Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Wright is Wrong: The Daily News

Manhattan Democratic leader Keith Wright shouldn't play games with judgeships

N.Y. Daily News editorial, Wednesday, September 28th, 2011

Democratic leader Keith Wright's handling of judge appointments undermines confidence in the quality of the city's judiciary.

Manhattan Democratic leader Keith Wright has begun to play faster and looser with picks for judgeships. He needs to hold to standards that have enabled his organization to boast it had found the way to infuse patronage with quality.

Democrats in the other boroughs are more, uh, relaxed than their counterparts in Manhattan about installing friends, family and party faithful on the bench through uncontested elections. The only real check on whether a lawyer has what it takes to be a judge is a nod from the boss.

In contrast, the Manhattan Dems have required would-be jurists to be stamped as qualified by independent screening committees. The party has followed the practice of inviting nonpolitical bar associations, lawyers' groups and law school deans to recommend panelists who would pass judgment on whether candidates for the bench made the grade.

Committee members have operated in private and under the direction of a nonpolitical administrator. The party has also made public the names and sponsoring groups of all panelists.

Wright doubles as a Harlem assemblyman. Now in his second year as Manhattan Democratic chairman, he chipped away at the process as the party picked five Supreme Court candidates for election in November.

Wright's administrator sat in on all the interviews and asked questions. Wright also declined to make public the names of screeners and their appointing groups, releasing only their illegible signatures under the list of approved candidates.

That kind of game-playing will only undermine confidence in the quality of the city's judiciary.

How A Brooklyn Democratic Functionary Becomes A Brooklyn Judge

City Hall News prints an article from "The New York World," a Col. U. "J" School project. A good read.
September 27, 2011

Carl Landicino wiped a bead of sweat from his head as he emerged from a small room into Founders Hall at St. Francis College in Brooklyn Heights to wave to 117 Democratic judicial delegates. The leadership of the Kings County Democratic Party was there last Thursday, including party leader Assemblyman Vito Lopez perched five rows from the back, shrouded in darkness.

Landicino beamed. As he raised his hand, delegates cheered and whistled. It was a rock star welcome for the civil lawyer: Brooklyn Democrats had just nominated him to be one of their six candidates on the November ballot to become a State Supreme Court judge.

“I have a lot of people to thank for getting me here today,” he said, hands gripping the podium. “I would especially like to thank the great Vito Lopez, without whose guidance I would not be where I am today.”

Lawyers and lower court judges seek out the 14-year judgeships, which pay $136,700 annually and preside over non-criminal cases ranging from slip-and-fall lawsuits to home foreclosures. The positions mostly go to those who play by party rules and have done their time in family, housing or civil court.

But Landicino jumped the line.

For five years, Landicino, who declined to comment for this story, has been attorney for the Kings County Democratic Party. And over the last 12 years he has made a career out of suing would-be challengers to the Brooklyn Democrats’ favored nominees for legislative and other elected seats.

He has knocked them off primary election ballots for infractions as tiny as a candidate referring to himself as a “state committee member” instead of district leader – titles that are interchangeable in other New York counties.

“He’s a great lawyer and you can’t deny that,” said Jacob Gold, a district leader from Flatbush. “This is his reward for putting in so much hard work.”

Lopez agreed. “His credentials are impeccable,” the party leader said after the meeting.

Manhattan attorney Matthew Cowherd, 35, has a darker view of Landicino’s accomplishments. He tried to run on a slate of insurgent candidates in Lopez’ Assembly district in Bushwick last year. Two months before the primary, Landicino filed a complaint with the state Board of Elections seeking to eject Cowherd and the others from the ballot, alleging fraud.

During a five-day trial, Landicino called in some of Cowherd’s petition-signers, who were public housing residents. Cowherd claims Landicino coached one of his witnesses to lie about the sex of one of the people soliciting signatures. Judge Caroline Demarest found the witnesses’ evidence to be unreliable.

“She admitted, during cross examination, that two men told her to say that she signed the petition for a man rather than a woman,” Demarest wrote. Landicino lost the case, and Cowherd and the others were allowed to run against Lopez – though they lost.

“That was enough for me,” Cowherd said. “The methods that Landicino employed were dirty tactics at best, and unethical or illegal at worst.”

In a tight-knit party organization, Gold and Lopez are not alone in seeing judicial nominations as prizes to be earned for loyal service to the party. Nearly 70 percent of registered voters in Brooklyn are Democrats, so whoever wins the nomination usually claims the seat.

But Landicino’s long record as what party dissenters call an “attack dog” for Lopez makes his nomination a bold example of the power of county organizations to fill the bench with judges whose top qualification is party loyalty.

“The issue is that party bosses still have the power to exclude qualified persons from the [ballot] line itself,” said James Sample, an attorney who served in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice and has sued unsuccessfully to reform New York’s judicial selection process. “Rest assured the bosses use that power for patronage at expense of quality.

“Whoever controls the judicial convention controls everything.”

Lopez vehemently defended the process, saying Brooklyn’s judicial delegates are a diverse group that produces a Kings County bench with a substantial number of African-American and female judges.

“In that room, 65 percent were from minority backgrounds, and 75 percent were women. If we went through any other process, we wouldn’t have that,” he said. “Compared to the appointment system where Manhattan law firms don’t often have the sensitivity and concern for diversity, our convention is very fair and very open.”

He insisted: “This is anti-Tammany Hall.”

Yet the Brooklyn Democrats’ annual judicial convention runs like a machine. From a distance the proceedings look like democracy in action, as district leaders select delegates, delegates vote for the six judicial slots and murmurs of disagreement echo in the hall. But it’s a staged proceeding: The delegates read their nominations from prepared scripts.

That’s because Brooklyn’s Democratic district leaders – the most local of elected positions – have already decided on their nominees, meeting in secret the night before to offer their favorite candidates a position on the November ballot.

“Does everyone get what they want in democracy? No,” said Lopez. “Was it smooth? Yes.”

Landicino is a civil lawyer who lives in Westchester County but has roots in Canarsie, the base of the once-powerful Thomas Jefferson Democratic Club. His practice is not limited to election law: When Supreme Court Justice Jack Battaglia slipped on a wet spot in the Kings County courthouse and sought a million-dollar judgment against the City of Brooklyn, Landicino represented him and reached a settlement with court administrators.

His firm, Borchert, Genovesi, LaSpina & Landicino, acts on behalf of banks in foreclosure cases. Gregory LaSpina, a partner, is also a court-appointed receiver for financially troubled Brooklyn real estate, bringing in at least $40,000 a year in fees.

Yet Landicino and his colleagues stand out for their work knocking would-be challengers off Brooklyn Democratic ballots. Last year alone, Landicino signed off on more than 20 cases against candidates he accused of faking names and addresses on their petitions or falling short of the required number of signatures.

Opposing candidates tell of being disqualified over minor technicalities. Tony Herbert was disqualified because he failed to have the correct seal on his cover sheet. Another candidate was struck in an argument over his residential address. Yet another fell off the ballot because he had anglicized the spelling of his Russian name on his publicity material.

Jeannie May, 57, a registered nurse, ran for district leader in the 46th Assembly District in 2008. May had no political training or connections. She knew that by running against a pre-selected Democratic candidate she would have a challenge on her hands.

“I didn’t expect the bullying and intimidation though,” she said. “When I was served papers by three heavy, muscular men in black shirts, I knew this was serious.”

May was knocked off the ballot, allowing Dilia Schack – the wife of Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Arthur Schack – to win the seat unopposed. Landicino wasn’t officially the attorney behind it, but May said he attended every proceeding and sat next to the lawyer who was supposedly running the case.

“He was obviously the puppet master,” May said. “On every move.”

This article was written by Alice Brennan at The New York World, an accountability journalism project covering city and state government, based at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.


Bad Journalism (September 28, 2011) says:

Last time I checked Matt Cowherd never ran for District Leader. This story sounds like a hit piece on the Brooklyn Democratic Party. Its such a bad story. I love some of the phrases nevertheless: “men in muscles”, “puppet master”, “shrouded in darkness”. Implicitly prejudice and biased reporting. Shame on the Columbia School of Journalism for such bad reporting.

Moreover, how come the article doesn’t mention the irony of Judge Demarest’s ruling on the case that is mentioned. Esteban Duran was in fact the District Leader candidate in 2010 that is mentioned in this article. And who was he running against? Vito Lopez. And that the Judge is a friend of JoAnn Simon (a District leader), who ran for City Council against Steve Levin (Vito Lopez’ former Chief of Staff) in 2009. And that in 2010 when Hope Reichbach ran against JoAnn Simon for District Leader, Judge Demarest’s daughter wrote a letter urging neighbors to vote for JoAnn Simon. The younger Demarest also happened to be working for then-AG Andrew Cuomo at the time and the older Demarest was appointed to the bench by Daddy Cuomo (former Governor Mario Cuomo).

Alan Flacks (September 28, 2011) says:

“Bad Journalism” tells it “like it is.”

Monday, September 26, 2011

How Tammany Holds Power

As we mourn the death of former county law chair Justice Feldman, you might be fascinated by this article he published in 1950. It gives some insight to the organization of the Democratic Party in Manhattan sixty years ago.

Some of the abuses that Justin Feldman described were abolished in the 1950s by legislation that required the direct election of district leaders and limited the number of county committee members from any election district. Other abuses were not abolished until the election of Ed Costikyan as County Leader in 1961 (who appointed Justin Feldman as Law Chair) and in 1977 when Miriam Bockman was elected County Leader and the County Committee adopted the revised rules that remain in effect today.
---Douglas A. Kellner

39 National Municipal Review 330 (1950):
Democratic machine can smother all opposition because New York primary laws permit a party to make its own rules.

TAMMANY Hall may consider the New York primary law a nuisance but never an obstacle. The long cherished hopes of Charles Evans Hughes which eventually developed into New York State's primary election system have been completely frustrated by failure of the law to prescribe rules for the internal management of political parties.

How does the notorious Tammany Hall organization operate to perpetuate its control of the party's machinery despite a direct primary law. It should be made perfectly clear at the outset that, while this story deals with the Democratic party organization on Manhattan Island (New York County), the techniques described and, yes, even some of the incidents, are often duplicated in the Republican party.

Tammany Hall is the popular name for the executive committee organization in Manhattan. Once the dominant influence over the party organization in the entire city, Tammany has lost much of its power in recent years because of its failure to offer any real service to the voters, its loss of contact with the average Democratic voter for whom it presumes to speak, the emergence in the other counties within the city of strong leaders, such as Ed Flynn in the Bronx, and the vehement denunciations it has had to withstand from many respected citizens.

Still, it is Tammany Hall which, by controlling the party machinery, designates the party's candidates for public office. It is Tammany which sends large delegations to the all- important state and national nominating conventions. It is Tammany which dispenses whatever city, state and federal patronage falls to the Democrats. And it is Tammany which, under the election law, is authorized to make the rules by which the party in Manhattan is governed.

In Manhattan the Democratic vote regularly exceeds that of the Republican party. In most areas of the island a victory in the Democratic primary is tantamount to election. As less than 10 per cent of the Democrats in any given area of Manhattan ever vote in even the most hotly contested primary, Tam- many, capitalizing on apathy, on its control of the machinery and on the obstacles it knows how to put in the way of insurgents, rules the roost.

Manhattan has sixteen assembly districts, each of which elects a representative to the lower house of the legislature. Each assembly district is divided into election districts (voting precincts) on the basis of the number of registered voters in the area. The number of election districts varies from 28 in the fourteenth assembly district to 105 in the fifth. The boundaries of the various assembly districts and of the election districts are set by the city council, which is commonly controlled by the Democratic party, and Tammany can thereby gerrymander the boundaries to suit its own convenience.

District Leaders

Each of Manhattan's sixteen assembly districts has one vote in the party's executive committee and is represented there by at least one district leader and a woman co-leader, sometimes more. The co-leader is entitled to divide the district's vote and cast her portion as she likes but by force of long tradition she usually remains in the background and exercises her vote in accordance with the wishes of her leader. The value of the district's vote on this executive committee depends further upon the number of leaders there are from that particular district. For the number of leaders and co-leaders who will be recognized and entitled to sit on this party executive committee with fractional votes is determined, not by statute or by the enrolled Democrats or by the geographical size or party registration of the assembly district, but by the whim or the carefully calculated design of the executive committee itself.

Most of the assembly districts in Manhattan have thus been carefully subdivided by the executive committee to the advantage of its veteran members. An assembly district may be represented on the executive committee or "in the hall" by two, three or even seven district leaders and an equal number of co-leaders. The assembly district in which I reside, for example, has seven leaders and seven co-leaders on the Tammany executive committee; each of these leaders and co- leaders is entitled to I/ 14th of a vote.

The leader is an extremely important person. Aside from his countywide power as a member of "the hall," he helps control nominations in "his" county subdivisions which elect assemblymen, state senators, congressmen and certain judges.

But how is this key leader (executive committee member) chosen? In other counties of greater New York, Democratic district leaders are elected by the voters direct; likewise in other parties. But to make boss control of the party easier in Manhattan, the leader is not voted for in a party primary directly by the voters but is selected by the members of the county committee in his portion of the assembly district.

Now, let's look at this county committee. It is a massive barrier. By state law two county committeemen must be elected from each little election district. The party may by its rules provide such additional memberships on the county committee as its chairman deems desirable, so long as the additional membership for each election district is kept in proportion to the party vote for governor in the last gubernatorial race. So each election district in Manhattan elects some ten to twenty committeemen. The number of committeemen in each assembly district consequently comes to 1,125 or more! Most of the members of the county committee are friends and relatives of the party's election district captains (whom the leader appoints) and don't even know they are on the committee, much less what its function and power may be.

Railroaded Action

In calling a meeting of the county committee members in his part of the assembly district, it is not uncommon for the leader to notify only those persons whom he knows to be friendly. Tammany Hall appoints the temporary chairman and secretary of the meeting. A script is prepared in advance and distributed to the "actors" who have been given particular parts for the evening. The chairman, working from a copy of his script, will only recognize those persons whose names appear on it although scores of other voters howl concertedly for a chance to speak or nominate. Often the meetings are held on the street. A truck is backed up in front of the local district club house. Passers-by are treated to a routine bit of mumbo-jumbo from the chairman on the truck. The stalwart Tammany committeemen who are present rubberstamp the top command's choice for leader. Who can prove that there, in the open air, no quorum of county committeemen was present? The whole county has about 20,000 county committeemen. Except for one occasion in 1933, however, no meeting of the entire county committee has ever been attended by more than 500 persons.

An insurgent seeking to elect sufficient county committeemen pledged to support him for leader has an almost insuperable task confronting him.

He must print and circulate nominating petitions bearing the names of a different slate of county committeemen for each little election district. If a name is misspelled on the petition, or if the signer uses- an initial in signing instead of his full given name, or if the color of the petition differs in tint from the prescribed shade, or if the petition sheet uses an abbreviation in the name of an avenue or street, or if any one of several hundred pitfalls which have been read into the direct primary law are not avoided, the petitions will be whittled down and voided by the Board of Elections.

Under New York State law the Board of Elections is composed of four commissioners, two designated by the Democratic executive committees for the counties of New York and Kings (Brooklyn) and two by the Republicans. In all internal fights whereby the control of the dominant factions of the "regular" organizations are threatened, one hand very definitely washes the other.

If the insurgent candidate for leader succeeds nevertheless in getting his slates on the ballots, he must deal with the further difficulty that his name does not appear anywhere on the ballots, and the task of informing even an aroused electorate, so that they may pick out his ten or twenty supporters on the primary ballot, is extremely difficult.

Now, assume if you can that you have succeeded in electing a majority of the county committee in your bailiwick! Isn't that enough? Won't your candidate then be duly elected by the committeemen who have thus been pledged to vote for him? Surely if Tammany in calling the meeting has notified all of the persons entitled to attend, and if the persons whom you have elected attend, and if the Tammany-appointed chairman of the meeting acts fairly, and if the Tammany-appointed secretary of the meeting counts the votes accurately, and if the police re- pulse Tammany attempts to pack the meeting, you will elect the district leader? Oh, no! Not so simple! There are many other obstacles which Tammany may put in your way. They may do any of the following under the rules they have set up since the law empowers them to concoct their own rules:

You Can't Win!

Suppose you run a candidate for district leader in an assembly district which contains 99 election districts. There have always been three leaders in that district and the fellow you are anxious to oust is in charge of election districts one through 33. You file your petitions for those districts. You elect your slates for county committeemen in twenty of the 33 districts and are feeling pretty secure about the prospective meeting of the county committeemen when called to select the leader.

Tammany, however, has the right to decide after the primary that the man you opposed will now govern only thirteen safe districts and the remaining twenty, wherein you were successful, will be added to the territory of the fellow who previously had the 33 adjoining election districts numbered 34 to 66. You now control only twenty districts out of the revised group of 53.

Under Tammany rules, the executive committee that is, the other leaders may sit as judge of the qualifications of its own members and may veto the choice made by the county committeemen and substitute a man of their own selection. And this decision, again under the rules, may be made by the outgoing executive committee on which the leader you opposed is entitled to vote.

But this is not all. They have other devices! In 1947 a group of Democrats in the fifteenth assembly district organized to elect a district leader. After a hard and bitter fight waged against a leader who had been in control of that particular district for fourteen years, they elected a majority of county committeemen. Through the use of pressure on other party leaders they were able to get acceptance for their choice by the executive committee.

Some months later, however, the Tammany county leader, chairman of both the county committee and its executive committee, called a meeting of the county committeemen of that assembly district and, accompanied by some of his strong-arm men, attended this meeting which was chaired by his designee. When he walked in, he distributed copies of a script for the meeting to his accomplices and the meeting went off like a well rehearsed radio program.

Following a line by line recital of the script, the assembly district, which had heretofore had only one district leader casting a full vote in the councils of the executive committee, was declared split. A second district leader was selected someone whom nobody in the district had heard of. The meeting was declared adjourned and the master light switch was pulled so that the meeting could not continue and objectors could not be heard.

A new henchman of the dominant faction of Tammany had been installed and from that time forward the leader chosen by the county committeemen of the district no longer enjoyed a full vote in the executive committee but was relegated to a half vote, offset, of course, by the half vote of the newcomer.

Tricks of the Trade

In the 1949 primary an insurgent candidate in the first assembly district filed petitions in the election districts covered by two incumbent Tammany leaders. He won a majority of the election districts in one portion of the assembly district, but not in the second. When the meeting of the county committee was called, he found that it was a combined meeting of both portions of the district and the majority he had in one section was completely swallowed up in the larger meeting.

There being sixteen assembly districts, one might think there would be a total of sixteen votes on the executive committee. But the chairman of the executive committee has an additional vote by virtue of his office. He has the further right to appoint and remove three sub- committee chairmen each of whom may cast a full vote in addition to his vote as a district leader. In this way the chairman controls four votes out of twenty.

All these extremely undemocratic methods are the result of a direct primary law which allows the party executive committee to make its own rules that thus fortify tight clique control. It is in this way that a coterie of political leaders in Manhattan is able to frustrate insurgency, hold power for generations and select its successors. Those who are concerned with political and democratic techniques must turn their attention and that of the public to the important problem of ensuring democracy in the internal structure and machinery of parties.
Mr. Feldman, a New York lawyer, is a member of the new Manhattan party group known as the Fair Deal Democrats. Long active in public affairs, he was formerly chairman of the speaker's bureau of the Democratic State Committee and director of veteran affairs of the American Veterans Committee.
To read the N.Y. Times obituary, copy this to the clipboard and then paste it into your browser's U.R.L. space:

Thursday, September 15, 2011

N.Y. County Dems. Schedule Up-Dated.

September 15, 2011, Thurs.: N.Y. County Executive Committee [District Leaders] Meeting for coronation of County Leader.
6.00 P.M. – 8.00 P.M. @ Hudson Guild, 441 West 26th Str. (betw. 9th & 10th Aves.). Open to the public.
September 15, 2011, Thurs.:

Ellen Gesmer, 5 P.M. to 9 P.M. Chez Carter, 65 West 13th Str. (@ 6th Ave.), Suite #10B.

Shlomo Hagler, 8 P.M. to 10 P.M. Mitchel Gold+Bob Williams, 210 Lafayette Str. (betw. Spring & Broome Sts.) [IRT #6 Lex./4th Ave. Pelham Bay lcl. To Spring Str. Sta.]

September 18, 2011, Sunday:

Anil Singh, 12:00 Noon until 2 P.M.
230 West 105th Street - Apt. #13-A, [Just east of B'way]

AnnalisaTorres, 12:00 Noon until 3 P.M.
Shaer et Rosenberg, 255 West 90th Street, Apt. #2-B [Betw. B'way & W.E.A.]

Deborah Ann Kaplan, 3:30 P.M. until 6:30 P.M.
Cibo Restaurant, 767 Second Avenue @ E. 41st Street

Peter H. Moulton, 5 P.M. until 7 P.M.
Chez Lawrence, 2211 Broadway - Suite 8K The Apthorp Arms [Betw. 78th & 79th Sts.]

September 20, 2011, Tuesday:

Saliann Scarpulla, 6 P.M. until 8 P.M.
Chez Nichols, 161 West 15th Street - Loft 3-H
[Just E. of 7th Ave. - Ring #37]

Manuel Jacobo Mendez Olivero (Manny Mendez), [Where's my invitation, Manny? Did the dog eat it? Was it lost in the mail? Nonetheless, here's the information.] 6 P.M. to 8 P.M.
e/c/d Roberts, 215 West 88th Street - Unit 6-H
[Corner B'way]

George J. Silver, 7:30 P.M. until 9:30 P.M.
Chez Pochter, 150 East 69th Street - Apt. #17-C
[Betw. Lex & 3rd Aves.]

September 21, 2011, Wed.: N.Y. County First District Judicial Convention.[Change of date so as to allow those who wish to attend the unveiling of the Charles Rangel portrait to do so: "The honor of your presence is requested to attend and participate in the Unveiling Of The Official Portrait Of Congressman Charles B. Rangel as Chairman Emeritus of the Committee on Ways and Means in the United States House of Representatives on Thursday, the 22nd of September two thousand and eleven in the City of Washington."]
6.00 P.M. – 8.00 PM @ Harlem Hospital, 506 Lenox Ave. (at W. 135th Str.). Open to the public.

September 26, 2011, Mon.: N.Y. County Committee Meeting. 6.00 PM – 8.00 PM @ SVA Theater, 333 West 23rd St. betw. 8th & 9th Aves. on the N. side of the street. Open to the public.

November 17, 2011, Thurs.: N.Y. County Dems. Cocktail Party
6.00 P.M. @ Le Parker Meridien Hotel, 119 W. 56th Str. (betw. 6th & 7th Aves.). $

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

C.F.D. Judiciary Committee Supreme Court Candidates Forum

Attn.: This forum is free and open to the public. Please attend.
September 2011


Community Free Democrats

For many years the C.F.D. Judiciary Committee has invited the candidates for State Supreme Court Justice in Manhattan to an open forum where the candidates can present themselves and their ideas to convention delegates and other interested constituents and where they can answer questions.

The Forum this year will be held as indicated below. We invite you to attend.

Time: Wednesday, Sept. 14th, 2011, at 6:30 P.M.
Place: Goddard-Riverside Phelps House in Manhattan
593 Columbus Ave. at West 88th Street (N.E. corner)
The meeting room is down a flight of stairs.

The Independent subway local B and C lines 86th Street and C.P.W. stop has an 88th Street exit, which is one block away from Columbus Avenue.

There are three vacant, non-incumbent seats. For those seats there will be up to 13 candidates. Nine were "reported out" by the screening panel and four additional are eligible because they were reported out of screening panels in two of the last four consecutive years. And there are also two incumbent justices seeking re-election.

We hope that you can join us.

Sincerely, C.F.D. Judiciary Committee, Lloyd McAulay, Chair

P.S. The First District Judicial Convention has been changed to Wednesday, Sept. 21, 2011, at Harlem Hospital.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

A Tintype of CFD's Primary Day, 2001

Where Members Were That Fateful Morning

Like all New Yorkers, CFD members were pumped for an exciting Primary Day on September 11, 2001. Our troops were in the field. Our own Scott Stringer was running for Public Advocate in a five-candidate field, and many of had willingly sacrificed all our free time that summer to push him over the top.

District Leader Joan Paylo has collected CFD's memories of that day – our members' experiences from the tragic to the mundane, from the personal to the political – and she's spun them into a narrative account. It's a 9/11 remembrance for those who follow the details of the daily drama of West Side politics and people. (Click here)

The real-life characters we all love are in it. Read about Joyce Miller and Jerry Nadler's surreal, nine-hour journey home from Washington, DC... How industrious poll workers, volunteers distributing palm cards and other members gathered in the CFD clubhouse at 90th and Amsterdam... How outer-borough pols helped CFDers who were stranded by the subway shutdown... And more. (Click here)

We've recorded our questions, losses and triumphs, large and small, in CFD's special 9/11 retrospective. (Click here)

Thursday, September 8, 2011

N.Y. County Dems. Schedule

September 8, 2011, Thurs.: N.Y. County Fundraiser. 6.00 P.M. – 8.00 P.M. @ 1199/SEIU Local 32 B-J headquarters, 101 Avenue of the Americas (betw. Grand & Watts Sts.). $ [Discounted rate of $50 for political club members.]

September 14, 2011, Wed.: Forum for candidates running for State Supreme Court in New York County, 6:30 P.M. @ Goddard-Riverside Phelps Ho., 593 Columbus Ave. (W. 88th Str.) down the stairs. Open to the public. All welcome.

September 15, 2011, Thurs.: N.Y. County Executive Committee [District Leaders] Meeting for coronation of County Leader. 6.00 P.M. – 8.00 P.M. @ Hudson Guild, 441 West 26th Str. (betw. 9th & 10th Aves.). Open to the public.

September 21, 2011, Wed.: N.Y. County Judicial Convention.
6.00 P.M. – 8.00 PM @ Harlem Hospital, 506 Lenox Ave. (at W. 135th Str.). Open to the public.

September 26, 2011, Mon.: N.Y. County Committee Meeting.
6.00 PM – 8.00 PM @ SVA Theater, 333 W. 23rd Str. (betw. 8th & 9th Aves. on N. side of Str.). Open to the public.

November 17, 2011, Thurs.: N.Y. County Dems. Cocktail Party
6.00 P.M. @ Le Parker Meridien Hotel, 119 W. 56th Str. (betw. 6th & 7th Aves.). $