agreement earlier to pursue other opportunities, this claim is duplicative of his breach of contract claim. See Non-Linear Trading Co. v. Braddis Assoc., 243 A.D.2d 107, 118, 675 N.Y.S.2d 5, 13 (1st Dept. 1998). Similarly, Rather’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was properly dismissed by Supreme Court for being duplicative of his breach of contract claim. See Canstar v. Jones Constr. Co., 212 A.D.2d 452, 622 N.Y.S.2d 730 (1st Dept. 1995).

Finally, Supreme Court properly dismissed the claim of tortious interference with a contract as against CBS and Viacom. First, CBS asserts correctly that Viacom is not a proper party to this action. Documentary evidence demonstrates that on December 31, 2005, Viacom [*8](old Viacom) split into two publicly traded companies named Viacom (new Viacom) and CBS Corporation, the latter retaining all of the liabilities concerning CBS’s broadcasting business. Thus, the motion court correctly found that new Viacom carries no liability for old Viacom’s acts in this suit. Second, as to the claim against CBS, the court correctly applied the economic interest doctrine to dismiss this claim against the corporate defendant. See White Plains Coat & Apron Co., Inc. v. Cintas Corp., 8 NY3d 422, 835 N.Y.S.2d 530, 867 N.E.2d 381 (2007). Rather’s bare allegations of malice do not suffice to bring the claim under an exception to the economic interest rule. See Ruha v. Guior, 277 A.D.2d 116, 717 N.Y.S.2d 35 (1st Dept. 2000). Since on appeal, Rather has not addressed his argument as to this cause of action to the individual defendants, we deem the argument abandoned. In any event, there is no particularized pleading of allegations that the acts committed by the individual corporate employees were either beyond the scope of their employment or motivated by their desire for personal gain. See Petkanas v. Kooyman, 303 A.D.2d 303, 305, 759 N.Y.S.2d 1, 2 (1st Dept. 2003).

Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered April 14, 2008, dismissing the complaint asagainst the individual defendants, and bringing up for review an order, same court and J.H.O., entered April 11, 2008, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent of dismissing the causes of action for fraud, breach of the implied covenant of fair dealing, and tortious interference with prospective business relations, and denied the motion to the extent it sought to dismiss the causes of action for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, should be modified, on the law, to grant the motion to dismiss the causes of action for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, and otherwise affirmed, with costs. Judgment, same court and J.H.O., entered September 30, 2008, dismissing the amended complaint as against Viacom, Inc. and dismissing the causes of action for fraud and tortious interference with contract as against CBS Corporation, and bringing up for review an order, same court and J.H.O., entered September 23, 2008, which granted CBS and Viacom’s motion to the extent it sought to dismiss the causes of action for fraud and tortious interference with contract and denied the motion to the extent it sought to dismiss the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, should be modified, on the law, to dismiss the remaining causes of action against CBS, and otherwise affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff’s appeals from the aforesaid orders should be dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeals from the respective judgments. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of [*9]defendant CBS dismissing the amended complaint as against it.

All concur.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered April 14, 2008, modified, on the law, to grant the motion to dismiss the causes of action for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Judgment, same court and J.H.O., entered September 23, 2008, modified, on the law, to dismiss the remaining causes of action against CBS. Appeals from the aforesaid orders unanimously dismissed, as subsumed in the appeals from the respective judgments.

Opinion by Catterson, J. All concur.
Gonzalez, P.J., Buckley, Catterson, McGuire, Renwick, JJ.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: SEPTEMBER 29, 2008

CLERK

The answer to the first question is a resounding NO!

The answer to the second question is a resounding YES!

While it might have been stupid for someone to post a poll on Facebook asking whether or not President Obama should be assassinated, it was equally stupid for Facebook to take it down. The First Amendment covers the the stupidity of the pollster; it’s doubtful it covers the stupidity of Facebook.

Now the Secret Service wants to know who posted the poll. If Facebook and the Secret Service had any brains, they would have left the poll up. Then using the unconstitutional powers granted to the government by the Bush Administration, they could have discovered the IP addresses of everyone that said yes, waterboarded them and detained them for several years without trial.

They are probably going to find it was posted from a Blackberry by some acne covered, fourteen year old who was bored in school.

Then again maybe they will find that Squeaky Fromme did it.

What this episode reveals more than anything else is that Facebook is run by a bunch of geldings! It’s a good thing they don’t work for Knopf Publishers or Nicholson Baker’s book, Checkpoint, in which the protagonist contemplates assassinating George W. Bush, would never have been published.

As the Washington Post article that I link to in the last paragraph says,

“Under a big 1968 Supreme Court precedent, Brandenburg v. Ohio, speaking of assassinating the president cannot be forbidden or punished unless the speaker’s purpose is to provoke an assassination attempt and that is likely to be the effect,” says legal scholar Stuart Taylor Jr. of the National Journal. “It’s quite possible in the wake of more recent developments — 9/11 especially — the court might modify that in some kinds of cases. But it’s almost inconceivable that the court would allow punishment of a novelist for what one of his characters says about killing the president.”

A special thanks to the Recorder and the Daily Gazette for covering my bookstore. I also appreciate Bob Cudmore’s mention of the store on WVTL and the mention and link from local blogger, Flippin’ Amsterdam.

I have been pleased by the old customers and new customers that have already visited the store, even though we are only about halfway put together. This past week, I assembled another five bookcases and stocked the shelves with more books. The trim in the front room was painted, making that room more attractive than it has been for years.

Feel free to stop by. The store is located at 16 East Main Street in Amsterdam. Our hours are from Noon-5, Monday through Friday, and 11am to 3pm on Saturday. The store is closed on Sundays.

Law guardian says former client has no future except as pole dancer or Wal-mart cashier

Emails, obtained by this examiner, between Albany law guardian, Charles Keegan, and the family of a teen girl he allegedly stalked, reveal apparent concern for the girl but also reveal what seems to be unprofessional behavior on his part. In one email, Keegan states that his client will likely end up as either a pole dancer or a Wal-mart cashier.

Read the entire article.

Old location on Locust Avenue.

New location on East Main Street.

The Book Hound, formerly located on Locust Avenue in Amsterdam, and for the last six years an internet only business, will unofficially open it doors again today at noon at 16 E. Main Street. A grand opening is tentatively planned for November.

The Book Hound sells used and antiquarian books with a few new books. The Book Hound has expensive books from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, as well as inexpensive books from as recent as 2009.

The Book Hound’s tentative hours are Noon-5:00pm M-TH, Noon-6:30pm FRI, 11:00am-3:00pm SAT and closed on Sunday.

While not all of the redecorating is done, and although not all of our books are yet in the store and on shelves, you are welcome to stop by, browse and buy.

The Book Hound currently does not accept credit cards, so be prepared to pay with cash or a local check.

Directions from NYS Thruway–Get off at exit 27, take a right onto Route 30 North, get into left hand lane and take first left after you cross the bridge, onto East Main. The shop is located on the right hand side in the second block.

Our website is www.thebookhound.net. We do not list all of our stock on the website. Specifically we do not list most of our books that are priced under $8.

For more information, you can e-mail me at info@thebookhound.net.

Abbott, Jodi Montgomery $19,444
Abrams, Kevin Montgomery $33,821
Abreu, Johnnie Montgomery $26,722
Achzet, Sandra Montgomery $25,638
Aldi, Andy Montgomery $36,710
Alibozek, Susan Montgomery $0
Allen, Richard Montgomery $42,508
Amato, Carol Montgomery $39,748
Amato, Michael Montgomery $76,001
Anderson, Cathy Montgomery $41,609
Andrzejewski, Eileen Montgomery $28,015
Antos, Wanda Montgomery $47,914
Aponte, Ashley Montgomery $2,675
Auriemma, Debra Montgomery $43,392
Auspelmyer, Alfred Montgomery $30,348
Austin, William Montgomery $40,526
Babiarz, Kathryn Montgomery $33,682
Baia, Gretchen Montgomery $24,305
Baia, Richard Montgomery $66,645
Bain, Deborah Montgomery $69,677
Banewicz, Marilyn Montgomery $28,816
Barbuti Jr, Robert Montgomery $38,462
Bare, Donald Montgomery $30,527
Bare, Linda Montgomery $53,856
Barker, Sean Montgomery $30,567
Barrantes, Ericka Montgomery $294
Bartman, Joshua Montgomery $34,465
Bartone, Helen Montgomery $64,338
Bartosik, Jessie Montgomery $45,228
Bartosik, Nicholas Montgomery $41,545
Batcher, Rona Montgomery $8,002
Battisti, Heather Montgomery $26,405
Battisti, Julie Montgomery $28,261
Bauer, Michael Montgomery $31,508
Baumes, Cheryl Montgomery $46,673
Baumes, Robert Montgomery $21,076
Bearcroft, James Montgomery $2,275
Bellamy, Michael Montgomery $44,401
Benjamin, Marsha Montgomery $36,179
Bergen, Robert Montgomery $46,816
Bieniek, Terry Montgomery $17,276
Blair, William Montgomery $22,258
Blender, Brenda Montgomery $26,593
Bly, Roberta Montgomery $28,832
Bobar, Scott Montgomery $11,103
Boice, Richard Montgomery $29,549
Bonafede, Lenard Montgomery $41,385
Bonafede, Thomas Montgomery $28,067
Booth, Andrea Montgomery $25,923
Boswell, Lillian Montgomery $35,370
Bouchard, David Montgomery $32,531
Bowerman, Shawn Montgomery $71,351
Bowman, Judith Montgomery $13,795
Boyd, Jacquelyn Montgomery $25,933
Boyd, Kevin Montgomery $29,441
Boyer, Tami Montgomery $27,568
Bradley, Cindea Montgomery $24,971
Bramer, Delphine Montgomery $24,620
Bramer, Matthew Montgomery $37,849
Briggs, William Montgomery $40,538
Brock Jr, Charles Montgomery $40,026
Brown, Patricia Montgomery $30,813
Brown, Robert Montgomery $37,525
Brownell, Alex Montgomery $2,378
Byrne, Lindsey Montgomery $2,683
Byrne, Shawn Montgomery $36,875
Campion Jr, Edward Montgomery $33,734
Canale, Tanya Montgomery $2,682
Capece, Lauren Montgomery $31,648
Carter, Barbara Montgomery $19,924
Carter, Daniel Montgomery $1,929
Carter, Roger Montgomery $48,251
Carter, Terry Montgomery $48,719
Caska, Bonnie Montgomery $27,790
Casler, Vicki Montgomery $24,620
Chan, Deborah Montgomery $31,271
Chicoski, Rosemarie Montgomery $35,191
Christiano, Richard Montgomery $46,321
Christman, Cindy Montgomery $42,333
Christman, Jennilyn Montgomery $34,931
Claes, Beth Montgomery $46,512
Clapper, Vanessa Montgomery $12,297
Clark, Charles Montgomery $0
Clarke, Janet Montgomery $28,343
Clayburn, Jill Montgomery $24,637
Clayburn, Paul Montgomery $71,805
Clo, John Montgomery $48,094
Close, Dyana Montgomery $38,126
Collins, Claudia Montgomery $43,075
Collins, Kevin Montgomery $41,811
Colon, Jennifer Montgomery $32,518
Conboy, James Montgomery $118,977
Conboy, Kim Montgomery $66,588
Congdon, Melissa Montgomery $32,511
Conrad, Lynda Montgomery $29,983
Cook, Jane Montgomery $26,626
Cotoia, Michael Montgomery $28,469
Cotton, Earl Montgomery $36,538
Cotton, Shawn Montgomery $42,213
Countryman, Dean Montgomery $29,301
Coyne, Kalene Montgomery $29,741
Cramer, Erin Montgomery $34,821
Cranker, Theresa Montgomery $44,514
Cranker, William Montgomery $71,011
Craver, Lawrence Montgomery $28,835
Crewell, Douglas Montgomery $66,080
Crewell, Heather Montgomery $18,149
Crewell, Scott Montgomery $578
Crewell, Stephanie Montgomery $32,238
Crews, Robert Montgomery $35,459
Crosier Jr, Thomas Montgomery $29,586
Culver, Shawn Montgomery $37,904
Czaplinski, Joseph Montgomery $937
Czosnykowski, Alice Montgomery $7,225
Darrach, Melissa Montgomery $43,331
Daw, Paul Montgomery $15,134
De Cusatis, Gerard Montgomery $0
De Pasquale, Christine Montgomery $31,578
Deal, Robert Montgomery $30,479
Dean, Lisa Montgomery $26,574
Del Costello, Michael Montgomery $26,820
Delcostello, Johanna Montgomery $48,790
Dence, Robert Montgomery $37,129
Dewaalmalefyt, Grace Montgomery $47,585
Di Giacomo, Margaret Montgomery $25,986
Di Matteo, Richard Montgomery $28,325
Dingman, Mary Montgomery $34,998
Dingman, Richard Montgomery $31,225
Dobbs, Brittney Montgomery $40,464
Doesburg, Shannon Montgomery $27,053
Dopp, Twila Montgomery $36,000
Dreaney, Nancy Montgomery $24,158
Dumar, Lisa Montgomery $25,184
Dumar, Lynn Montgomery $36,435
Dunston, Donna Montgomery $29,954
Durrin, David Montgomery $35,003
Dutcher, Matthew Montgomery $37,951
Ehrenreich, Tina Montgomery $28,323
Estes, Nancy Montgomery $33,046
Facci-Brahler, Christina Montgomery $21,732
Fadoir, Beverly Montgomery $36,799
Fairley, Robert Montgomery $41,603
Farquhar, Kelly Montgomery $38,594
Fassett Jr, Edward Montgomery $40,253
Fish, Cheryl Montgomery $27,324
Flanders, Jennifer Montgomery $157
Flickinger, Thomas Montgomery $47,399
Florian, Kevin Montgomery $37,257
Florian, Mark Montgomery $40,934
Fonda, Emily Montgomery $18,198
Foote, Martin Montgomery $31,633
Fox, James Montgomery $41,550
Francisco Jr, Vernon Montgomery $45,049
Franko, Michael Montgomery $48,110
Frasier, Sandra Montgomery $31,828
Freeman, Lisa Montgomery $26,514
Fritz, Janet Montgomery $57,237
Fura, Frances Montgomery $25,638
Garafalo, Tabitha Montgomery $37,656
Getman, Kevin Montgomery $28,067
Gilston Jr, William Montgomery $48,191
Giovannone, David Montgomery $27,463
Girard, Eric Montgomery $38,121
Glenn, John Montgomery $4,047
Godlewski, Elizabeth Montgomery $1,030
Gogol, Angela Montgomery $12,406
Gracia, Roberto Montgomery $43,233
Grainer, Joan Montgomery $37,378
Greco, Vito Montgomery $13,901
Greene, Douglas Montgomery $53,421
Guiffre Jr, Joseph Montgomery $42,336
Gumaer, James Montgomery $64,436
Haig, Stephanie Montgomery $26,197
Hamilton, Valerie Montgomery $36,039
Hanson, Diane Montgomery $30,755
Hartman, Susan Montgomery $27,568
Haver, Wanda Montgomery $24,218
Heaton, Dennis Montgomery $4,124
Hendricks, Robert Montgomery $42,739
Hennessy, Nancy Montgomery $42,217
Hernigle, Randy Montgomery $30,370
Hernigle, Ryan Montgomery $42,894
Hernigle, William Montgomery $32,298
Hicks, Bruce Montgomery $171
Hitchcock, Mark Montgomery $4,088
Hitchcock, Robin Montgomery $42
Hoffman, Mark Montgomery $28,049
Hogan-Wilmot, A Montgomery $35,314
Honeywell Jr, George Montgomery $34,973
Hornbeck, Jolene Montgomery $25,761
Hotaling, Linda Montgomery $25,234
Houle, Adam Montgomery $26,097
Humphreys, Deborah Montgomery $30,809
Huxhold, Cheryl Montgomery $2,118
Iannotti, Mary Montgomery $15,949
Insogna, Richard Montgomery $23,697
Iwanski, Teri Montgomery $869
Jackson, Janine Montgomery $14,048
Jajoor, Nagaraj Montgomery $170,024
Jewell, Caroline Montgomery $33,106
Johnson, Barbara Montgomery $9,931
Johnson, Kathy Montgomery $24,909
Johnson, Lisa Montgomery $25,203
Johnson, Natalie Montgomery $2,246
Kamp, Bonnie Montgomery $30,901
Kamp, David Montgomery $7,143
Kane Jr, Richard Montgomery $36,868
Karp, Cynthia Montgomery $32,173
Kayhart, Angela Montgomery $27,656
Kearns, Brian Montgomery $33,786
Kilmartin, Joseph Montgomery $44,040
Kilmartin, Ruth Montgomery $25,638
Kilmartin, Tracey Montgomery $15,736
King, Patricia Montgomery $3,632
Klausner, Theresa Montgomery $44,338
Kling, Faye Montgomery $30,778
Kling, Neal Montgomery $34,452
Koval, Carolyn Montgomery $30,809
Krajcir, Erin Montgomery $27,843
Krajewski, Charles Montgomery $39,367
Kretser, Chad Montgomery $1,288
Krug, Erik Montgomery $32,166
Krug, Paul Montgomery $44,546
Kruger, Lawrence Montgomery $45,327
Kruger, Robert Montgomery $40,056
Kulpa, Charles Montgomery $46,221
Kwiatkowski, Candus Montgomery $48,623
La Comb, Ellen Montgomery $42,055
La Coppola, Kimberley Montgomery $29,609
La Coppola, Wayne Montgomery $25,964
La Grange, Margaret Montgomery $39,500
Labarge, Lawrence Montgomery $34,752
Ladd, Pamela Montgomery $47,796
Landon, Douglas Montgomery $53,623
Lanphere, Karla Montgomery $5,861
Larman, Lynn Montgomery $44,240
Lasher, Michele Montgomery $25,638
Lasher, Shawnee Montgomery $44,582
Leggiero, George Montgomery $31,058
Lennon, Cynthia Montgomery $52,626
Lennon, Robert Montgomery $48,264
Leonard, Jennifer Montgomery $9,461
Lewis, Michael Montgomery $51,017
Licardo, Ryan Montgomery $38,756
Licciardi, Ann Montgomery $30,551
Licciardi, Christopher Montgomery $25,867
Logan, Lisa Montgomery $26,652
Lorman, Lisa Montgomery $52,758
Lorman, William Montgomery $28,572
Loske, Robin Montgomery $8,698

Agresta, Anthony J Amsterdam $57,527
Alibozek, Frank J Amsterdam $63,670
Alukonis, Chad J Amsterdam $59,131
Bardascini, David Amsterdam $60,129
Belli, Nicola Amsterdam $66,859
Brooks Jr, Kenneth Amsterdam $38,532
Brownell, Thomas Amsterdam $107,952
Castler, Andrew L Amsterdam $61,563
Cole, Michael C Amsterdam $64,107
Conroy, Kurt J Amsterdam $62,430
Culick, Gregory J Amsterdam $85,038
Czeski, Timothy J Amsterdam $55,069
Daw, Paul A Amsterdam $52,075
De Pasquale, Richard P Amsterdam $71,803
Del Costello, Michael J Amsterdam $48,983
Demars, Michael J Amsterdam $52,107
Depasquale, Michael J Amsterdam $65,509
Di Caprio, John F Amsterdam $63,543
Di Caprio, Thomas J Amsterdam $60,851
Dimezza, Thomas T Amsterdam $95,176
Drake, Alan M Amsterdam $10,738
Fiorillo, Aurelio J Amsterdam $55,584
Fritz III, Joseph C Amsterdam $50,111
Fuhs, Owen L Amsterdam $86,795
Gifford, Jacob A Amsterdam $54,493
Hazzard, Jeffrey W Amsterdam $52,715
Hennessy, Thomas L Amsterdam $68,388
Hotaling, Christopher J Amsterdam $49,848
Houlihan, Paul F Amsterdam $54,312
Hugo Jr, Victor E Amsterdam $94,581
Husted, Ronald R Amsterdam $58,506
Jablonski, Ronald L Amsterdam $61,844
Janetsky, Jamie J Amsterdam $5,994
Kercado, Alberto Amsterdam $100,624
Kercado, Angelita Amsterdam $61,422
Krygowski, Robert J Amsterdam $51,600
Liberti, Richard A Amsterdam $81,523
Lozier, Jeffrey R Amsterdam $58,408
Martin, Walter Amsterdam $70,678
Martuscello Sr, Michael J Amsterdam $60,339
Mc Namara, Peter J Amsterdam $74,989
Megna, Salvatore G Amsterdam $70,214
Miller, Patrick C Amsterdam $102,668
Miller, Timothy J Amsterdam $38,669
Nethaway, Thomas L Amsterdam $57,662
Ortiz, Eduardo Amsterdam $34,092
Palmerino, Joseph H Amsterdam $63,125
Palmieri, Dean A Amsterdam $98,536
Paris, John T Amsterdam $63,696
Pasquarelli Jr, Thomas P Amsterdam $48,142
Pasquarelli, Stephen B Amsterdam $60,342
Perfetti, Mark A Amsterdam $56,078
Pratt, Leon S Amsterdam $68,779
Rhodes, David R Amsterdam $54,966
Richardson, Robert Amsterdam $69,085
Robinson, Aaron L Amsterdam $45,937
Rust, Carl J Amsterdam $90,427
Ryder, Stephen E Amsterdam $62,265
Santiago, Ariel Amsterdam $67,198
Santiago, Elmer L Amsterdam $54,846
Shang III, Robert J Amsterdam $52,927
Siudy, James M Amsterdam $50,566
Soper, Daniel P Amsterdam $31,807
Spaulding, Amanda M Amsterdam $49,737
Stark, Todd J Amsterdam $50,197
Thomas, John J Amsterdam $62,976
Urbanczyk, Jeffery P Amsterdam $57,570
Walters, Kirk S Amsterdam $70,533
Whitty, Michael T Amsterdam $73,981
Yager, Christopher G Amsterdam $51,037
Yates, Peter J Amsterdam $53,163

Copyright © 2008 by The Empire Center

Aguero, Luis A Amsterdam $49,627
Aldi, Richard L Amsterdam $34,299
Aldi, Thomas A Amsterdam $8,033
Alibozek, Susan M Amsterdam $35,848
Altieri III, Richard A Amsterdam $35,595
Angelo, Joseph T Amsterdam $13,012
Baia, Joseph A Amsterdam $39,892
Barkevich, Keith B Amsterdam $44,710
Blakely, Brian J Amsterdam $43,496
Blankenbaker, Michael A Amsterdam $41,363
Bogantes, Jose A Amsterdam $41,664
Bracchi, Philip R Amsterdam $47,824
Bray, Kenneth L Amsterdam $51,142
Brumley, Kim M Amsterdam $4,583
Bubniak, Donald J Amsterdam $41,164
Burroughs Jr, Richard D Amsterdam $36,384
Burroughs, Richard D Amsterdam $39,464
Busseno Jr, Warren A Amsterdam $48,723
Capel, Elizabeth A Amsterdam $29,377
Carriola, Sandra J Amsterdam $40,660
Cebula, David J Amsterdam $36,664
Chiariello, Joy L Amsterdam $10,463
Chirico, William A Amsterdam $38,161
Chrzanowski, Zackery A Amsterdam $31,632
Cislo, Michael J Amsterdam $44,122
Clemons Jr, Richard Amsterdam $39,592
Cline, Calvin N Amsterdam $20,519
Clymer, Clyde L Amsterdam $31,350
Colon, Modesto Amsterdam $38,909
Crisalli Jr, James J Amsterdam $41,456
Cuddy, John F Amsterdam $40,139
Damico, Marie D Amsterdam $2,021
Davis, Bryan T Amsterdam $39,102
De Cusatis, Gerard C Amsterdam $57,529
De John, Carol A Amsterdam $31,987
De Palma, Robin L Amsterdam $28,531
Delsanto, Michael A Amsterdam $55,144
Derrick, James W Amsterdam $43,873
Dietrich, Paul M Amsterdam $16,418
Discenza, Robert L Amsterdam $45,825
Du Fresne, Timothy W Amsterdam $37,374
Dufresne, Sean W Amsterdam $39,183
Dybas, Paul J Amsterdam $55,552
Dybas, Robert J Amsterdam $50,974
Edes, William M Amsterdam $37,811
Farrell, Carla M Amsterdam $13,177
Folensbee, Richard T Amsterdam $50,709
Gardinier, Randy R Amsterdam $41,717
Garrison, Michael S Amsterdam $53,946
Gwozdz, Matthew M Amsterdam $32,014
Halgas, Raymond J Amsterdam $69,823
Harnish, Erwin R Amsterdam $48,960
Hidde, Frederick G Amsterdam $46,434
Hirschfeld, Gordon Amsterdam $45,407
Iannotti, Alfred J Amsterdam $49,479
Iannotti, Carol A Amsterdam $32,600
Iannotti, John A Amsterdam $42,275
Kielbasa, Ernest J Amsterdam $30,020
Kielbasa, Joseph M Amsterdam $55,785
Kozlowski, Gary J Amsterdam $51,212
Krutz, Lynn M Amsterdam $35,626
Labate, David T Amsterdam $43,928
Lamori, Bonita L Amsterdam $23,047
Lasky, Louis F Amsterdam $36,959
Leggiero, Anthony D Amsterdam $38,426
Leggiero, James G Amsterdam $39,966
Leggiero, Mark J Amsterdam $39,664
Lewis, Michael S Amsterdam $20,713
Loucks Jr, John D Amsterdam $44,558
Ludwin, Jason A Amsterdam $38,272
Manginelli, William J Amsterdam $40,171
Marcellino, Kit J Amsterdam $33,789
Marciniak, Michael A Amsterdam $44,753
Marciniak, Robert J Amsterdam $27,509
Marotta, Danielle M Amsterdam $28,296
Marotta, Elizabeth M Amsterdam $29,417
Marzio, Mattia Amsterdam $30,405
Mayo, Carl J Amsterdam $31,900
Mc Quade, Thomas Amsterdam $50,309
McManara, Kevin J Amsterdam $13,106
McMartin, James F Amsterdam $40,061
Mercadante, Joel M Amsterdam $35,253
Nunez, Pedro Amsterdam $37,234
O’Brien, Thomas J Amsterdam $36,698
Parillo, Michael J Amsterdam $45,419
Partyka, Barbara A Amsterdam $13,274
Phelps, Ann C Amsterdam $46,652
Phillips, Richard W Amsterdam $57,846
Podolec, Mary E Amsterdam $23,249
Poremba, John L Amsterdam $43,152
Quist, Frederick H Amsterdam $43,526
Raila, Bruce E Amsterdam $47,138
Reynicke, Heather E Amsterdam $55,000
Rusnica, Rosanne Amsterdam $39,546
Ryba, Michael C Amsterdam $61,588
Sala, Barbara L Amsterdam $35,585
Salamack, Robert A Amsterdam $47,749
Sawitzki, Gregor P Amsterdam $50,397
Schuyler, Richard H Amsterdam $25,668
Schwab, William J Amsterdam $38,203
Scott, Cheryl A Amsterdam $36,703
Scott, Gregory A Amsterdam $48,819
Sheckton, Anthony Amsterdam $38,420
Sherman, Lance H Amsterdam $41,892
Smitka, James S Amsterdam $44,181
Spagnola, Robert A Amsterdam $36,899
Szala, Michelle L Amsterdam $29,734
Thane, Ann M Amsterdam $55,000
Toro, Radames Amsterdam $35,739
Waldynski, Michael R Amsterdam $49,710
Walega, Sharon A Amsterdam $13,456
Wessell, Eric S Amsterdam $33,869
Williams, Russell J Amsterdam $39,487
Wills, William D Amsterdam $4,583
Young, Thomas E Amsterdam $13,885

The names and salaries of more than 179,000 people who worked for New York’s county, city, town and village governments in 2008-09 were posted today in a searchable database at www.SeeThroughNY.net, the transparency website sponsored by the Manhattan Institute’s Empire Center for New York State Policy.

In announcing the database addition, the Empire Center also released a report summarizing average wages on a regional basis for each of the 1,512 government jurisdictions contained in the database, which was gleaned from reports filed with the state pension system. Some highlights:

County and municipal salaries during the period totaled just over $9 billion.

The highest paid municipal employee in the state in 2008-09 was Thomas Purtill, a now-retired Town of Clarkstown police captain who earned a total of $543,416.

Out of 3,800 individuals whose name appeared on multiple payrolls during the year, the individual with the most numerous employers was Raynor Duncombe, who earned $37,492 as a part-time attorney for 11 Schoharie County jurisdictions.

One individual who appeared on both the “highest-paid” and “multiple employers” list was Michael J. Bollender, who collected a total of $227,285 in salaries while working for six different western New York towns and villages.

The highest average salary for any group–$160,173—was reported for the six officers employed by the tiny Village of Kensington on Long Island. Among larger employers, the town of Clarkstown paid its 172 cops a state-leading average of $151,694. Six-figure average salaries were the norm for local police and firefighters throughout Long Island and the lower Mid-Hudson region.

For general employees outside the police and fire pension systems, the top average salary of $71,675 was paid by the Village of Sands Point.

Among counties, Westchester general employees were paid the highest statewide average salary at $70,963. Among cities, Yonkers topped the statewide list at $71,675. And among towns, the statewide leader was yet another Westchester jurisdiction – New Castle, at $68,960.

The database consists of full-time and part-time workers, including employees who left or retired during the fiscal year, and employees hired during the year. Salary totals include overtime and pay for unused sick and vacation time.

The SeeThroughNY website also offers searchable payroll databases, with search results downloadable in spreadsheet form, for all state agencies and public authorities; the City of New York; and teachers and administrators in all school districts outside New York. Other government databases at SeeThroughNY include teachers’ union contracts and schools superintendent employment contracts for all school districts; bi-annual legislative office expenditures; legislative “member item” pork barrel spending; and links to other government and private databases.

When professionals attack what I write, they always attack in pairs. That happened when two “reverends” attacked me after an article I wrote, and it happened again today, when two plastic surgeons from Schenectady attacked me about an opinion piece I had in the Gazette a few weeks ago.

For those of you who do not subscribe to the Gazette, here is what I wrote:

While I sometimes sympathize with people who have run afoul of the law, I have no sympathy for Albany-based The Plastic Surgery Group, its surgeons and other employees who pleaded guilty to misleading patients by using a Botox substitute, all while the patients thought they were getting the real thing.

On the other hand, I have little sympathy for most of the 151 patients who were misled but not injured by the substitute. I say most of the patients, because some people are treated with Botox for medical problems like uncontrollable blinking, misaligned eyes and cervical dystonia, a condition that causes severe contractions of neck and shoulder muscles.

I don’t have a problem with the use of Botox for medical conditions. It’s using Botox for the temporary removal of wrinkles that I find troubling. Indeed, the whole concept of cosmetic plastic surgery for staving off the effects of old age is repugnant.

Obviously, in America people have the right to spend their money anyway they chose, but that doesn’t mean that I have to like it or keep quiet about it. It used to be that only Hollywood stars had cosmetic surgery, but now middle-class John and Jane Doe from Clifton Park, Schenectady and all across America are getting their tummies tucked, faces lifted, flat chests pumped up, sagging butts lifted, pecs augmented and wrinkles ironed out.

Life has plowed several furrows across my brow. When I see them in the mirror, it is a reminder that I am getting old. Who wants to be reminded that they are getting old, especially when what comes next is, is . . . uh . . . uh passing over, uh . . . uh passing away . . . uh — death?

There I said it — the “D” word. The word no one wants to hear about or talk about anymore, to the point that some housing developments have replaced “Dead End” signs with signs that say no outlet.

Of course, I am all for people getting reconstructive and cosmetic surgery if they have been burned, have a birth defect or some medical condition. But that’s not why most people are getting plastic surgery. Most Americans are going to plastic surgeons because they are running as fast as they can away from old age. And they equally fear the sounds of the hounds of hell that come with it — the sound of a skeleton in a black, hooded robe, reaping wheat.

While desperate housewives in America are getting mommy makeovers, thousands of Africans wait helplessly for plastic surgery to deal with real problems like cleft palates, genital mutilation, effects of the tropical flesh-eating disease Buruli Ulcer, effects of the sun on millions of African albinos, and so on.

The nation of Ghana did not even have a plastic surgery facility until 1997. While the need for plastic surgery in nations like Ghana is greater than that of Western nations, Ghana still has only a tiny percentage of the plastic surgery providers that nations like the UK and the United States have.

The International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons has 210 members from the United States. The number of African members is 34, and they are all from South Africa. And South Africa is the only African nation that the society maintains statistics on.

Even though we were in a recession in 2008, the number of cosmetic surgeries in the United States increased. Plastic surgeons performed 12.1 million cosmetic procedures in 2008 and 4.9 million reconstructive procedures. Americans spent $10.3 billion on cosmetic procedures in 2008, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Five million Americans had Botox treatments. 307,000 women had their breasts augmented while 75,000 men had their noses reshaped.

I have read many stories about cosmetic surgery. In these stories, patients often state how much plastic surgery improved their self-esteem. But how long will that last? You can’t stave off the effects of old age forever. Might better spend your time and money volunteering to help Africans who really need plastic surgery. Your self-esteem will get lifted higher than your augmented buttocks and it will stay up longer.

Most people need a new attitude more than they need cosmetic surgery. They need to change their prejudices about aging and deal with their fear of aging and death.

And I can think of no better punishment for the Albany Plastic Surgery Group than being required to go to Ghana or some other Third World nation and perform reconstructive surgery on children with cleft palates or on albinos ravaged by the sun because they lack melanin in their bodies. Not only would they change lives, but I have no doubt they would be changed in turn.

Here are a couple of select quotes from the doctors’ letter:

A recent ASPS (American Society of Plastic Surgeons) study interviewed 756 women, aged 18-64 years — hardly a group staving off the grim reaper. The results showed cosmetic surgery to be important in their careers, helping them be more confident and more competitive in the job market and increasing their perceived value in the workplace. Numerous studies have demonstrated the value of appearance in getting hired, getting a promotion, or getting new clients in business. These perceptions are not myths.

Mr. Weaver, describing cosmetic surgery as a frivolous effort to stave off aging and passing judgment on those who care about their appearance, should move away from his Victorian morality. He demonstrates his ignorance of world history and the impact of the striving for beauty as women have left the farm and moved into the boardroom.

And here is what I wrote in response to their letter:

The response by Drs. Fox and Schingo to my article on plastic surgery is disappointing considering their level of education.

1. I made it clear in my article that I was not opposed to all plastic surgery, including the use of Botox.

2. My attitude has nothing to do with Victorian morality. It has to do with the concept that we need to learn to accept who we are without the need for unnecessary cosmetic surgery. Therapy, service to others, a life fulfilled by vocation and family can improve a person’s self esteem in longer lasting ways than plastic surgery can. Many of the most succesful men and women in America would need plastic surgery by most plastic surgeon’s standards (think Janet Reno, think Lyndon Johnson). Amazingly, they find that there are deeper wells to draw one’s self confidence from than one that’s filled with Botox.

3. The letter did not respond to one of the most important parts of my article–the desperate need for plastic surgery in Africa and other third world countries for adults and children with cleft palates and other serious issues.

4. The letter is self serving in that both doctors who penned it are plastic surgeons.

5. It is disappointing to see doctors promoting plastic surgery as a way for woman and men to increase their self esteem. This is especially true in the case of women, as there is already an undue emphasis in America on valuing women by their looks and body shape. My article discussed the use of cosmetic surgery by both men and women. The Drs. letter makes it sound like I was attacking only women who go for plastic surgery. I wasn’t. The fact that more women go for plastic surgery than men, doesn’t say as much about those women as it does about the way our society views women. Women should not be viewed as objects. Fox and Schingo apparently think they should.

And that my dear physicians is a Victorian attitude!!

The fact is that Doctor Fox and Doctor Schingo might be helping some men and women improve their self esteem. By doing that, however, they may very well be hurting the self esteem of millions of us, who no matter how much bondo you use to fill in our dents, no matter how hard you try to hammer our bodies into shape, we will never be like the people Fox and Schingo picture on their website.

Doctor Fox and Doctor Schingo are also exacerbating the problem that we already have, especially among women and girls but not exclusively confined to them, that you are worthless if your face and body shape aren’t just right.

Dr. Taub was closer to the truth than either Fox or Schingo when he said he left cosmetic surgery to join House because he wanted to do something substantial with his life.

The doctors can sputter with indignation all the way to the bank — which was most likely their goal when they went into cosmetic surgery in the first place.