Source: http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/edocs/investigation/death_mu.htm
Timestamp: 2013-05-21 14:52:19
Document Index: 688146426

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 86', '§ 86', '§86', '§ 86', '§\n52', '§ 86', '§ 86', '§52', '§86', '§ 86', '§86', '§86', '§125', '§125', '§15', '§15', '§86', 'Art. 18', '§\n86', '§ 86', '§86', '§6401', '§6401', '§ 1325', '§ 203', '§6401', '§6401']

Investigation into the Death of Michael Unterweiser
of Michael Unterweiser
Donald O. Chesworth, Chairman
Earl W. Brydges, Jr.
Helene B. Gurian, Deputy Commissioner/Chief Counsel
William F. Friedlieb, Chief Investigator
Jerome Lightfoot, Deputy Chief Investigator
Staff for this Investigation
Allan M. Morofsky, Senior Supervising Assistant Counsel
Kenneth Christophersen, Special Agent
Francis D. Rawdon, Supervising Assistant Counsel
Laurence Snyder, Special Agent
Alfonso Campagnola, Special Agent
Sherida Azeez, Administrative Assistant
Cheryl Cox, Secretary
Chapter One: The Town of Hempstead Department of Buildings
Hempstead's Building Code
History of the Bedford Plaza Mall
Chapter Two: Receivership of the Bedford Plaza Property
Events leading to the appointment of Edward T. Robinson,
Receiverships of Property in Foreclosure
Actions of the Bedford Plaza Receiver
Chapter Three: the Investigation and Prosecution
Liability of Nicholas Corvacciola
Liability of Costas Poulikidis
Liability of the Former Inspector Liability of Edward T. Robinson, III
Chapter Four: Analysis of the District Attorney's Actions and
The Law of Criminally Negligent Homicide and Reckless
The Evaluation of Evidence Against Edward T. Robinson, III
Costas Poulikidis
The Former Inspector
Conduct of the District Attorney's Office
The Hempstead Department of Buildings
On the afternoon of January 21, 1994, Michael Unterweiser, a nineteen-year old Nassau
County resident, was fatally injured when an eighteen-foot high concrete masonry wall
collapsed on top of him. The masonry wall was a decorative facade abutting the south side of a
strip shopping mall in Bellmore, New York, known as Bedford Plaza. At the time of the
incident, the property was the subject of a mortgage foreclosure proceeding instituted by Ezra
Cattan, a local businessman. Edward T. Robinson, III, a Nassau County attorney, was the
court appointed receiver for the mall when the facade collapsed. The Nassau County Police Department immediately launched an investigation into the
incident. See footnote 1 In addition, an architect
retained by the Town of Hempstead's Department of Buildings ("DOB") examined
the structure hours after it collapsed and determined that the wall
had no foundation, was improperly connected to the abutting south wall of the mall and had no
means by which water could escape from in between the two walls, all in violation of state and
local building codes. Investigators also quickly discovered that no building permit or
certificate of completion had ever been issued for the wall by Hempstead's Department of
Buildings, also in violation of local law. A former inspector employed by DOB ("former
inspector") later acknowledged to police that he had been at Bedford Plaza during the
renovations and was aware that the wall had been constructed without a building permit, but
took no action because he believed that the mall was under the jurisdiction of the Unsafe
Buildings Division of his agency. Officials at the agency denied this. The police investigation revealed that the wall had been constructed as part of a number of
renovations initiated by Costas Poulikidis, who had purchased the property from Mr. Cattan in
May, 1988. The actual construction of the facade was performed in the spring of 1988 by
Nicholas Corvacciola, a seventy-six year old stone mason who had worked for Mr. Poulikidis
on previous occasions. In a written statement to police, Mr. Corvacciola allegedly
acknowledged that he had improperly built the facade, but insisted that he had done so at Mr.
Poulikidis' direction.
Court documents obtained by Nassau County investigators reflect that by 1990, Mr. Poulikidis
had defaulted on both the purchase money mortgage given to Mr. Cattan as part of the original
purchase agreement, and a secondary mortgage given in August, 1988, to Effenzee Capital, a
Brooklyn based company. See footnote 2 Mr.
Cattan suspended foreclosure proceedings, however, when an agreement was reached whereby
maintenance and operation of the property were taken over by
Effenzee Capital which, in turn, assumed Mr. Poulikidis' mortgage obligations to Mr. Cattan. The foreclosure proceedings were reinstituted in 1992 when Effenzee ostensibly breached the
agreement. Prompted by a concern that, pending final resolution of the foreclosure
proceeding, rents and other monies due him were not being forwarded, Mr. Cattan's attorney,
Ronald Lenowitz, asked Nassau County Supreme Court Judge John Burke, who was presiding
over the foreclosure action, to appoint a receiver for the property. Edward T. Robinson, III, was appointed as Bedford Plaza receiver in December, 1992. He
testified before the Commission that, while on a tour of the property in March, 1993, he
observed several loose bricks on the upper southeast corner of the facade. (See Exhibit 1). He also testified that he subsequently sought and received court approval to retain William
Amoroso, of Concord Home Improvement, to effect repairs to this and other defective
conditions at the mall. In May, 1993, Mr. Amoroso's subcontractor, Carmello Folti,
purportedly poured some cement between the loose bricks and the abutting south wall of the
mall, but this had no effect on the facade's defective condition. Mr. Amoroso denied to the
Commission that he had any knowledge of the danger posed by the facade but testified that he
told Mr. Robinson that the wall might need to be repaired in the future. While Mr. Amoroso was making repairs to the property, Mr. Robinson received a letter from
David Weiss, an attorney and local businessman, who expressed concern that the wall was
"in danger of collapse." Mr. Robinson testified before the Commission that he
believed this letter referred to the problem he had previously observed. He responded to Mr.
Weiss that "some" repairs had already been made to the wall. Mr. Robinson took no
additional action with respect to the structure, believing that his discharge as receiver was
imminent. Instead, Mr. Robinson advised Mr. Cattan's attorney about the problem. In his letter
to Mr. Lenowitz, dated June 15, 1993, Mr. Robinson stated that the wall was "still
dangerous" and posed a "potentially dangerous situation." Mr. Robinson
added that in his contractor's judgment, "the wall should be ripped down and
rebuilt." Despite his expectations, Mr. Robinson was not discharged until January 31,
1994, ten days after the wall collapsed. The District Attorney's Office evaluated the facts and circumstances surrounding the
construction of the facade and the events leading to its collapse. They determined that, based
largely on his written statement to police, Mr. Corvacciola could be prosecuted for criminally
negligent homicide stemming from his improper construction of the wall. It was also decided
that the only way Mr. Poulikidis could be charged with a crime arising out of this incident
would be if Mr. Corvacciola agreed to cooperate with the authorities. Although discussions
did take place regarding such cooperation, no agreement was reached. The District Attorney's
Office concluded that without Mr. Corvacciola's testimony, a criminal action against Mr.
Poulikidis could not be maintained.
The District Attorney's Office also determined that no one else, other than Mr. Corvacciola,
could be charged with a crime in connection with this incident. Prosecutors concluded that
Mr. Robinson made reasonable efforts to repair what he perceived to be the problem with the
facade, and that he had no information which would have indicated that the wall was in
imminent danger of collapse. They also ruled out any prosecution of the former building
inspector because his actions did not, as a matter of law, rise to the level of criminal conduct. After a grand jury presentation in the fall of 1994, Mr. Corvacciola was indicted for
Criminally Negligent Homicide. See footnote 3
By letter dated December 30, 1994, after receiving reports which were critical of the District
Attorney's determination to prosecute only Mr. Corvacciola for this incident, former Governor
Mario M. Cuomo requested that the Commission investigate this matter to determine if the
appointment of a special prosecutor was warranted. The Commission conducted thirty-three
interviews, held private hearings, reviewed the investigative files from both the Nassau County
Police and District Attorney's Office and obtained additional records, including numerous
documents from the Hempstead Department of Buildings and the various court proceedings. The Commission found no basis for recommending the appointment of a special prosecutor. The Commission determined that the Nassau County District Attorney fully considered
potential criminal charges against various individuals prior to determining whether action was
warranted. While the Commission does not concur with every assessment made by the
District Attorney's Office, it is clear that the District Attorney's actions were well within his
authority, and that none of his actions constituted an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the Commission concurred with the prosecution's finding that there was
insufficient evidence of criminal conduct on Mr. Robinson's part. While finding cause for
concern regarding some aspects of Mr. Robinson's account of his actions, the Commission
found that he had no information which should have led him to believe that the wall's collapse
was imminent. The Commission also concurred with the conclusion that the former building
inspector could not, as a matter of law, be prosecuted for his failure to enforce Hempstead's
Building Code. While the Commission had some reservations concerning the District
Attorney's assessment that Mr. Corvacciola's testimony was "absolutely essential" to
criminal case against Mr. Poulikidis, it found that the decision not to proceed without the stone
mason's cooperation was clearly within the appropriate exercise of the District Attorney's
With respect to the conduct of Hempstead's Department of Buildings, the Commission found
that a system of internal audits and controls was completely lacking at the agency. This
resulted in the absence of written guidelines and protocols pertaining to the issuance of
permits, certificates and other documentation required by the Hempstead Building Code,
haphazard reviews of outstanding building permits and virtually no supervision of the work of
inspectors. There are also no written guidelines with respect to the procedures to be followed
upon receipt of a complaint or allegation of an unsafe building.
The Commission, therefore recommends that the Town of Hempstead Department of Buildings
Creation of an organizational chart for the Hempstead DOB. This should include a
list of job descriptions, responsibilities and agency objectives. It should also
illustrate the Department's work flow and various supervisory positions. This would
clearly and concisely depict every employee's function in the context of the agency's
overall operation and would illuminate organizational weaknesses, particularly at the
supervisory level. It would also avoid the confusion which permitted the former
building inspector to insist that something was "outside" his jurisdiction.
Establishment of protocols for all aspects of the Department's various inspection
functions, and for the issuance of permits, certificates and other documentation. This will
enhance uniform application of Hempstead's Building Code and other
Creation of a system of active supervision and regular review of the work performance
of inspectors. This review should be conducted by the chiefs of the agency's five inspection
units who should, in turn, be responsible for reporting the
results of these reviews directly to the Commissioner or either of his two deputies. The review should cover all aspects of the inspector's work. Supervisors should also
go into the field to do unannounced "spot" inspections of locations in which
are working to insure that they are properly performing their official functions. Furthermore, Hempstead DOB should consider regular rotation of inspectors to limit
Establishment of a meaningful, mandatory method of building permit review by
inspectors and support personnel. Inspectors should be required to confirm that completed
building projects have complied with all laws and regulations and that all
appropriate documentation is issued in a timely manner. The sending of "expiration
letters" and other essential communications with owners or contractors should be
documented. Creation of a separate set of protocols for the evaluation of complaints regarding unsafe
buildings. Hempstead DOB must institute mandatory follow-up procedures for structures
which have been determined to be unsafe, particularly large commercial
buildings which may be occupied by many people at any given time.
collapsed on top of him. He died four days later at Nassau County Medical Center. His
mother, Gayle Unterweiser, who was with Michael when the incident occurred, sustained only
minor injuries. The masonry wall was a decorative facade attached to the south side of a strip
shopping mall, known as Bedford Plaza, in the Town of Hempstead, Nassau County. At the
time of the incident, this property was the subject of a mortgage foreclosure action pending in
Nassau County Supreme Court. Edward T. Robinson, III, a Nassau County attorney, was the
court appointed receiver for the mall when the facade collapsed.
A number of governmental authorities were quickly notified of the incident. In addition to
emergency medical personnel, officers and detectives from the Nassau County Police
Department arrived at the location within minutes of the wall's collapse. Two prosecutors
from the Nassau County District Attorney's Office also responded to the scene. In addition,
an official from the Hempstead Department of Buildings immediately retained the architecture
firm of James Thomas Martino & Associates to conduct an emergency inspection of the
structure. Based on this inspection, which took place only a few hours after the incident, it
was determined that the facade, along with an identical one on the north side of the mall, had
not been built in conformance with the New York State Construction Code. Specifically, the
walls, each consisting of forty-pound split face concrete blocks, had no structural foundation,
no horizontal or vertical reinforcements, lacked the required metal ties and failed to include
drainage passageways, often referred to as weepholes, in the vertical mortar joists. James
Martino, the architect who performed the emergency inspection, determined that the lack of
weepholes permitted water to build up between the facade and the brick veneer of the mall. He later opined that when the accumulated water froze during the winter of 1993-94, it
expanded, forcing the facade away from the structural wall and ultimately causing it to
collapse. The initial criminal investigation into this incident was conducted by the Nassau County Police
Department. Subsequently, the Nassau County District Attorney's Office joined the
investigation. The authorities ascertained that the cement block facade was built in the
summer of 1988 by a former owner of the mall, Costas Poulikidis. Mr. Poulikidis, through
his company, Bedford Plaza Realty, had purchased the property in the spring of 1988 from
Ezra Cattan, a local businessman, who had owned it since the 1950s. In addition to a cash
down payment, Mr. Poulikidis gave Mr. Cattan a purchase money mortgage of $2.2 million
on the property. The facade's construction was one of a number of renovations to the mall Mr. Poulikidis
initiated after purchasing the property. Investigators learned that Mr. Poulikidis did not have
the required permit from Hempstead DOB to construct the facade. DOB records revealed that
the former inspector was present at the mall during the renovations. He told the police,
however, that while he was aware of the wall's construction, it was not his responsibility to
determine whether a permit had been issued. According to the former inspector, that was the
job of the "dangerous buildings unit." DOB officials did not concur with the former
inspector's assertion. The actual construction of the cement wall was performed in May,
1988, by Nicholas Corvacciola, a seventy-six year old stone mason who had worked for Mr.
Poulikidis on previous occasions. Mr. Corvacciola allegedly told police investigators that he
knew the wall was built improperly and had so advised Mr. Poulikidis. The police investigation further revealed that, in 1990, Mr. Poulikidis had defaulted on his
purchase mortgage for the property. Mr. Cattan commenced foreclosure proceedings later that
year but agreed to discontinue the action after a second mortgage holder, Effenzee Capital,
offered to take over operation of the mall and assume Mr. Poulikidis' mortgage obligations. By the end of 1992, however, Effenzee had also defaulted on the mortgage and, consequently,
Mr. Cattan reinstituted the foreclosure proceedings in order to recover legal title to the
property. Ronald Lenowitz, Mr. Cattan's attorney, requested that the Nassau County Supreme
Court appoint a receiver for the property. In December, 1992, Nassau County Supreme Court
Justice John Burke appointed Edward T. Robinson, III as receiver. Mr. Robinson was given
authority to collect rents, negotiate leases having terms of one year or less, pay bills owed by
the mall and effect necessary repairs to the property. After assuming his receivership duties in January, 1993, Mr. Robinson became aware of a
number of defective conditions which required prompt attention. These included a leaking
roof which was causing repeated flooding to certain stores in the mall, the accumulation of
garbage, and problems related to pigeon and rodent excrement in vacant stores within the mall. Mr. Robinson also purportedly learned about a defective condition in the vicinity of the wall
on the southern portion of the building. In April, 1993, Mr. Robinson sought and received permission from Judge Burke to use funds
in the receivership account to effect certain repairs. Included in the authorization to expend
funds for repair work was $750 "to repair and/or replace the damaged and defective
wall which is located on the south and east of the subject building... ." Subsequently,
Amoroso, a local contractor retained by Mr. Robinson, directed his subcontractor to
commence certain repair work on the wall. The subcontractor performed a variety of repairs,
including filling in a gap at the top of the southeast wall with mortar, but did nothing to
alleviate the defective conditions which ultimately caused the south wall to collapse. After Mr. Amoroso completed the repair work on the southeast corner of the mall, Mr.
Robinson corresponded with several individuals about the facade. David Weiss, then
President of the Bellmore Chamber of Commerce, wrote to Mr. Robinson in May, 1993 to
express concern that the wall was "in danger of collapse". Apparently relying on his
mistaken belief that the structure had been "patched," Mr. Robinson advised Mr.
Weiss that the south wall had been repaired, albeit temporarily. In June, 1993, Mr. Robinson
wrote to Ronald Lenowitz and informed him that, even though temporary repairs had been
completed, the wall "at the southeast corner" of the mall was "still
dangerous." At the time Mr. Robinson wrote this letter, he was apparently expecting that
he would soon be discharged as receiver. He was not, in fact, relieved of his receivership
responsibilities until January 31, 1994, ten days after the fatal incident. During this seven month
period, Mr. Robinson retained exclusive authority to effect repairs on the property, subject to
court approval. No repair work of any kind was ever performed on the defective facade.
After conducting its investigation, the Nassau County District Attorney's office concluded that
the only person who could be criminally prosecuted for the death of Michael Unterweiser was
the stone mason who was responsible for the original construction of the wall, Nicholas
Corvacciola. Mr. Corvacciola had given two statements to police, the first oral and the second
written, in which he allegedly admitted knowing that the wall was improperly constructed. In
addition, based on information from architectural and engineering experts who were consulted
by the District Attorney, it was established that the wall fell, at least in part, as a result of the
accumulation of water in between the facade and the brick veneer of the mall. The water
collected, according to these experts, due to the lack of weepholes in the facade. The lack of a
foundation also contributed to the wall's collapse. Based on these findings, prosecutors
concluded that the collapse was directly attributable to the improper construction of the wall.
In January, 1995, Mr. Corvacciola was indicted by the Nassau County grand jury for
Manslaughter in the Second Degree and Criminally Negligent Homicide in connection with the
death of Michael Unterweiser, and with Assault in the Third Degree stemming from the
injuries to Gayle Unterweiser.
The District Attorney's office also evaluated the available evidence against others. Consideration was given to prosecuting Mr. Poulikidis for Criminally Negligent Homicide. Based on Mr. Corvacciola's statements, it appeared that Mr. Poulikidis was aware of the
defective construction and had directed how the wall was to be built. Accordingly, efforts
were made by the District Attorney's office to secure Mr. Corvacciola's cooperation against
Mr. Poulikidis. Despite negotiations between the parties, however, no agreement was
reached. The District Attorney concluded that, absent Mr. Corvacciola's testimony, it would
be impossible to establish Mr. Poulikidis' potential criminal liability. In addition, the fact that
Mr. Poulikidis was residing in Greece made it extremely unlikely he could ever be
involuntarily brought back to the United States to stand trial. The District Attorney
determined that, although an extradition treaty exists between Greece and the United States, it
does not provide for extradition for a crime of this nature.
The District Attorney's office also considered prosecuting Edward T. Robinson, III. Prosecutors concluded, however, that a prosecution was not warranted because Mr. Robinson
was "aware only that a few square feet of the upper southeast corner of the facade was in
disrepair." See footnote 4 Because Mr.
Robinson believed he had effected temporary repairs to what he perceived to be the problem with
the facade, even though it was later acknowledged that no
repairs were actually made to the defective south wall, the District Attorney's office concluded
that Mr. Robinson's actions constituted a good faith effort to discharge his receivership
obligations under the law. Moreover, according to the District Attorney's Office, Mr.
Robinson's June, 1993 communication with Mr. Lenowitz, in which he advised Lenowitz of
the defect in the wall, reflected Robinson's good faith effort to satisfy his legal duties in this
matter. The prosecution reasoned that Mr. Robinson was, in effect, alerting the next owner
of the property of the wall's condition and of the effort he made at preserving it until Mr.
Cattan regained title to the mall. As a result, the District Attorney's office found that Mr.
Robinson had not engaged in any criminally culpable conduct.
The District Attorney's Office also considered bringing criminal charges against the former
building inspector who was at Bedford Plaza during the wall's construction. Prosecutors again
concluded that there was no evidence to support any criminal charges in connection with
Michael Unterweiser's death. Although the District Attorney's Office attempted to pursue
information that Mr. Poulikidis had bribed the former inspector during the course of the
renovations at the mall, it was unable to establish a prima facie case without securing the
cooperation of Mr. Poulikidis. While there were preliminary discussions with Mr. Poulikidis'
attorney regarding such cooperation, the District Attorney refused to consider immunizing Mr.
Poulikidis and no agreement materialized. With respect to a possible charge of Criminally
Negligent Homicide against the former inspector, the District Attorney's Office determined
that, at most, the former inspector was aware only that Mr. Poulikidis was constructing the
facade without a building permit, and that this was insufficient, as a matter of law, to warrant
a prosecution for criminally negligent homicide.
After Mr. Corvacciola's arrest, the Unterweiser family expressed dissatisfaction with the
District Attorney's handling of the case. The Unterweisers believed that the prosecution's
investigation was narrowly focused and that, as a result, the prosecution had decided not to
pursue criminal charges against Mr. Poulikidis, Mr. Robinson and the former inspector. They
requested that a special prosecutor be appointed to review the District Attorney's actions. By
letter dated December 30, 1994, former New York State Director of Criminal Justice Richard
H. Girgenti, acting at the request of then Governor Mario M. Cuomo, directed that the New
York State Commission of Investigation ("the Commission") conduct an
investigation to determine whether the appointment of a special prosecutor in this matter was
warranted. Accordingly, on January 12, 1995, the Commission, by unanimous resolution,
authorized an investigation into "the facts and circumstances surrounding the death of
Michael Unterweiser, and matters relating thereto."
In furtherance of its investigation, the Commission obtained all relevant records from the
Hempstead Department of Buildings, the Nassau County Police Department and the Nassau
County District Attorney's Office. See footnote 5 Additionally, the Commission secured business records from various companies and individuals
who performed repair work at the mall in 1993, as
well as records from numerous merchants who have maintained places of business at Bedford
Plaza. The Commission also reviewed the court files pertaining to the mortgage foreclosure
proceedings as well as records of other relevant court proceedings.
The Commission interviewed thirty-three individuals in connection with its inquiry, including
tenants at the mall, neighboring merchants and representatives from local business
organizations, repair workers who worked at the mall in 1993, officials from the Hempstead
Department of Buildings and prosecutors from the District Attorney's Office. The
Commission also interviewed Ronald Lenowitz, attorney for Ezra Cattan, Edward Waldman,
attorney for several merchants at the mall, and Lester Stanco of Stanco Enterprises. The
Commission met with Allen Unterweiser, father of the decedent, and his counsel. Additionally, the Commission received sworn testimony from Lee Bor Cheung, William
Amoroso and Edward T. Robinson, III.
Hempstead's Building Code Chapter 52 of the Hempstead Town Code provides for the creation of the Town's Department
of Buildings. According to Section 52-3 of that Chapter, DOB is the municipal entity
responsible for the administration and enforcement of, among other things, the Hempstead
Building Code and other laws pertaining to the "use or occupancy of real property or
buildings or structures...." See footnote 6 In
accordance with this duty, Hempstead DOB is chargeable with the administration and
enforcement of all laws and regulations pertaining to "the construction,
alteration, repair, removal and demolition of buildings and structures... ." Hempstead
Code, § 86-5(A). To ensure that the requirements of the Building Code and other
applicable laws are met, the Hempstead Town Code prohibits "construction, enlargement,
alteration, ... improvement ... or conversion of any building or structure or part thereof,"
without the issuance of a building permit by DOB. Hempstead Code, § 86-9(A). See footnote 7 Once a building permit has been
issued, if a newly constructed, enlarged or otherwise altered building does not
comply with all state and local laws, Hempstead DOB has the power and duty to refuse to
issue a certificate of completion or occupancy. Hempstead Code, §§86-18;
86-19. Buildings which do not have either a certificate of completion or occupancy are illegal. Hempstead Code, § 86-25(A).
DOB is also responsible for the enforcement of ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to
unsafe or dangerous buildings in the Town of Hempstead. Hempstead Code, §
52-3; See also, Ch. 90. Section 90-1(5) of the Hempstead Code defines a dangerous
building or structure as:
Those [buildings or structures] which have parts thereof which are so attached or
connected in such a manner that they may fall, collapse or cause damage and injury to
the occupants thereof or other persons or property." See footnote 8 When DOB receives a complaint or other information indicating a building or other structure
may be unsafe or dangerous, the agency is required to investigate and issue a written report.
Hempstead Code, §§ 86-5(E); 86-27(B). Once DOB makes a finding that a
structure is dangerous, the owner, after being notified of the condition, is required to effect
repairs within a specified period of time. Hempstead Code, § 86-27(C). Failure to
comply with DOB's directive is illegal. Id.
Personnel at Hempstead's DOB include the Commissioner, appointed by the Town Board of
Supervisors, Hempstead Code, §52-1, two deputy commissioners, a supervisor of
inspection services, and a chief code enforcement officer. In addition, the agency's inspection
function is divided into five units: zoning, plumbing, buildings, multiple residence and public
assembly. Each unit has a chief, supervising inspectors and field inspectors. There is also a
separate Division for Unsafe Buildings. Although DOB Inspectors are assigned to the various
units according to their experience, the only prerequisite for employment by DOB is that
applicants must pass a civil service examination. According to Mario Gaiti, DOB's Chief Code
Enforcement Officer, structural inspectors from the buildings unit must also be able to read
building plans and blue-prints. Applications for permits, prepared in accordance with the Building Code are reviewed by
plans examiners at DOB. Hempstead Code, §86-9. If the appropriate
documentation is not submitted with the application, or if the building plans do not comply with
state or local laws,
DOB will not issue a permit. Once the permit is issued, work on the project must commence
within ninety days and be completed within one year, although DOB can extend a permit for
up to an additional year. Upon satisfactory completion of the project, a Certificate of
Occupancy or Completion will be issued by DOB. According to Mr. Gaiti, it is the
contractor's or owner's responsibility to request inspections by DOB to determine if the
project has complied with the Code's legal and technical requirements. If this does not occur,
a written reminder is sent eleven months after the permit is issued, advising the owner that, if
the project is not completed within one year of the date of issuance of the permit, the permit
will be voided and the project will be deemed abandoned. Continued work on an abandoned
project is illegal. Hempstead Code, § 86-13(A),(B).
Mr. Gaiti informed the Commission that inspectors have complete discretion to issue or deny
building permits and certificates of completion or occupancy. DOB has no manuals or written
guidelines, however, pertaining to the issuance of permits or certificates. The only guidance
available to an inspector making these determinations is the assistance of a supervisor.
Mr. Gaiti stated that regular inspections are conducted by DOB employees only at multi-
dwelling residences and places of public assembly. There are no regularly scheduled
inspections of commercial structures. In general, the only way DOB officials would learn of
an unsafe or dangerous condition at an existing commercial structure is by a complaint from
the public. History of the Bedford Plaza Mall
Files from Hempstead's DOB indicate that, prior to the sale of the Bellmore Shopping Mall in
the spring of 1988 by Ezra Cattan to Costas Poulikidis, the entire structure was replete with
safety and health hazards. In 1985, the accumulation of over 500,000 gallons of sewage in the
basement of a vacant, two-story building in the center of the mall, caused by a buildup of
rainwater seeping through extensive leaks in the roof, mosquito infestation and the presence of
thousands of pigeons inside the building, prompted the Nassau County Department of Health
to cite the mall as an immediate health threat. Also as a result of this hazardous condition, in
November, 1985, DOB declared this portion of the mall to be "unsafe and dangerous to
public safety." Letter from DOB Commissioner B. Mayer to Ezra Cattan, 11/22/85. Ensuring that this and other conditions were corrected was primarily the responsibility of the
Unsafe Buildings Division of DOB. Hempstead Code, Ch. 90. Despite repeated
attempts over the next several years from representatives of both the Health and Buildings
Departments, however, Mr. Cattan failed to repair the roof or rid the building of pigeons. See footnote 9 In addition, commercial tenants in the
mall complained of the general deterioration of the entire structure,
including the occupied stores. One tenant, apparently exasperated over Mr. Cattan's lack of
concern, wrote to Nassau County Executive Thomas Gulotta in October, 1987, stating that, as
a result of Mr. Cattan's neglect, the building was rapidly becoming an eyesore and the
adjacent parking lot was returning to its "natural dirt state and general slum-like
appearance." By the beginning of 1988, tenants, concerned citizens and the local press
were complaining of leaking roofs, decaying building structures, mosquito infestation, dead
pigeons and a hazardous parking lot. See footnote
10 After repeated efforts by both the Town's Building's Department and the County's Health
Department, in March, 1988, Mr. Cattan finally pumped out the raw
sewage from the basement of the abandoned theater. Some of the other hazardous conditions,
however, including the leaking roof and pigeon infestation, were never corrected by Mr.
Cattan. Nevertheless, DOB's files on the mall indicate that, by the time the building was sold
in May, 1988, the Unsafe Buildings Division had closed its file and declared the building
Renovations at the Mall Following his purchase of the mall, Mr. Poulikidis initiated extensive renovations. Included in
these renovations, which were performed during the spring and summer of 1988, was the
construction of two decorative concrete facades on the north and south sides of the mall. See Exhibit 1. Based on a review of Hempstead's Building Code and interviews with
DOB officials, it is readily apparent that a building permit was required before these facades
could be erected. See footnote 11 DOB's
indicate, however, that the only building permit issued in connection with these renovations was
on October 25, 1988, after the facades were built. Moreover, this permit was only for work to be
performed on the portion of the mall at 513 and 515 Bedford Avenue, where the abandoned
movie theater and supermarket were located. See
footnote 12 The defective facade abutted the side wall of a chinese restaurant, located at 501 Bedford
Avenue along the south side of the mall, several stores away from the theater. Hempstead
DOB records reflect no building permit of any kind for this, or for the facade on the north side
of the mall. With respect to the building permit for the renovations to the abandoned movie theater, the
former inspector was assigned to the construction project. The former inspector was
employed by Hempstead DOB in the same capacity from 1967 to 1991. See footnote 13 In 1988, he was responsible for the area of the Town
which included the Bedford Plaza Mall. According to his
written statement to Nassau County Police investigators, the former inspector acknowledged
that he was aware of the wall's construction during the summer of 1988. Nassau Police
Department interview notes reflect that the former inspector advised them that Mr. Poulikidis
was "overseeing" the construction work on the building and was there "all of
the time." The
former inspector maintained, however, that at the time of the construction of the facade's the
mall was under the jurisdiction of the Division of Unsafe Buildings. He claimed that, after
observing the extensive renovation work at the mall, he brought the facade's construction to
the attention of his supervisor at the time, Julie Delia, who purportedly advised him that the
building was still "in the hands of the Unsafe Section of [DOB]." See footnote 14 The former inspector also told
police investigators that he passed by the mall several more times during the renovations
and continued to question his supervisors about the existence of permits for the construction
work. The former inspector claimed he was never given a direct answer, but was told "it
[the permit] is in [the] works." Finally, he stated that, in the fall of 1988, he was
transferred to the Public Assembly Division of DOB. Information contained in DOB's files, as well as interviews conducted by the Nassau County
Police Department and by the Commission, contradict the former inspector's assertion that the
renovations at the Bedford Plaza mall, including the construction of the concrete facades, was
not his responsibility. James Dean, the Chief of the Unsafe Buildings Division of DOB
during the period of time when the renovations were taking place, denied that his division had
jurisdiction over the construction of the facades. Mr. Dean told police investigators that the
function of his unit was to ensure that unsafe conditions in existing structures were corrected. He stated the facades would be considered new construction and, therefore, his unit would
"have nothing to do with inspections of new facades." In addition, DOB files from
Buildings Division indicate that the conditions which DOB had determined to be unsafe existed
in the middle building where the abandoned theater was located. There are no references in
these files to any unsafe or dangerous conditions existing at the northern or southern end of the
mall, where the decorative facades were located. As noted, the files also indicate that by
April, 1988, prior to Mr. Poulikidis' purchase and subsequent renovations of the property, the
mall was considered safe by DOB officials and, therefore, was no longer under the jurisdiction
of the Unsafe Buildings Division. See footnote
15 Furthermore, the former inspector's actions during the time in question reflect that he was
responsible for inspecting the mall and that the Unsafe Buildings Division was no longer
involved in the process. DOB files indicate that the former inspector conducted at least five
inspections of the mall between October, 1988 and November, 1989. These records also
reflect that the inspections were conducted with respect to the renovations to the abandoned
theater. The build-up of raw sewage in the abandoned theater had been the subject of scrutiny
by the Unsafe Buildings Division. If this portion of the mall was still under the control of that
unit between October, 1988 and November, 1989, as the former inspector claimed, DOB
would not have issued a permit authorizing renovations. Thus, DOB would not have assigned
the former inspector, an employee in the Buildings Unit of DOB, to conduct inspections
during this period of time. See footnote 16 Neither the former inspector nor any other official at Hempstead's DOB took any action with
respect to the facades. A review of Hempstead DOB files reflects that there are no building
permits, certificates of completion or any other record which would indicate DOB officials,
other than the former inspector, were even aware that the facades were being erected. In
addition, even with respect to the renovation work at the abandoned theater, for which a
building permit was obtained, no record of completion of work for the conversion of the
theater to retail space was filed with DOB within the time prescribed by the Hempstead
Building Code. Records also indicate that DOB officials did not realize that a certificate of
completion or occupancy had not been issued, pursuant to the October, 1988 building permit
until, January, 1991, when a tenant in the mall complained of cement falling through the
overhang in front of her store. According to the Hempstead Building Code, since no
extensions for the October, 1988 permit were approved, the project should have been deemed
abandoned by October, 1989, and, consequently, all of the renovations performed by Mr.
Poulikidis, including the construction of the facades, were illegal. Hempstead Code
§86-13(B). See footnote 17
DOB's files indicate that, between November, 1988 and April, 1991, no permits or certificates
of completion or occupancy were issued for any portion of the Bedford Plaza Mall. Moreover, despite Mr. Poulikidis' extensive, albeit, illegal renovations, safety hazards still
plagued the property. By letter dated January 3, 1991, Joan Logie, the proprietor of a thrift
shop at the mall, complained of cement falling through the overhang in front of her store. By
letter dated January 17, 1991, a DOB supervisor wrote to Bedford Plaza Realty See footnote 18 and advised the principals that
there were no permits on file with DOB for the overhangs in front of the
stores running along Bedford Avenue. In addition, the DOB supervisor referred to the
October, 1988 building permit for renovations to the theater and advised the owners that no
certificate of occupancy had been issued.
Responding to Ms. Logie's complaint, on January 24, 1991, a DOB inspector, Nicholas
DiNapoli, issued a Notice of Violation to Charles Friedman, one of the principals of Effenzee
Capital. Effenzee was directed to obtain a new building permit for the theater renovation
work and an original permit for the overhangs, often referred to as soffits, along Bedford
Avenue. In April, 1991, a building permit was issued with respect to the soffit repairs and for
the theater renovations, which had apparently still not been completed. See footnote 19 DOB files reflect at least four inspections of the mall
by Mr. DiNapoli with respect to this permit. There are no
references to the two concrete facades, however, or the fact that no permits for their
construction or certificates for their completion had been issued by DOB. After the fatal
incident, Mr. DiNapoli told Nassau County Police investigators that he had devoted his efforts
at the mall exclusively to correcting the problems with the soffits. He asserted that he never
even examined the facades and, consequently, was not aware that they existed. See footnote 20 Between May, 1991 and the end of January, 1994, no permits or certificates of any kind were
issued by DOB with respect to any structure within the mall, including the two concrete
facades. The first and only reference in the DOB files to the facade which fell on Michael
Unterweiser was after the event. An architect retained by DOB examined the fallen structure
the night of the occurrence and the identical northern facade the next day. As previously
noted, the architect confirmed that the facades failed to conform to the requirements under
both the Hempstead and New York State Building Codes. Conclusion
It is clear that the former inspector did not properly carry out his responsibilities with respect
to the Bedford Plaza Property. It was his duty to ensure that all renovations to the mall,
including the construction of the two facades, were conducted in accordance with the
Hempstead Building Code. He was obviously aware that the facades were being erected, but
later inaccurately claimed that the building was still under the control of the Unsafe Buildings
Unit, and therefore, not his responsibility. This assertion is refuted not only by the files from
that Unit, which indicate that by April, 1988, DOB no longer considered the building unsafe,
and by DOB officials who confirmed this fact, but also by the former inspectors's own actions
in conducting inspections of the property between October, 1988 and November, 1989. In
addition, there is some evidence in the investigative files of the Nassau County Police
Department and District Attorney's Office that the former inspector had a personal relationship
with Mr. Poulikidis and may also have engaged in criminal conduct with respect to his
responsibilities as a DOB inspector. See footnote
21 DOB officials also bear responsibility for the failure to ensure that all of the renovations
initiated by Mr. Poulikidis conformed to state and local laws and ordinances. First, the poor
condition of the mall at the time of the May, 1988, purchase of the property should have
prompted DOB to be alert to future problems. The litany of health and safety hazards which
existed prior to Mr. Poulikidis' purchase is well documented in DOB's own files. Although
Mr. Cattan, after sustained pressure from Town and County officials, cured the most obvious
threat to the health and safety of merchants and customers at the mall, other potentially
dangerous conditions, including the extensive holes in the roof, were never addressed by these
officials. While the remaining hazards may not have rendered the property
"dangerous," as
that term is defined in the Hempstead Building Code, these conditions were certainly serious
enough that the mall should have been subject to increased scrutiny by DOB personnel. Second, DOB's oversight and supervisory procedures with respect to inspections of
renovations at commercial structures are virtually non-existent. In this matter, the former
inspector's disregard for his duties as a building inspector is at least partially attributable to the
lack of oversight by supervisory personnel at DOB. According to Mario Gaiti, there is no
regular review of the work of DOB inspectors and they are not required to consult with their
supervisors. Mr. Gaiti also stated that inspectors have complete discretion to act as they see
fit with respect to projects for which building permits have been obtained. Consequently, it is
difficult, if not impossible, for DOB officials to uncover potential misdeeds or incomplete
work on the part of its inspectors. In this instance, not only did the former inspector fail to
ensure that a permit was obtained for the construction of the facades, he also did nothing with
respect to the October, 1988 building permit for the theater renovations after it expired in
October, 1989. DOB officials failed to detect this for more than a year after the permit
expired. Even then, DOB became aware of the illegal, abandoned theater renovation project
only as a result of a written complaint by a tenant at the mall. DOB's eventual discovery, in
January, 1991, that the permit for the theater renovations had expired, and that other
structures in the mall, such as the soffits, had been constructed without any permit, should
have prompted DOB officials to scrutinize the entire property. No such scrutiny, however,
occurred. The same lax oversight procedures were again apparent with respect to the April,
1991 building permit obtained by Effenzee Capital, as it took almost four years, until
February, 1995, for a certificate of completion to be issued under this permit. See footnote 22 At most, a building permit is valid
for two years. Hempstead Code, §86-13(C). Consequently, for a minimum of
almost two years, according to the Hempstead Building Code, the overhang
running along Bedford Avenue was an illegal structure. DOB officials, however, failed to
take any action during this time. DOB officials not only failed to detect the illegal and improper construction of concrete facade
in 1988, they also were not aware, for almost five and one-half years, that this structure,
clearly qualifying as "dangerous" under the Hempstead Building Code, even existed. Knowing that the mall had a history of safety hazards, which continued even after renovations
were completed, and that the renovated mall contained illegal structures, it was incumbent
upon DOB to exercise its authority and ensure that the entire mall, and all of the structures
within it, complied with the State and Town building codes. This was not done and, as a
result, DOB bears at least some responsibility for the tragic occurrence in January, 1994,
which caused Michael Unterweiser's death.
Events leading to the appointment of Edward T. Robinson, III.
Mr. Poulikidis purchased the Bedford Plaza mall in May, 1988, from Ezra Cattan for $2.5
million. In addition to a cash down payment, Mr. Poulikidis gave Mr. Cattan a $2.2 million
purchase money mortgage. See footnote 23 In
August, 1988, Mr. Poulikidis secured a second mortgage on the Bedford Plaza property from
Effenzee Capital, a Brooklyn based partnership. See
footnote 24 By November, 1989, however, Mr. Poulikidis ceased making payments on the
mortgages to Mr. Cattan and to Effenzee Capital. Consequently, in February, 1990, both
mortgagees initiated foreclosure proceedings against Mr. Poulikidis. This litigation was
suspended, however, when Effenzee and Mr. Cattan reached their own agreement with respect to
the property and the outstanding financial obligations. See footnote 25 According to Ronald Lenowitz, in September, 1990
Effenzee agreed to take over ownership and operation of the mall through an entity known as
Bellmore Plaza, Inc. In exchange, Effenzee agreed to assume Mr. Poulikidis' mortgage
payments to Mr. Cattan, who retained his rights to the property as the primary mortgage
holder. See footnote 26 By 1992, however, Mr.
Cattan resumed the foreclosure proceedings because Effenzee had failed to make required
payments. Mr. Lenowitz stated that, based on
information from his client, tenants at the mall had been paying rent to Effenzee Capital while
the foreclosure proceedings were suspended, but the monies were not being forwarded to Mr.
Cattan as required by the agreement. Consequently, in order to protect his client's rights
during the pendency of the renewed foreclosure proceeding, in October, 1992, Mr. Lenowitz
submitted a motion before Nassau County Supreme Court Judge John Burke requesting the
appointment of a receiver for the mall property. By order dated December 18, 1992, Judge
Burke appointed Edward T. Robinson, III, as receiver for Bedford Plaza. Receiverships of Property in Foreclosure
A receiver is a person appointed by a court to take custody, control and management of
property pending judicial action. See footnote 27 While a receiver's primary duty is to preserve and protect the property for the benefit of all
interested parties, See footnote 28 he or she is an
officer of the court and his or her power and control over the property emanate from the
appointing court. See footnote 29 In New
York State, a receiver in a mortgage foreclosure action may be directed by the court to collect
rents and use the proceeds towards the payment of accrued interest on the mortgage, taxes,
administrative expenses and other charges. See
footnote 30 In addition, a receiver is authorized, subject to court approval, to effect essential
repairs to the property. See footnote 31 Prior to
undertaking major repairs, a receiver should also request the consent of the plaintiff in the
foreclosure action. See footnote 32 A receiver
may not be sued civilly for acts stemming from his or her receivership duties without
the permission of the appointing court. See footnote
33 Finally, a receivership appointment is generally effective until a final judgment is entered
in the foreclosure litigation, although this term can
be lengthened or shortened by the court. See footnote
Edward T. Robinson, III is a well known Nassau County attorney and is active in county
political and community affairs. His legal practice centers on real estate, estate planning and
civil litigation. He has also been the attorney for the Oyster Bay East Norwich School District
for twenty-nine years and has served on a number of Nassau County Commissions, including
one for governmental revision and one dealing with criminal justice. Between 1966 and 1980,
he served various terms as Director and President of the Nassau County Bar Association. He
was also Vice-President for the 10th Judicial District for the New York State Bar Association
from 1992 to 1995. He has been a Committeeman for the Nassau County Republican Party
for approximately the last six years. Robinson, p. 14. See footnote 35
Mr. Robinson testified before the Commission concerning his appointment as receiver for the
Bedford Plaza property. He stated that, while he had been a court appointed referee in
foreclosure proceedings on "many occasions" he had never been a receiver prior to
the Bedford Plaza mall appointment. Robinson, p. 20. He first learned that Judge Burke
was considering appointing a receiver for the mall in November, 1992 when he received a
telephone call from the Judge's chambers inquiring if he would be interested in the position. Robinson, p. 26. See footnote 36 He
given confirmation of the appointment during a subsequent communication with Ronald
Lenowitz on January 8, 1993. Robinson, p. 29. The order by Judge Burke appointing Mr. Robinson as receiver for Bedford Plaza granted him
"the usual powers and directions ... for the benefit of [Ezra Cattan] of all the rents, issues
and profits now due and unpaid ... pending this action..." See footnote 37 Accordingly, Mr. Robinson was directed to
"demand, collect and receive from the tenants in possession of said premises ... all
rents thereof now due and unpaid, or hereafter to become due ..." The receiver was also
directed to maintain all rent monies and other profits in an escrow account for the benefit of
Mr. Cattan and to pay all expenses relating to the management and care of the premises,
including taxes, insurance premiums, water and sewer costs. He was also authorized to rent
or lease any portion of the property "for terms not exceeding one year" and "to
keep the subject premises ... in repair ... ." Mr. Robinson testified that he first visited the premises on January 21, 1993, for the purpose
of "making an overall general determination of ... what [the building] consisted of and to
make note of the occupancies ... in the various stores." Robinson, pp. 36-37. Although he only spoke with "a couple" of store owners during this visit, he testified
that he subsequently received "tons of telephone calls" from many other of the mall's
tenants during the early part of February, 1993 complaining about declining conditions at the
mall. Robinson, pp. 37,40. Based on his visit and his conversations with the stores'
occupants, he concluded that Bedford Plaza was "in a serious state of disrepair." Robinson, p. 40. See footnote 38 Mr. Robinson testified that he did not observe the south wall of the mall on his first visit to the
property and, in fact, did not learn of a defective condition pertaining to the concrete facade
until March 23, 1993, during a "tour" of the property with Jeffrey Lovering, a
one of the mall storefronts. Robinson, pp.41, 43-44, 45. While Mr. Lovering was
showing Mr. Robinson a defective parking light at the "southeast corner of the
building," Robinson
noticed a "slight separation of the brick at the very, very top of the southeast corner of the
wall." Robinson, p. 46. He described the portion of the cement facade which
appeared to him to be separating slightly from the wall as follows:
[I]f I was standing on Wilson Street and looking at the fac[e] of the wall, it would be
the top right-hand corner, about five feet. And you could only see it by looking from
the [parking lot] in the rear, and there was a slight, maybe a one-inch space that
tapered down to nothing, maybe coming down about four feet. I noticed that.
Robinson, p. 47. See footnote 39 During the early spring of 1993, Mr. Robinson made several motions before Judge Burke
seeking permission to effect repairs to some of the most serious conditions at the mall,
including damage to the concrete facade running along the south wall. In March, 1993, he
obtained permission to hire a roofing contractor to repair and/or replace part of the mall roof
which was causing substantial flooding to one of the stores on the second floor. In April, he
again filed a motion before Judge Burke seeking authorization: (1) to repair or replace the
defective soffits above the mall stores along Bedford Avenue; (See Exhibit 1); (2) to hire
a plumber to repair parts of the "elements" of the mall; (3) to remove trash and debris
basement and vacant stores inside the mall; (4) to hire a contractor "to repair and/or replace
the damaged and defective exterior wall which is located on the south and east of the subject
building... ." Mr. Robinson testified that, at the time he sought court approval for repairs to, among other
things, the south wall, his only source of information about the condition of the wall was his
own observation. Robinson, p. 58. See
footnote 40 He did indicate, however, in his moving papers that he had secured verbal
estimates for the repairs from Stanco Enterprises and Concord Home
Improvement Company, both contractors operating in Nassau County. Mr. Robinson's
supporting affidavit states that both companies had estimated that the repairs needed for the
defective condition of the south wall would cost approximately $750. Mr. Robinson testified
that he decided to hire Concord Home Improvement, which is owned and operated by William
Amoroso. See footnote 41 He could not recall,
however, how he described the condition of the wall at the southeast corner of the south wall to
Mr. Amoroso, or specifically what it was that he wanted Mr. Amoroso to repair at that location.
Robinson, pp. 53, 54. See footnote 42 By order dated May 17, 1993, Judge Burke approved Mr. Robinson's request for funds to repair
the conditions referred to above. William Amoroso, the proprietor of Concord Home Improvement, testified before the
Commission and confirmed that he performed repair work at the Bedford Plaza Mall during
the spring of 1993. He indicated that this included work on the soffits along Bedford Avenue,
replacement of some gutters and leaders, and some "patch work" to the stucco on the
of the building, at the rear of the chinese restaurant. During sworn testimony before the
Commission Mr. Amoroso initially insisted that he never personally observed any problem
with the concrete facade or any portion of the wall. Amoroso, pp. 28,29,38,41,43. His
recollection was that the only information he ever received about the facade came from a brief
conversation with Carmello Folti, the subcontractor he had hired to repair the stucco at the
rear of the chinese restaurant. Mr. Amoroso testified that, after this work was completed, Mr.
Folti informed him that "one or two bricks ... were loose" on the upper southeast
corner of the concrete facade and that "[Folti] had just thrown some cement in there." Amoroso, p. 29. Subsequently, after reviewing a copy of a sworn statement he had
provided to the Nassau District Attorney's office in July, 1994, Mr. Amoroso recalled that he did
observe the two bricks at the top southeast corner of the concrete facade which Mr. Folti had
"cemented" to the brick veneer of the chinese restaurant. He further testified before
the Commission that he observed those bricks "leaning a bit ... maybe one, two
inches." Amoroso, p. 51. Mr. Amoroso advised the Commission that he later
informed Mr. Robinson that "sooner or later the wall is going to have to be repaired up on
the top with some cement." Amoroso, pp. 45- 46. Mr. Amoroso denied ever
telling Mr. Robinson that the wall had to be ripped down and rebuilt, or that the wall was either
"dangerous" or "potentially dangerous." Amoroso, pp. 58, 59. Furthermore, Mr. Amoroso insisted that he had no other conversation or communication
with Mr. Robinson about the subject. Amoroso, pp. 56-57. During the period of time Mr. Amoroso was doing repair work at the mall, Mr. Robinson
received a complaint about the south wall from David Weiss, an attorney and local
businessman. In 1993, Mr. Weiss was President of the Bellmore Chamber of Commerce and
maintained an office across the street from Bedford Plaza. He informed the Commission that,
after receiving complaints from merchants in the area, he inspected the concrete facade
abutting the south side of the mall. After observing that it was separating from the "main
wall," and taking note that the facade was constructed on the sidewalk without proper
"footings," he notified Mr. Robinson of the condition. By letter dated May 12, 1993,
he advised Mr. Robinson as follows:
I have been informed by a number of people that the brick facade on the south end of
the building facing Wilson Avenue is separating from the main portion of the building
and is in danger of collapse. I was also told that this was due to the fact that this brick
facade was not put on proper footings and that it was merely laid on the sidewalk. I am not an engineer but a number of people have mentioned this to me and I thought it
would be in everyone's best interest to notify you so that you may have someone check
this out to make sure that a dangerous situation does not exist and, if it does, that this
is remedied as quickly as possible. Mr. Robinson testified that, after he received this letter, he conferred with Mr. Amoroso. Robinson, p. 64. See footnote 43 Mr.
Robinson stated that he believed Mr. Weiss was relating to him the same problem he had
observed during his tour of the property with Mr. Lovering on March
23rd. He also asserted that Mr. Amoroso did not advise him that this was a dangerous, or
Q. [What was] the substance ... of what Mr. Amoroso told you on this particular occasion about
the southeast corner of the south wall?
A. ... I summarized what the complaint [from Mr. Weiss] was and asked him to check it out. And he indicated that the brick was pulling away a little at ... the upper
section of [the southeast] corner, and that he couldn't really tell much more about the
wall, [he'd] have to take it down in order to find out what was behind it.
But he said nothing to me that would have indic[a]ted to me that it was of any
imminent danger of falling. And I assumed there was no such danger. . . . .
... And he did say ... "I did have some patching done there."
Q. When you read [the correspondence from Mr. Weiss] and then had a subsequent conversation
with Mr. Amoroso, was it your understanding or belief that Mr. Weiss was relating to you a
problem which Mr. Amoroso either had or was about to repair?
A. When I read [the correspondence], in my mind's eye what I saw was what I had already seen. I envisioned what I have just described to [the Commission] where the brick was pulling away in
that upper right-hand corner. ... I assumed I had already seen what [Mr. Weiss] was drawing to my attention. And,
yes, it was that to which I was referring Mr. Amoroso.
Robinson, pp. 64-65, 67-68.
Mr. Robinson's May 28, 1993 letter responding to Mr. Weiss supports his Commission
testimony. In this letter, he noted that the problem with the south wall had been repaired,
albeit, temporarily: "Please be advised that I had some repairs made to the wall to which
you refer. I am aware of the problem, but any repairs I make are subject to court order, and I am
advising the mortgagee-plaintiff's attorney of the situation." Mr. Robinson also advised
Mr. Weiss that he was expecting to be discharged as receiver by the following week and that Mr.
Cattan, the mortgagee-plaintiff, would be taking over the property. Mr. Robinson testified that, other than the letter from Mr. Weiss, he never received any other
complaint or information from anyone concerning the south wall. Robinson, p. 88. Mr.
Robinson advised the Commission that by late spring, 1993, he had been informed by Mr.
Lenowitz that he was going to be relieved of his receivership responsibilities. Robinson,
p. 70. By mid-June, however, having been given no additional information about his discharge,
he corresponded with Mr. Lenowitz. By letter dated June 15, 1993, Mr. Robinson advised
Mr. Cattan's attorney that he had heard nothing more about his supposed discharge, and was
therefore concerned about what he should be doing in connection with his receivership
duties. See footnote 44 Mr. Robinson also
referred to the south wall and expressed concern about its condition.
The condition of the wall at the southeast corner of the building behind the chinese
restaurant is still dangerous, although it has been temporarily patched by the contractor
I engaged to do the other work mentioned in the [court] order. Please be advised that
this is a potentially dangerous situation. The judgment of my contractor is that the wall
should be ripped down and rebuilt. Mr. Robinson testified that his use of the terms "dangerous" and "potentially
dangerous" in this correspondence were based entirely on his own observations. Robinson, p. 77. His purpose in describing the wall in this manner was "to get the
attention of Mr. Lenowitz." Id. He could not recall whether Mr. Amoroso used
those, or similar, words in his discussions. In fact, Mr. Robinson testified that Mr. Amoroso
made a statement to him which implied that "the wall wasn't going to go anywhere, that [it]
had been there a long time and looked reasonably solid." Robinson, p. 76.
Despite Mr. Robinson's expectations, he was not discharged as receiver until January 31,
1994. By order dated, August 31, 1993, Judge Burke authorized Mr. Robinson to file an
accounting which would provide the basis for his discharge. The accounting papers were not
filed, however, until December 1, 1993, apparently because of some defects in the paperwork. It also appears that, due to a further delay in the court's review of the paperwork, the order of
discharge was not signed by Judge Burke until January 31, approximately one week after the
accident which caused the death of Michael Unterweiser. According to Mr. Robinson, from the date of his correspondence with Mr. Lenowitz up to the
day the south wall collapsed, he never received any additional complaints or information about
the condition of the south wall, nor did he personally examine the wall during this period. Robinson, p. 86. Despite his description of the wall in his letter to Mr. Lenowitz as
"dangerous" and "potentially dangerous," Mr. Robinson insisted to the
Commission that the passing of over seven months did nothing to elevate his concern about the
"potential danger" of the structure. Robinson, pp. 79, 84. BY COMMISSIONER CULHANE:
Q. You did nothing about the wall, though [after August 31]?
A. No, I did not do anything about the wall.
A. I didn't think there was anything necessary to be done about the wall at that time. Q. It was still dangerous, wasn't it?
A. I didn't think it was of sufficient danger at that time to warrant anything to be done to it.
Q. What did you base that thought on?
A. On my own observations of it and the patching that was reported to me that had been
Q. Did you review, did you look at the work that was done yourself?
Q. Why did you think it was adequate?
A. I took the word of my contractor that he had done a patching job and I thought it was
Robinson, pp. 116-117.
According to Mr. Robinson, he took no action after August 31, 1993 for the same reason he
took no additional action prior to that date -- he saw no need to do so. In his testimony before
the Commission Mr. Robinson stated that he never received any complaints from
anyone, other than Mr. Weiss, about the south wall facade. Robinson, p. 88. This,
conflicts, however, with information provided to the Commission by Lee Bor Cheung, the owner
of the chinese restaurant at 501 Bedford Avenue, a structure which abutted the concrete
Mr. Cheung testified before the Commission See
footnote 45 and stated that he first noticed a "crack" in the defective facade
about one year prior to its collapse. Cheung, p. 11. He further stated that he observed the
crack from the front of his store, standing on Bedford Avenue. Cheung, p. 12. According to Mr. Cheung, after Mr. Robinson's appointment, he called the receiver to
complain about this condition because "the crack continued to grow". Cheung, p. 19. Mr. Cheung stated that he directed his son to make the telephone call to
Mr. Robinson because he has difficulty speaking English. Id. He further testified that he
had "two or three" more conversations with Mr. Robinson about the crack in the
facade, but could not approximate the dates of these conversations. Cheung, p. 21. He
did not know, however, if Mr. Robinson ever saw the condition he complained of, and was
unaware of what Mr. Robinson intended to do about the problem. Cheung, pp. 23, 25. The Commission also interviewed Edward Waldman, an attorney for the chinese restaurant. Mr. Waldman asserted that, after consulting with his client, he wrote to Mr. Robinson,
specifically describing the wall's condition and the fact that it had to be corrected. He was
unable, however, to provide a copy of this correspondence to the Commission. Mr. Robinson
did not recall receiving any writing from Mr. Waldman See footnote 46 and denied ever getting a complaint from anyone
connected to the chinese restaurant about the concrete facade. Robinson, pp. 49,
50. See footnote 47
Even accepting Mr. Robinson's assertion that he received no information which led him to
believe there was a need for immediate repair of the wall, Mr. Robinson's lack of concern
about the potential danger caused by the passage of over seven months is troubling. Assuming, arguendo, that Mr. Robinson was reasonable in his belief, albeit mistaken,
that Mr. Amoroso had temporarily "patched" the defective facade in May, 1993, Mr.
Robinson apparently failed to recognize the possibility that, after more than seven months, the
condition which he knew in June, 1993 was at least "potentially dangerous" could
have been heightened to a more imminent danger by January, 1994. During this time, Mr.
Robinson was the court
appointed receiver for Bedford Plaza, and he continued to function in that capacity by
collecting rents, arranging for snow removal, and responding to tenants complaints about leaks
and plumbing difficulties. Robinson, pp. 78, 87. Even though he had been led to believe
he was going to be discharged long before January 31, 1994, his legal obligations with respect to
the property were clearly in effect until the day Judge Burke authorized the discharge, and he
was the only one in a position to effect any repair to the premises. It is the nonetheless the Commission's view that there is an insufficient basis to conclude that
Mr. Robinson acted with either criminal negligence or recklessness. This assessment supports
the determination of the Nassau District Attorney's Office with regard to potential charges
against Mr. Robinson in connection with the death of Michael Unterweiser. Mr. Robinson
testified before the Commission that he had no expertise in the area of commercial repairs,
Robinson, p.56, and it was, therefore, reasonable for him to rely on Mr. Amoroso, a
commercial and residential repair contractor, for guidance as to what needed to be done to
"patch" the wall. The possibility that he may have received complaints concerning
from individuals associated with the abutting chinese restaurant does not alter this assessment,
since he believed that Mr. Amoroso had temporarily repaired the condition. Moreover, in
June, 1993, with the expectation that he was about to be discharged as receiver, he undertook
to alert Ezra Cattan, through the mortgagee's attorney, Ronald Lenowitz, about the condition
of the wall. With the benefit of hindsight, these actions seem woefully insufficient. Given the
circumstances at the time, however, the Commission must conclude that his actions were
reasonable. Furthermore, as will be discussed more fully later in this report, in order to
sustain a charge of criminally negligent homicide it must be proven, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that a person, by his or her actions, failed to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable
risk of harm, and that it was reasonably foreseeable that this failure would be a
direct cause of the victim's death. People v. Kibbe, 35 N.Y.2d 407 (1974). In this matter,
Mr. Robinson observed a condition which he believed required repair and obtained court
authorization to hire an experienced repair contractor. He relied on the contractor's assertion
that the wall "looked perfectly solid" and that the "patching" job he done
was "adequate." Robinson, pp. 59, 117. In the context of a criminal prosecution, there is insufficient
evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Robinson failed to perceive the risk
posed by the defective facade or that this failure was the proximate cause of Michael
Unterweiser's death. Chapter Three: The Investigation And Prosecution
The Nassau County Police Department commenced its investigation into the death of Michael
Unterweiser immediately after officers and detectives arrived on the scene of the tragic
incident. Their files on this case reflect an extensive probe into both the construction of the
cement facade and the relevant events following the appointment of Mr. Robinson as receiver
for the mall property. With respect to the wall's construction, police investigators interviewed
mall tenants, members of the Poulikidis family, See
footnote 48 personnel from the Hempstead Department of Buildings and Nicholas
Corvacciola. In a signed statement, Mr. Corvacciola allegedly
informed the police that he had worked for Mr. Poulikidis in the past as a masonry contractor
and that, with respect to the renovations at Bedford Plaza, he was hired to "place
decoration brick around the [Bedford Plaza] mall ... [Poulikidis] would tell me how he wanted it
done and I followed his directions." See
footnote 49 Nassau County Police Report, 1/24/94. The police file also reflects that
the seventy-six year old stone mason informed them that Mr. Poulikidis had
personally purchased the cement bricks for the facades on the north and south sides of the
mall. See footnote 50 He also allegedly advised
the police that he knew the walls were being erected improperly: "I constantly told
[Poulikidis] that this wall on the south side and the north side of
the building should not be put up. The concrete of the existing building was to [sic]
porous to hold the blocks that were being installed." Nassau County Police Report,
1/24/94. In spite of his purported concerns about the facades, Mr. Corvacciola allegedly
followed Mr. Poulikidis' instructions and built the two structures according to Poulikidis'
specifications. See footnote 51
Also included in the interview records concerning the wall's construction is a statement
Nassau detectives obtained from the former inspector. See footnote 52 As discussed previously, the former building inspector
maintained that at the time Mr. Poulikidis initiated his renovations to the
property, which he described as having a "history of disrepair and derelic [sic]
condition," the former inspector believed the mall was under the jurisdiction of the
Division of Unsafe
Buildings. He insisted that he had alerted a number of officials at Hempstead's DOB to the
renovations being conducted at the mall, and that he had made many follow-up inquiries
concerning Mr. Poulikidis' authorization to perform this work. The former inspector claimed
that he was always informed by these officials that the mall was "in the hands of the
Unsafe Section of [Hempstead DOB]." Nassau County Police Report, 4/19/94. See footnote 53
In addition to the interviews conducted by the police pertaining to this aspect of the
investigation, their case file contains reports and information concerning Mr. Poulikidis' other
business endeavors in Nassau County, as well as extensive information concerning his personal
and corporate assets and liabilities. These records reflect that Mr. Poulikidis, who for a
number of years resided with his family in Nassau County, owned at least two shopping
centers in Merrick, New York, prior to his purchase of the Bedford Plaza mall. See footnote 54 Mr. Poulikidis also owned and
operated two "home improvement" businesses in Nassau County. See footnote 55 The police file includes copies of numerous civil lawsuits, some of them ongoing, against Mr.
Poulikidis' corporate and other business concerns. There were also a number of liens filed
against the Bedford Plaza property. Many of these liens and civil actions were based on
allegations that Mr. Poulikidis had breached numerous contractual business agreements with
various companies and individuals on Long Island. The police file also contains records relating to events after Edward Robinson was appointed
receiver by Judge Burke. In addition to Mr. Robinson, investigators interviewed William
Amoroso and his subcontractor, Carmello Folti. These three interviews, which were
apparently conducted on the day the wall collapsed, indicate some knowledge on Mr.
Amoroso's and Mr. Folti's part regarding the structure's substandard condition. Mr.
Amoroso's interview reflects he was informed by Mr. Folti that the wall was not
"anchored," See footnote 56 while
Mr. Folti stated that he did not observe any "footing or foundation for the bad wall." Nassau County Police Report, 1/21/94. Mr. Folti also told police that he informed Mr. Amoroso
he could "fill in the space between the old wall and the new [cement] block." The
records of Mr. Robinson's interview with police reflect that he was told by Mr. Amoroso that
"the wall was unsafe and should be torn down." Nassau County Police
Prior to the commencement of any criminal action stemming from this incident, the Nassau
County District Attorney's Office joined the investigation conducted by the Nassau County
Police. See footnote 57 The District Attorney's
Office obtained additional data concerning the facts and circumstances surrounding Michael
Unterweiser's death. Included in these files were analyses by various architectural and
engineering experts as to the causes of the wall's collapse, See footnote 58 records from Hempstead's Department of Buildings,
including all the building applications,
permits and code violations issued for the mall property subsequent to Mr. Poulikidis'
purchase of the property, and additional information concerning Mr. Poulikidis' role in the
construction of the defective facade. The prosecution's files also reflect follow-up interviews
conducted of Edward Robinson and William Amoroso, including a sworn statement provided
to the District Attorney's Office by Mr. Amoroso. Extensive records from the foreclosure
proceedings and documents reflecting the various transfers in property ownership between the
time of Mr. Poulikidis' 1988 purchase and January, 1994, are also part of the prosecution's
file. Finally, there is documentation reflecting research into many of the legal issues raised as
a result of this incident. Among the issues analyzed were the elements of Criminally
Negligent Homicide, the potential criminal liability of receivers stemming from actions
performed in connection with their court authorized responsibilities, pertinent treaty provisions
between the United States and Greece on the issue of extradition, and the potential criminal
responsibility of Hempstead DOB and its employees with respect to the insufficient oversight
of the mall property. The Commission interviewed the prosecutors from the Nassau County District Attorney's
Office who participated in the investigation and evaluation of this matter. These included
George Peck, Deputy Bureau Chief of the Major Offense Bureau, who went to the scene of the
incident on the day of its occurrence with the former Chief of that Bureau, Barry Grennan, See footnote 59 Fred Klein, who replaced Barry
Grennan as Chief of the Major Offense Bureau in September,
1994, Peter Weinstein, Chief of the Appeals Bureau and Charles Brock, a former Assistant
District Attorney in the Special Investigations Bureau. These prosecutors informed the
Commission that they held weekly meetings on this case with Chief Assistant District Attorney
Lawrence Leff. None of them reported directly to District Attorney Denis Dillon.
Based on the files examined and interviews conducted by the Commission, it is apparent that
the District Attorney's Office evaluated a number of pertinent legal and factual issues arising
out of the death of Michael Unterweiser and considered whether evidence of criminal conduct
existed with respect to various individuals. All the prosecutors interviewed in this matter
agreed that, based in large measure on his statement to police, there was sufficient evidence to
prosecute Mr. Corvacciola for both criminally negligent homicide and reckless manslaughter. This judgment was based on the fact that Mr. Corvacciola was aware of the risks arising out of
the defective construction of the wall and, according to his statement to police, had informed
Mr. Poulikidis of the danger. Additional evidence was provided by Mr. Corvacciola's
extensive background as a stone mason and his actual work in constructing the wall. The
District Attorney's Office concluded that it could be proven that Mr. Corvacciola knew, or at
least should have known, that the improper construction of the facade created a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that the wall would collapse.
According to the District Attorney's Office, the assessment of potential criminal charges
against Mr. Poulikidis required a far different analysis. The District Attorney's Office
determined that, in order to prove criminal liability on Mr. Poulikidis' part, the prosecutors
would have to prove the existence of a duty of awareness regarding the construction of the
wall, and that Mr. Poulikidis also should have known the wall's improper construction created
a substantial and foreseeable risk of harm. The District Attorney's staff concluded that a
prosecutor would have to demonstrate that Mr. Poulikidis directly supervised all phases of the
facade's construction, that Mr. Poulikidis knew, or should have known, that the wall's
construction created the substantial and foreseeable danger that water would accumulate
between the facade and brick veneer of the chinese restaurant over time, and that these
circumstances would ultimately cause the entire wall to collapse. Simply showing that Mr.
Poulikidis hired the workers, purchased the materials to build the facade and was present
during the construction did not, in the District Attorney's opinion, provide sufficient evidence
of criminal negligence. Thus, the District Attorney's Office concluded that, in the absence of
evidence of Mr. Poulikidis' direct role in the construction of the wall, testimony from Mr.
Corvacciola was essential to the prosecution's case. Although some negotiations about a
possible plea arrangement with Mr. Corvacciola's attorney did take place, no agreement was
reached. See footnote 60 Prosecutors also considered the possibility of having the former inspector testify against Mr.
Poulikidis in order to demonstrate Poulikidis' direct role in the facade's construction. For a
variety of reasons, however, the former inspector's cooperation was not sought. First, it was
concluded that, even with the former inspector's cooperation, the prosecution would still not
have had a prima facie case against Mr. Poulikidis without Mr. Corvacciola's testimony. Second, the former inspector's credibility would have been seriously compromised by his prior
inaccurate statements that he had no responsibility to insure that Mr. Poulikidis complied with
the requirements of Hempstead's Building Code. Finally, while prosecutors were still
evaluating the matter, information was received which revealed the possibility that Mr.
Poulikidis had paid a bribe to the former inspector during the renovations at the mall. A
memorandum in the District Attorney's files indicates that, in November, 1994, Kenneth
Martin, Mr. Poulikidis' attorney, met with prosecutors assigned to this matter. Mr. Martin
stated that, in exchange for favorable consideration, Mr. Poulikidis would be willing to testify
that he paid the former inspector $2500 on three separate occasions for the former inspector to
"look the other way" and to make sure that "things [ran] smoothly" with
respect to the mall
renovations. District Attorney's Memorandum, 11/21/94. According to his lawyer, Mr.
Poulikidis was willing to return to the United States and engage the former inspector in a
recorded telephone conversation if prosecutors would agree not to arrest him and if he
received immunity from anything he said during the call. See footnote 61 The Commission was advised that, based upon their
assessment of Mr. Poulikidis' culpability and various other factors, the
District Attorney's Office declined to agree to these terms. It was suggested, however, that
investigators go to Greece for the purpose of recording a telephone call from Mr. Poulikidis to
the former inspector. This proposal also did not come to fruition, ostensibly because Mr.
Martin was unwilling to travel to Greece and Mr. Poulikidis refused to make the recorded call
to the former inspector without his attorney present. Consequently, not only was any
prosecution of the former inspector for bribery effectively precluded by Mr. Poulikidis'
unwillingness to cooperate, the former inspector's potential utility as a witness against Mr.
Poulikidis was also obviated by the specter that the former inspector had engaged in criminal
conduct. Liability of the Former Inspector Prosecutors also contemplated commencing a criminal action against the former inspector
arising from the negligent performance of his duties as a building inspector. It was noted that
the former inspector had admitted being at the site and seeing the wall being constructed with
the knowledge that no building permit had been issued for this project. District Attorney's
Memorandum, 6/22/94, p. 3. It was also noted that the former inspector had
"misled" investigators from the District Attorney's Office when he told them that he
had "no jurisdiction over the erection of the wall." Id. The District
Attorney's Office concluded, however, that the former inspector could not be held criminally
liable for the death of Michael Unterweiser because, while he knew that Mr. Poulikidis was
illegally constructing the facade, it could not be proven that the former inspector also knew that
the construction created a substantial and foreseeable danger. Without this essential element, a
prosecution for criminally negligent homicide could not be maintained.
Based on the investigation and events referred to above, and the legal analysis of the
evidentiary requirements with respect to the possible crimes arising out of this incident, the
District Attorney's Office concluded that the only person who could be successfully prosecuted
for the improper construction of the defective facade was Mr. Corvacciola. In addition, based
upon research into the terms of the Treaty between the United States and Greece, it was
determined that Mr. Poulikidis could not be extradited for a crime involving involuntary
manslaughter. See footnote 62 Prosecutors also
concluded that the former inspector could neither be charged with bribery, since Mr. Poulikidis
would not cooperate in the investigation, nor with a
criminal charge based upon his failure to carry out his responsibilities with respect to the
facade's construction. The District Attorney's Office therefore elected to proceed solely
against Mr. Corvacciola for the negligent construction of the defective wall. Liability of Edward T. Robinson, III
Prosecutors assigned to this matter also evaluated whether Mr. Robinson could be charged
with a crime arising out of this incident. See footnote
63 Prosecutors determined, however, that Mr. Robinson was aware of a problem with the
south wall only to the extent that he had observed a
few loose bricks at the top southeast portion of the concrete structure. See footnote 64 The District Attorney's Office concluded that, having
engaged Mr. Amoroso to perform repair work to
those few bricks, Mr. Robinson reasonably believed that the defect had been corrected, albeit
temporarily. Prosecutors further determined that, other than Mr. Robinson's own
observations and what Mr. Amoroso purportedly told him about the wall, Robinson had no information concerning the danger arising from the defective structure. They also credited
Mr. Robinson's explanation that, when he received Mr. Weiss' correspondence, he believed
that Mr. Weiss was referring to the same problem which he had observed and engaged Mr.
Amoroso to repair.
With respect to Mr. Robinson's June, 1993, letter to Mr. Lenowitz, it was the District
Attorney's assessment that Mr. Robinson's use of the word "dangerous" did not
provide proof that he believed there was any "imminent danger." Portions of this
correspondence were also
viewed as exculpatory, in that it demonstrated that Mr. Robinson was only aware of a problem
with the upper southeast corner of the facade, and that he believed that Mr. Amoroso had
temporarily taken care of the problem. The letter reflects that Mr. Robinson was, in effect,
alerting Mr. Lenowitz that the condition should be reexamined when his client, Mr. Cattan,
obtained control of the property. Finally, none of the prosecutors interviewed believed that,
even though Mr. Robinson was aware that no repair work had been performed on the wall in
the seven month period between the date of the letter to Mr. Lenowitz and the collapse of the
facade, Mr. Robinson incurred any additional obligation to reexamine the defective structure. The District Attorney's Office concluded that Mr. Robinson had no legal duty to reassess the
situation during this seven month period. Prosecutors also found no inconsistency between the reference in Mr. Robinson's
correspondence with Mr. Lenowitz regarding Mr. Amoroso's "judgment" that the
wall should be torn down and rebuilt and Mr. Amoroso's sworn statement on this issue. In his
sworn statement to the District Attorney's Office, Mr. Amoroso stated: I explained to [Mr.
Robinson that] the wall, if we take it apart and repair it, then we would see [whether] the rest
of the wall would have to come down. I was only talking about that one corner, not the whole
entire wall." Amoroso, Statement to District Attorney, p. 10. See footnote 65 The District Attorney's Office
concluded that Mr. Amoroso's statement only reflected a general discussion with Mr.
Robinson regarding the wall, and that Amoroso was only referring to tearing down a few
bricks on the southeast corner of the wall.
Based on the facts and circumstances set forth above, the District Attorney's Office concluded
that Mr. Robinson was not criminally liable for the death of Michael Unterweiser. Even
assuming that a receiver could be charged with a crime in connection with acts performed
pursuant to his receivership responsibilities, See
footnote 66 prosecutors determined that Mr. Robinson made reasonable efforts to repair
what he believed was a relatively minor defect in a small portion of
the concrete facade. They concluded that he had no information about the condition of the
wall, other than Mr. Amoroso's statement and his own observations, which should have
alerted him to any immediate danger. Additionally, Mr. Robinson's assertion, that when he
received Mr. Weiss' letter regarding the wall he believed that Mr. Amoroso had already
temporarily fixed the problem, was found by the prosecutors to be credible. They found no
significant inconsistencies in the respective accounts of Messrs. Robinson and Amoroso
concerning what was said about the wall's condition. They also concluded that Mr.
Robinson's use of the word "dangerous" in the letter to Mr. Lenowitz was equivocal,
an indication that he was aware of the imminence or gravity of the danger. Moreover, none of
the prosecutors questioned by the Commission believed that the passage of over seven months
between the date of this letter and the wall's collapse did anything to alter that assessment. The District Attorney's Office, therefore, declined to prosecute Mr. Robinson for any crimes
arising out of Michael Unterweiser's death. Chapter Four: Analysis of the District Attorney's Actions and Conclusions
The Law of Criminally Negligent Homicide and Reckless Manslaughter
The New York State Penal Law provides that a person is guilty of Criminally Negligent
Homicide when that person, "with criminal negligence, ... causes the death of another
person." N.Y. Penal §125.10 (McKinney 1987). A person commits Manslaughter in
the Second Degree when "[h]e recklessly causes the death of another person." N.Y.
Penal §125.15(1) (McKinney 1987). Criminal negligence, in the context of a homicide, is
defined as the failure "to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk [of death]. The risk
[of death] must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross
deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the
situation." N.Y. Penal §15.05(4) (McKinney 1987). Reckless conduct, according to
the Penal Law, occurs when a person is "aware of and consciously disregards a substantial
and unjustifiable risk [of death]... ." N.Y. Penal §15.05(3) (McKinney 1987). See footnote 67 Courts in this state have held that criminally negligent homicide involves, in essence, "the
failure to perceive the risk [of death] in a situation where the offender has a legal duty of
awareness." People v. Haney, 30 N.Y.2d 328,334 (1972). This legal duty may be
based on statutory law, See footnote 68 on
contractual relationships, See footnote 69 or on
the common law. See footnote 70 As the statute
defining criminal negligence expressly provides, the failure to perceive the risk of death in
where the offender has a duty of awareness must be a gross deviation from the standard of
care which a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation. People v. Boutin, 75
N.Y.2d 692 (1990). Mere carelessness which results in death, without more, is insufficient to
establish criminal culpability. See footnote 71
In addition to the failure to perceive the risk of death, three other criteria must be evaluated
before a prosecution for criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter based on reckless
conduct can be maintained. First, the defendant must have engaged in some wrongful
conduct. See footnote 72 That is, he must have
created or contributed to the substantial and unjustifiable risk of death. Mere non-perception of
such a risk, even if death occurs, is insufficient to warrant criminal liability. "[C]riminally
negligent homicide requires not only a failure to perceive a
risk of death, but also some serious blameworthiness in the conduct that caused it."
Boutin, supra., at 696. See footnote
73 Second, the defendant's actions must be a sufficiently direct cause of the ensuing death. This
is a more stringent standard than that required under the law of civil negligence, which
necessitates only a finding that the defendant's conduct be a proximate cause of a
particular result. It is not necessary in criminal cases, however, to prove that the ultimate harm
was intended by the actor. See People v. Kibbe, 35 N.Y.2d 407 (1974);
cert. granted, Henderson v. Kibbe, 534 F.2d 493 (2d Cir. 1976); rev'd.,
431 U.S. 145 (1977). Moreover, the possibility that other events, independent of the actor's
conduct, may have contributed to the
victim's death will not, standing alone, obviate the actor's criminal liability for homicide.
See, People v. Cicchetti, 44 N.Y.2d 803 (1978). In Kibbe, supra.,
the defendants forced the decedent from their vehicle after robbing him, and left him on the
shoulder of an unlit road on a cold winter night without his shoes or eyeglasses and with his
trousers down around his ankles. In addition, the defendants were aware that their victim was
"thoroughly intoxicated." A short time later, a pickup truck struck and killed the
decedent while he was sitting in the middle of the road attempting to signal for help. In
appealing their convictions for murder, See footnote
74 defendants contended that the actions of the driver of the pickup truck constituted an
"intervening and superseding cause" of death, thereby relieving them of criminal
responsibility. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, asserting that the victim would
have frozen to death had he remained on the side of the road where the defendants abandoned
him. Therefore, the Court reasoned, the victim had little choice but to go onto the road in
search of assistance. Given his intoxicated condition and state of undress, the Court concluded
that this clearly "foreboded the probability of his resulting death." Id., at
412. The Court went on to state that to be a sufficiently direct cause of death, "it will
suffice if it can be said
beyond a reasonable doubt ... that the ultimate harm is something which should have been
foreseen as being reasonably related to the acts of the accused." Id., at 412.
Finally, it must be shown that the substantial and unjustifiable risk of death brought about by
the defendant's conduct was foreseeable. Even if the defendant failed to perceive that he
created or contributed to the risk of death, criminal liability will not attach unless it can also
be proven that the harm resulting from such conduct was reasonably foreseeable. In People
v. Warner-Lambert Co, 51 N.Y. 2d 295 (1980), the defendant was a chewing gum
manufacturer. Two chemicals used in the manufacturing process, magnesium stearate and
liquid nitrogen, were generally considered safe. However, magnesium stearate will burn if
ignited and liquid nitrogen can be used to produce liquid oxygen, which is highly flammable. Two explosions occurred at the plant, killing six employees. Despite expert testimony which
suggested that the explosions were triggered by machine sparks which ignited the liquid
oxygen and magnesium stearate, the Court of Appeals found that the actual cause of the
explosions was entirely speculative. In dismissing the indictment, the Court found that while
the defendants were aware of a "broad, undifferentiated risk of an explosion" the
corporate and individual defendants could not be held criminally liable where the triggering
cause of the explosion was neither foreseen nor foreseeable. Warner-Lambert,
supra., at 298. Prosecutions for the crimes of Criminally Negligent Homicide and Manslaughter have been
promulgated based on diverse factual situations which have resulted in death. These include
vehicular homicides, People v. Rooney, 57 N.Y.2d 822 (1982), deaths arising out of the
failure to provide adequate medical care, People v. Green, 180 A.D.2d 141 (1st Dept.
1992); habeus corpus denied, appeal denied, 79 N.Y.2d 1054 (1992), child abuse,
People v. Humiston, 187 A.D.2d 990 (4th Dept. 1992), improper use of firearms,
People v. Rosario, 78 A.D.2d 864 (2d Dept. 1980), negligently caused fires, People v.
Deitsch, 97 A.D.2d 327 (2d Dept. 1983), and industrial accidents, People v. Polstein,
184 A.D. 260 (1st Dept. 1918). Although these factual settings are distinct, the application of the
law on criminal negligence
or reckless conduct is based on the same legal principals. The cases discussed below illustrate
these principals which must be analyzed to determine whether the facts and circumstances
surrounding the death of Michael Unterweiser gives rise to criminal liability.
In People v. Deitsch, supra., the defendants were, respectively, a corporate entity
which conducted its business of baling and storing cloth at a Brooklyn warehouse, the president
the corporation and the warehouse foreman. The individual defendants were responsible for
the daily supervision of the premises. A fire occurred at the warehouse, resulting in the death
of several employees. Although a New York City fire marshal testified before the grand jury
examining this matter that he was unable to ascertain the cause of the fire, evidence was
elicited that the defendants failed to properly address potential fire hazards. These hazards
included open elevator shafts, blocked and unmarked fire exits, and the lack of fire escape
training for employees, all of which violated local fire and building ordinances. The Appellate Division, unanimously reversing the Supreme Court's dismissal of the
indictment, found that the evidence presented to the grand jury supported the conclusion that
the individual defendants who were responsible for the daily supervision of the premises were
also responsible for the hazardous fire conditions in the warehouse. Responding to the
contention that, since the cause of the fire was never determined, there was insufficient
evidence to conclude that the risk of death occasioned by the defendants' conduct was
foreseeable, the Appellate Division distinguished the holding in Warner - Lambert,
supra., finding a foreseeable, causal link between the defendants' conduct and the death
by fire of several employees: The triggering cause of the explosion [in Warner - Lambert ... was "hypothetical
and speculative", [and] was [therefore] neither foreseen nor foreseeable ... [In this case]
defendants created conditions in the warehouse which they should have foreseen could
result in death in the event of the fire.
.... We can see no bar to the imposition of criminal liability for deaths caused by a fire upon one
who maintains what is, in effect, a fire trap ...
Deitsch, supra. at 335, 336.
In People v. Reyes, 148 A.D.2d 756, (2d Dept. 1989); aff'd. 75 N.Y.2d 590 (1990),
Reyes, the owner of a residential building in Brooklyn, New York, entered into a triple net-lease
agreement with the co-defendant, Velez, where-in Velez occupied one of the units and acted as
the building's manager. The lease identified Reyes as the owner of record and provided that
"[t]enant shall make no changes in or to the premises of any nature without [o]wner's prior
written consent," and that "[o]wner shall maintain and repair the public portions of
the building." 148 A.D.2d at 757. Subsequently, Reyes illegally renovated the structure to
a single room occupancy premise, in violation of various provisions of the New York City Fire
and Building Codes. Part of the illegality stemmed from improper electrical work and the fact
that the structure was a three story building with a wooden frame and no fire stopping
materials to impede the spread of fire from room to room. Additional evidence indicated that
Reyes was seen in the building during renovations, giving instructions to the men working on
the project. Subsequently, a fire occurred resulting in the death of one tenant. A fire marshal
testified that he was "98%" certain that the fire had been started by heat from
overloaded electrical wiring in one of the second floor kitchens. 75 N.Y. 2d at 593.
The Appellate Division, unanimously reversing the Supreme Court's dismissal of the
indictment against both defendants, found a legally sufficient basis for the indictment based not
only on the illegal construction, but also on the maintenance of the illegal condition. [t]he illegal construction of the premises took place while [Velez] was in possession
and occupancy of the building. Furthermore, the evidence established that the various
fire and building code violations were created or allowed to exist during his tenure as
net lessee.
Reyes and Velez created and maintained the unsafe conditions which resulted in the
foreseeable danger of fire and injury to the building's tenants. Reyes, 148 A.D.2d at 758, 759.
The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the Appellate Division holding as to Reyes. See footnote 75 The court cited as factors
supporting its conclusions that the defendant had retained control of the
building under the lease agreement, that Reyes had personally supervised the illegal
construction and that subsequently Reyes failed to respond to notices sent to him of various
electrical violations arising out of the illegal construction. [Reyes] participated in the creation of the fire-producing conditions in the building,
and ... he also failed in his continuing duty as legal owner of the building to eliminate
those conditions. It was reasonably foreseeable that the creation and continuance of the
dangerous conditions presented a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death or injury in
a fire. Reyes, 75 N.Y. 2d at 593. The Evaluation of Evidence Against Edward T. Robinson, III
As discussed in section two, Mr. Robinson relied on his contractor for information concerning
the condition of the defective wall. Mr. Amoroso testified before the Commission that his
subcontractor, Mr. Folti, had "patched" two loose bricks on the top southeast corner
wall, and that he subsequently advised Mr. Robinson that this portion of the wall would have
to be "repaired up on top with some cement." Amoroso, pp. 30, 45. Mr.
Amoroso insisted that he never made any observations about the condition of the entire wall,
Amoroso, p. 25, and, therefore, never related any opinion to Mr. Robinson about what
should be done with the entire structure. Mr. Robinson, who testified that he too had observed
"a slight separation of the brick at the ... top of the southeast corner of the wall"
Robinson, p. 46 also advised the Commission that Mr. Amoroso never indicated to him
that "[the wall] was [in] any imminent danger of falling." Robinson, p. 65. It
is possible that Mr. Robinson may have received more ominous information about the wall's
condition, from either Mr. Amoroso or someone from
the abutting chinese restaurant. Even assuming, arguendo, that Mr. Robinson did receive
additional reports about the wall, this would not, as a matter of law, warrant a conclusion that
Robinson was criminally liable for Michael Unterweiser's death. There is no evidence to
support the conclusion that Mr. Robinson, either based upon his personal experience or
information he had received, should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that
the entire wall would fall down due to its defective condition. Furthermore, it would be
extremely difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, based upon the totality of
circumstances, that Mr. Robinson's failure to take additional measures to correct the situation
rendered the wall's collapse foreseeable. See footnote
76 As the case law cited above clearly indicates, mere non-perception of a risk is
insufficient to prove a charge of criminally negligent homicide. There must also be conduct which creates or contributes to the substantial and
foreseeable risk of harm. There is no evidence that Mr. Robinson had any such
imminent danger of the wall's collapse, nor is there any evidence that Mr. Robinson should
have foreseen the danger. While the Commission does not concur with every assessment
rendered by the District Attorney's Office, See
footnote 77 it does find that the District Attorney fully considered all of the relevant legal
and factual issues with regard to the conduct of Mr. Robinson, and that it reached a conclusion
which was consistent with the law. Costas Poulikidis
The investigation conducted by the Nassau Police and District Attorney clearly indicates that
Mr. Poulikidis was responsible for the construction of the facade. After buying the mall, he
hired workers, purchased materials and set in motion the renovations at Bedford Plaza. He
was seen by a number of people at the mall during this project. He also had prior experience
with similar renovations of commercial structures. In addition, at the time of the renovations,
he had been in the home improvement business for well over twenty years. Combined with
statements made by Mr. Corvacciola, it is reasonable to conclude that Mr. Poulikidis knew, or
should have known, that the defective manner in which the facade was constructed, with no
foundation, no proper adherence to an existing wall and no method for water or other liquids
to drain from in between the two walls, created a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the wall
would collapse, and that such a risk was foreseeable. Without Mr. Corvacciola's statement, however, this conclusion is much less apparent. The
District Attorney's Office maintained that it must be proven that Mr. Poulikidis directly
supervised the construction of the facade. While the case law analyzing matters involving fatal
incidents stemming from building conditions, renovations or repairs clearly indicates a
requirement of some direct involvement of a defendant in the conduct which created or
contributed to the substantial risk of harm, See
footnote 78 these cases do not define the specific level of involvement or supervision which
would be required to demonstrate an awareness, or duty of
awareness, of a such a condition. Clearly, in this matter, it would be necessary to show some
level of direct participation by Mr. Poulikidis in the construction of the defective facade. The
District Attorney's Office concluded that Mr. Corvacciola's testimony was required to provide
such evidence. It cannot be concluded, based upon the relevant legal standards and the particular facts of this
case, that this determination was incorrect. It is certain, from a review of the District
Attorney's file and discussions with those who considered these issues, that a conscientious
effort was made to consider all of the relevant legal and factual issues. The District Attorney's
decision with regard to the prosecution of Mr. Poulikidis was based upon a considered
judgment, and was clearly not an abuse of the District Attorney's discretion or a substantive
deviation from the legal requirements concerning criminally negligent homicide. Mr.
Corvacciola's testimony could have established Mr. Poulikidis' direct involvement in the
wall's construction. This would have been highly probative on the issue of Mr. Poulikidis'
knowledge of the danger created by the wall's substandard construction. Absent Mr.
Corvacciola testimony, both the quality and quantity of the evidence against Mr. Poulikidis
would clearly be substantially reduced. Whether it would have been fatal to any prosecution is
a decision which the District Attorney is both authorized and compelled to make before
determining how to proceed. See footnote 79 Compounding the issue is Mr. Poulikidis' unavailability to be held accountable for any crime he
may have committed due to his absence from the country. Under these circumstances, the Commission concludes that the District Attorney was acting
within his discretion, based on a reasonable evaluation of the law as it applies to the facts and
circumstances of this case, in declining to prosecute Mr. Poulikidis for this incident at this
time. The Former Inspector
The Commission also concurs with the judgment of the District Attorney's Office that the
former inspector's failure to properly perform his responsibilities as a building inspector does
not rise to the level of criminal conduct. Unlike a civil action for negligence, which requires
only a finding that the defendant's conduct be a proximate cause of some harm, the law
on criminal negligence requires that the defendant's conduct be "a sufficiently
direct cause" of harm. Kibbe, supra., emphasis added. The District
Attorney correctly concluded that the only direct result of the former inspector's conduct was that
Mr. Poulikidis was able to construct and maintain the facade without either a building permit or a
certificate of completion. The lack of a building permit for the facade was not a direct
cause of the wall's collapse. Moreover, there is no evidence that the former inspector knew, or
should have known, of the dangers created by Mr. Poulikidis' improper construction.
The death of Michael Unterweiser was a terrible, senseless tragedy. This young man's life
abruptly ended as a result of a poorly constructed, illegal and undeniably perilous concrete
wall which was built and permitted to stand for more than 5-1/2 years, unchecked by the
authorities and without any reparative measures taken by anyone. Despite the apparent
emergence of some visible defects relating to the facade, and observations made by individuals
with construction experience of some of the more obvious problems, nothing was ever done to
alleviate the conditions created by this carelessly built, faulty structure. Costas Poulikidis clearly bears responsibility for erecting this wall in that Mr. Poulikidis set in
motion and directed the forces which created this eighteen-foot high, multi-ton masonry
hazard. While the circumstances surrounding the construction of the wall will continue to be
the subject of litigation in pending criminal and civil lawsuits, it is undisputed that Mr.
Poulikidis, as owner of this property, purchased the materials for the wall, did not obtain
necessary building permits, and, in some manner, directed the building of the structure. The Hempstead Department of Buildings is also accountable for failing to take necessary steps
to monitor work within its jurisdiction. After Mr. Cattan had ameliorated the most obvious
safety hazard at Bedford Plaza, the accumulation of over 500,000 gallons of raw sewage in the
basement of one of the larger buildings in the mall, DOB's Unsafe Buildings Division closed
its file with little, if any, attention given to the litany of other health and safety hazards which
existed at the property. Many of these problems were documented in DOB's records on the
building, and continued to plague the property after it was sold to Mr. Poulikidis. This lack of
concern was effectively exploited by Mr. Poulikidis, who proceeded with his substandard
renovations virtually unfettered by any consideration of compliance with state and local
construction requirements. Obtaining building permits, certificates of completion or
arranging for required inspections of various stages of the renovation process were evidently
of little importance to Mr. Poulikidis, and the Department of Buildings, although aware of the
construction because an inspector was at the premises for other purposes, did nothing to
The former building inspector who had knowledge of the property, either by intention or
incompetence, failed to take any action to insure that the construction of the wall met
minimum safety standards. While there is some indication that the former inspector may have
engaged in illegal conduct with regard to his duties, it is nonetheless unclear whether his duties
entailed the supervision of the construction of the wall. According to his statement to the
Nassau County Police, the former inspector believed the structure still came within the
jurisdiction of the Unsafe Buildings Division. Representatives from Hempstead DOB dispute
this, and claim that it was the inspector's responsibility to initiate an inquiry if he saw the
construction in progress. The complete absence of supervisory oversight or review at Hempstead's Department of
Buildings makes it virtually impossible to determine who is ultimately responsible for any
actions that were taken or for any failures to act. According to DOB representatives, no one
at that agency was aware of the facade's existence, except for the former inspector, until after
it collapsed. DOB files reflect, however, that in January, 1991, the agency had been informed
about the concrete falling from the soffits on Bedford Avenue, and then subsequently
discovered that the soffits and the 1988 theater renovations did not have the required
buildings' documentation and were therefore illegal. Nevertheless, no one at the agency saw
fit to re-examine this building to ascertain whether other possible illegal or unsafe conditions
existed. Even with regard to that work which was allegedly being monitored by DOB, their
actions reflect a total absence of oversight. As noted previously, the certificate of completion
for the construction work on the soffits along Bedford Avenue was not issued until February,
1995, after the Commission began its investigation and almost four years after the
building permit application had been approved. According to Hempstead's Building Code, this
project should have been deemed abandoned, and therefore, declared illegal, after no more than
two years from the issuance of the building permit. Hempstead Code,
§86-13(B)(C). Assuring that the Town's commercial and residential structures are habitable and safe is a
weighty mandate. The absence of written protocols, procedural manuals, supervisory
oversight or even regular reviews of the work of inspectors clearly contributed to the
circumstances of Mr. Unterweiser's death. The Commission is therefore recommending that
Hempstead DOB reform its current practices and institute a series of internal controls to
effectively monitor construction in the Town and to insure that such failures do not result in
future tragedies. These recommendations are detailed below.
With regard to the actions of the receiver, Edward T. Robinson, III, it is clear to the
Commission that when he was appointed receiver for Bedford Plaza in December, 1992, Mr.
Robinson was unprepared for the deluge of complaints which confronted him. Leaking roofs,
falling cement and stucco, flooded stores, broken drainage pipes, mosquito infestation and a
burgeoning pigeon population were just some of the afflictions which plagued this property
and resulted in constant complaints by the mall's tenants. Given his limited role of preserving
the property and assets during the pendency of the foreclosure proceedings, Mr. Robinson
made reasonable efforts to respond to the tenants' complaints and to manage a structure which
he quickly realized was in "a serious state of disrepair." Despite these efforts, the Commission finds Mr. Robinson's account of his actions regarding
the wall which collapsed disturbing. First, Mr. Robinson apparently received complaints
about the wall from various sources, including Mr. Weiss and at least one mall tenant. Mr.
Robinson's court papers, submitted in connection with his final accounting as receiver,
specifically refer to his receipt of tenant complaints about the "defective condition of a wall
on the southerly portion of the building." In addition, Mr. Cheung, the proprietor of the
abutting chinese restaurant, testified before the Commission that, through his son, he informed
Mr. Robinson about "cracks" in the wall on "two or three occasions." Cheung, p. 11, 21. While the Commission does not believe this is dispositive of any
issues pertaining to possible
criminal conduct in this matter, it does suggest that there was a compelling basis to have the
structure examined.
Second, in his May 12, 1993 correspondence to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Weiss advised Robinson
that the facade was "laid on the sidewalk [without] proper footings...[was] separating from
the main portion of the building...[and was] in danger of collapse." When viewed together
with the other complaints he apparently received about the wall, it is difficult to understand how
Mr. Robinson, who asserted that the only problem he observed with the wall was limited to a
few bricks in the upper southeast corner of the structure, concluded that Mr. Weiss was
referring to the same minor condition.
Finally, and perhaps most difficult to reconcile, is Mr. Robinson's failure to take any
additional reparative measures after his June, 1993, correspondence with Mr. Lenowitz. Having characterized the condition of the wall to Mr. Lenowitz, alternatively, as either
"dangerous" or "potentially dangerous," and having advised Lenowitz
that his "contractor" had concluded that "the wall should be torn down and
rebuilt," Mr. Robinson took no action during the next seven months to determine whether
there was any immediate danger. Although Mr. Robinson clearly believed, in June, 1993, that he
was soon to be relieved of his receivership responsibilities, at some point it must have become
apparent to him that this was not going to occur as expeditiously as anticipated. See footnote 80 Until Judge Burke ordered his
discharge on January 31, 1994, Mr. Robinson was still the receiver for Bedford Plaza and
retained all of the powers and responsibilities stemming from that position. In fact, Mr.
Robinson continued to collect rents, communicate with tenants, and, as late as December, 1993,
sought court permission to arrange for snow removal from the premises. With a modicum of
additional diligence, Mr. Robinson could have sought approval for funds to have a qualified
contractor reexamine the wall to determine if the condition, which Mr. Robinson believed was at
least "potentially dangerous" in June, 1993, had become a more imminent danger at
some point thereafter. The Commission concludes this would have been the more appropriate
response to his receivership duties than simply waiting for the discharge order to be signed.
It must be noted, however, that the Commission's attempt to ascertain precisely what
information Mr. Robinson had with respect to the facade was hampered by inconsistencies in
statements made by Mr. Amoroso to the Nassau County Police, the District Attorney's
investigators, and the Commission. It is not clear, from the available evidence, exactly what
Mr. Amoroso had learned about the wall or what he told Mr. Robinson about it. The evidence
reflects that Mr. Robinson perceived that the wall was "dangerous" or
"potentially dangerous" as a result of information he had obtained from Mr.
Amoroso. Mr. Amoroso, however, denies ever providing such information. In addition,
according to police reports, Mr. Folti had observed that the wall was not "anchored"
and had "no footing," a direct reference to two of the problems stemming from the
improper construction of the wall. This suggests that these experienced construction contractors
were aware that the problem with the facade was more serious than simply a few loose bricks
which could quickly be "patched" with a little cement.
The Commission nonetheless finds that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that any of the
parties mentioned were criminally liable for Mr. Unterweiser's death. There is no basis to
conclude that Mr. Robinson or Mr. Amoroso should have been aware that the facade was in
imminent danger of collapsing. Furthermore, failures on the part of the Hempstead Buildings
Department and its representatives cannot be causally related to the wall's collapse.
As discussed in the previous section, the Commission concludes that the Nassau County
District Attorney's Office acted reasonably in evaluating the merits of possible criminal
prosecutions of the individuals discussed in this report. Moreover, the investigation conducted
by both the District Attorney's Office and Nassau County Police was reasonably thorough, as
evidenced by the documents obtained and interviews conducted by investigators. The
decisions made as to what admissible evidence was available against the various individuals
discussed in this report and, ultimately, who could be criminally prosecuted as a result of this
incident, were based on appropriate considerations of this evidence. While the Commission
does not concur with every assessment made by the District Attorney's Office, it finds that
prosecution clearly acted within its authority in reaching its conclusions. The Commission
recognizes that duly elected prosecutors enjoy wide discretion in determining whether, and
under what circumstances, to commence a criminal action. Schumer v. Holtzman, 60
N.Y.2d 246 (1983). Moreover, it can be a legitimate exercise of this discretion not to prosecute,
even in circumstances where there appears to be an evidentiary basis for initiating such an action.
Matter of Murphy v. Dwyer, 101 A.D.2d 376 (3d Dept. 1984). In this matter, the District
Attorney appropriately took into consideration a number of factors, in addition to its
assessment of the evidence, in deciding whether to commence criminal actions against various
individuals. There is no evidence that any of the District Attorney's determinations were
guided by improper motives. These decisions were clearly within the District Attorney's
authority, and, consequently, are not subject to additional review. The Commission therefore
finds no basis to recommend the appointment of a special prosecutor in this matter. The Hempstead Department of Buildings
The Commission finds that many of the operational functions at Hempstead's Department of
Buildings are seriously flawed. The investigation conducted by the Commission reveals that
there is little, if any, supervision or review of the work of the Department's personnel. Consequently, there is no internal mechanism which can detect irregularities, whether due to
inadvertent error or deliberate malfeasance, in the work of the agency's field inspectors and
other key staff. As was the situation at Bedford Plaza, the absence of adequate oversight and
review enabled the former building inspector to ignore his work responsibilities without fear of
detection by supervisory personnel.
There are no protocols, guidelines or written regulations pertaining to the issuance of building
permits, certificates or other documentation required for all structures within the Town of
Hempstead, other than the Building Code itself. This absence of a uniform set of procedures
causes erratic and haphazard application of the law pertaining to building construction and
renovation. Moreover, the agency's method for monitoring construction or renovation
projects for which building permits have been issued is ineffective. Currently, after a building
permit is issued, inspectors go to building sites only when requested to do so by the owner. Secretaries at the Department of Buildings are responsible for sending notices to building
owners informing them when their permits are about to expire, but there is no method for
confirming that this was actually done in any particular instance. Thus, there is no mandatory
review of projects for which permits have been issued, nor is there a reliable method by which
an owner is notified that his or her license to build, repair or renovate is about to expire. As
was the situation at Bedford Plaza, this allows structures which have not complied with the
Building Code, and are therefore illegal, to remain undetected.
Finally, there are no established protocols for the investigation and follow-up review of
complaints pertaining to unsafe buildings. With respect to Bedford Plaza, Inspector DiNapoli,
who went to the mall in response to a complaint, confined his attention to the falling cement
from the soffits along Bedford Avenue, even though this was only two stores away from the
location of the defective facade. Moreover, despite the fact that DOB personnel ascertained
the existence of at least two illegal structures in the mall, no comprehensive inspection of the
entire mall was even contemplated. Obviously, this lack of effective oversight greatly
increases the probability that dangerous structures, particularly large commercial outlets, will
not be detected or monitored.
The Commission, therefore, makes the following recommendations for change:
The Commission recommends creation of an organizational chart for Hempstead DOB. This should include a list of job descriptions, responsibilities and agency
objectives. It should also illustrate the Department's work flow and various
supervisory positions. This would clearly and concisely depict every employee's
function in the context of the agency's overall operation and would illuminate
organizational weaknesses, particularly at the supervisory level. It would also avoid
the confusion which permitted the former building inspector to insist that something
was "outside" his jurisdiction.
The Commission recommends that Hempstead DOB establish a set of protocols for all
aspects of the Department's various inspection functions and for the issuance of
permits, certificates and other documentation which might be applicable to the town's
commercial and residential structures. This will enhance uniform application of
Hempstead's Building Code and other pertinent regulations.
The Commission recommends that Hempstead DOB create a system of active supervision
and regular review of the work performance of inspectors and other key
personnel. This review should be conducted by the chiefs of the agency's five
inspection units who should, in turn, be responsible for reporting the results of these
reviews directly to the Commissioner or either of his two deputies. The review should
cover all aspects of the inspectors work. Supervisors should also go into the field to do
unannounced "spot" inspections of locations in which inspectors are working to
insure that they are properly performing their official functions. Furthermore, Hempstead
DOB should consider regular rotation of inspectors to limit opportunities for corruption.
The Commission recommends that Hempstead DOB establish a meaningful, mandatory
method of building permit review by inspectors and support personnel. Inspectors should be required to confirm that completed building projects have
complied with all laws and regulations and that all appropriate documentation is issued
in a timely manner. The sending of "expiration letters" and other essential
communications with owners or contractors should be documented.
Hempstead DOB should create a separate set of protocols for the evaluation of complaints
regarding unsafe buildings. Additionally, Hempstead DOB must institute mandatory follow-up
procedures for structures which have been determined to be unsafe, particularly large commercial
Footnote: 1 The Nassau County District
Attorney's Office responded to the scene and actively joined the investigation in March, 1994. Footnote: 2 Mr. Poulikidis subsequently
relocated to Greece and was residing there at the time of this incident.
Footnote: 3 In January, 1995, the charge of
Reckless Manslaughter was added to the indictment.
Footnote: 4 District Attorney's
Memorandum, March 10, 1995, at 16. Footnote: 5 Grand jury transcripts were not
Footnote: 6 The New York State Uniform
Fire Prevention and Building Code Act, N.Y. Exec. Law, Art. 18 (McKinney 1993), has also
been adopted by Nassau County. See Hempstead Code, Chapter 86, preamble.
Footnote: 7 The specifications and
requirements for the issuance of a building permit are set forth in the Hempstead Code, §
86-9. Footnote: 8 "All ... unsafe [or
otherwise dangerous] buildings are hereby declared to be illegal and shall be abated by repair and
rehabilitation." Hempstead Code, § 86-27(A). Footnote: 9 Although DOB's files also
reflect some effort by Mr. Cattan to correct these hazardous conditions, he was again cited in
early 1988 for failing to clean out the accumulation of dead birds and excrement in the building.
Footnote: 10 In October, 1987, a real
estate broker inspecting the premises narrowly escaped serious injury when he fell through rotting floor boards into six feet of raw sewage.
Footnote: 11 Concomitantly, a
Certificate of Completion would also have been required following the construction of the
Footnote: 12 The renovations to be
performed were described on the permit as "repair floor & roof as needed. Convert
theater to retail stores and office." There is no reference on the DOB permit to the two
Footnote: 13 The former inspector has
since retired from DOB and currently resides in Florida. Footnote: 14 Mr. Delia died in 1993. Footnote: 15 One of the last entries in
these files is dated April 15, 1988, and includes the notation "building secure."
Footnote: 16 These inspections by the
former inspector also contradict his assertion that he was transferred to the Public Assembly Unit
in October, 1988.
Footnote: 17 Mr. Gaiti advised the
Commission that, pursuant to DOB's practice with respect to building permits, a written notice
should have been sent to Mr. Poulikidis, eleven months after the issuance of the
building permit, reminding him of his obligation to secure a certificate of occupancy. DOB
officials were unable to confirm, however, that such a notice was issued in this matter.
Footnote: 18 By 1991, pursuant to the
agreement with Ezra Cattan, Effenzee Capital had assumed operational control of the mall. See
Section Two, infra.
Footnote: 19 Even though this new
building permit was issued in 1991, DOB files reflect that the certificate of completion for this
particular project was not secured until February, 1995. According to the Hempstead Building
Code, this is illegal. Hempstead Code, §86-13(B).
Footnote: 20 It should be noted that the
location of the portion of the soffit which Ms. Logie complained of is only two doors away from
the chinese restaurant which abutted the facade running along the southerly
portion of the mall.
Footnote: 21 See Section Three, infra.
Footnote: 22 By February, 1995, the
Commission had commenced its investigation in this matter.
Footnote: 23 The purchase mortgage
required monthly payments of interest only, with the full principal due in five years.
Footnote: 24 This mortgage was for a
$600,000 loan from Effenzee. In August, 1989, Mr. Poulikidis gave an additional mortgage on
the property to Effenzee in exchange for a $400,000 loan. As security for these
loans, Mr. Poulikidis, through his corporate entity, Pouli Enterprises, assigned all his rights to the
leases and rents at Bedford Plaza to Effenzee.
Footnote: 25 Mr. Poulikidis
subsequently relinquished all rights, title and interest in the property.
Footnote: 26 Mr. Lenowitz explained to
the Commission that this agreement was motivated, in large measure, by the decline in real estate
values during the end of the 1980s. Consequently, both mortgagees agreed
to this arrangement to preserve the possibility of recouping their original investments in the
property. At the time of this agreement, there were tax and mechanics liens on the property.
Footnote: 27 See 75 Corpus Juris
Secundum, Receivers, at 657.
Footnote: 28 In re Stoll-Meyer
Woodcrafters, Inc., 84 N.Y.S.2d 757 (Kings Co. S. Ct. 1948); Knickerbocker Ice Co. v.
Benson, 155 Misc. 738, (N.Y. Co. Mun. Ct. 1935). See also, N.Y. Civil Practice Law
§6401 Commentary C6401:3 (McKinney 1963).
Footnote: 29 N.Y. Civil Practice Law
§6401.
Footnote: 30 See N.Y. Real Prop. Acts
Law § 1325 (McKinney 1963).
Footnote: 31 See 66 Am. Jur. 2d
§ 203, at 32 (1973).
Footnote: 32 See People v.
Eisenberg, 100 Misc.2d 29 (App. Term, N.Y. Co. 1979).
Footnote: 33 N.Y. Civil Practice Law
§6401 Commentary C6401:4 (McKinney 1963). See also, Copeland v. Salomon,
56 N.Y.2d 222 (1982). Footnote: 34 N.Y. Civil Practice
Law §6401(c) (McKinney 1963).
Footnote: 35 Page references are to the
transcripts of sworn testimony before the Commission.
Footnote: 36 Mr. Robinson testified
that, while he had never expressed an interest in a receivership appointment, he has known Judge
Burke for "a long time," and informed the judge that he was interested in the
position. Robinson, pp. 26, 27. Footnote: 37 The order also required
Mr. Robinson to execute an oath, pursuant to section 640l of the CPLR, and file a bond with the
court "conditioned for the faithful performance of his ... duties as such receiver." Mr.
Robinson was also authorized to retain counsel in connection with his receivership duties.
Footnote: 38 He also informed the
Commission that he received correspondence from the mall's insurance company. The insurance
company had conducted its own inspection of the premises and had threatened
to cancel insurance coverage for the mall unless the most serious problems with the property
were "corrected." Robinson, p. 43. This letter, a copy of which was obtained
Commission, advised Mr. Robinson to effect repairs to the roofs of various buildings and the
soffits along Bedford Avenue, but did not make reference to the south wall which subsequently
Footnote: 39 Mr. Robinson stated that
although he observed this condition, he had no conversation with Mr. Lovering about the wall.
Robinson, p. 47. Mr. Lovering informed the Commission that he first noticed a problem
south wall sometime during the spring of 1993. The area of the wall to which Mr. Lovering
referred, however, was at the opposite end of the south wall from where Mr. Robinson noted
the defect. Mr. Lovering advised the Commission that he observed a 6" long separation
between the facade and brick wall adjacent to the front window next to the front of the chinese
restaurant. This is the northeast portion of the facade. See, Exhibit 1. Mr. Lovering stated that
he never observed any separation of the facade at the southeast end of the wall. He also indicated
that, after making this observation, he notified David Weiss, former President of the Bellmore
Chamber of Commerce, who then corresponded with Mr. Robinson. Footnote: 40 Mr. Robinson also testified
that he never spoke with anyone from the abutting chinese restaurant about the wall. Robinson,
p. 50. This conflicts, however, with assertions made by various individuals associated with the
Footnote: 41 Mr. Robinson informed
the Commission that he "thought" Lester Stanco, a principal of Stanco Enterprises,
went to look at the wall and that he "may have given" an estimate, but decided to
William Amoroso, the proprietor of Concord Home Improvement, because of his
"Bellmore affiliation." Robinson, p. 60. Lester Stanco, however, advised the
Commission that he never visited the Bedford mall and that he gave no estimate to Mr. Robinson
for repairs of any kind with respect to the mall.
Footnote: 42 Mr. Robinson testified that
he initially received a verbal estimate from Mr. Amoroso but, on May 4, 1993, he was given one
in writing. That document, obtained from Mr. Amoroso, refers to estimates for
the installation of aluminum soffits, repairs to the roof, gutters and leaders, and also notes
"repair wall on southside of building stucco - $600.00."
Footnote: 43 Mr. Amoroso testified
before the Commission that Mr. Robinson never brought information concerning any complaints
about the facade to his attention. Amoroso, p. 58.
Footnote: 44 Mr. Robinson testified
before the Commission that he was "anxious" to be discharged as receiver because it
was taking an "extraordinary" amount of his time. Robinson, p. 71.
Footnote: 45 Mr. Cheung's testimony
was translated from Chinese into English by a New York State certified translator.
Footnote: 46 Mr. Robinson's attorney,
Robert Zausmer, advised the Commission that Mr. Robinson had reviewed his files at the
Commission's request and was unable to locate any correspondence from an attorney
representing the chinese restaurant.
Footnote: 47 Mr. Robinson's court
accounting also refers to complaints he received about the defective condition of the south wall. In his final accounting, dated September 30, 1993, Mr. Robinson advised the court:
"[I]n the latter part of March and early part of April, 1993, having been contacted by
various tenants with more complaints about the condition of the premises, in particular the
defective condition of a wall on the southerly portion of the building... ."
Footnote: 48 As previously noted,
Costas Poulikidis was residing in Greece at the time of the incident and has apparently remained
there since that time. The police file reflects efforts made to ascertain Mr. Poulikidis' exact
whereabouts in Greece.
Footnote: 49 The content of Mr.
Corvacciola's statement is the subject of current litigation in Nassau County Court.
Footnote: 50 An invoice from Presti
Stone & Mason Corp., a company located in Freeport, New York, is included in the police
files. It is dated July 8, 1988, and memorializes the sale of "2500 4" Solid White Rib
Blocks" to Bedford Plaza Realty, the company which Mr. Poulikidis utilized to purchase
Footnote: 51 The content and
voluntariness of Mr. Corvacciola's statement is the subject of ongoing litigation in Nassau
County Supreme Court.
Footnote: 52 By the time of the
investigation by the Nassau Police Department, the former inspector had retired and was residing
in Florida. Nassau County detectives traveled to Florida to speak with him about this matter.
Footnote: 53 The former inspector also
denied having a personal relationship with Mr. Poulikidis. This was disputed, however, by
Sidney Chertok, Mr. Poulikidis' real estate broker. He informed the District
Attorney's investigators that he had seen the former inspector at "a number" of social
events given by Mr. Poulikidis and his wife. District Attorney's Memorandum, 6/22/94.
Footnote: 54 The Commission's
investigation revealed that these shopping centers have cement facades similar to those at
Bedford Plaza. According to Herbert Kurzer, an attorney for the Merrick Gables Civic
Association who informed the Commission that he has known Mr. Poulikidis since the early
1980's, these facades were constructed in a similar fashion to the one that collapsed at Bedford
Plaza. Mr. Kurzer also stated to the Commission that he observed Mr. Poulikidis at the Merrick
construction sites every day directing the workers.
Footnote: 55 Mr. Poulikidis' applications
for consumer affairs licenses for these residential renovation companies are included in the police
file. One application contains a description of the nature of the residential renovation business as
"manufacturing-installing of windows and doors." The other application includes a
description of the company's operation as "siding, windows and roofing." There
is also a notation in this second document, that, as of 1990, Mr. Poulikidis had over twenty-five
years experience in the home improvement business.
Footnote: 56 There is also a notation in
the record of Mr. Amoroso's interview that he "advised Robinson of bad condition."
It is unclear, however, if this reference pertains to the defective facade or the condition of the
stucco on the wall behind the chinese restaurant at 501 Bedford Avenue.
Footnote: 57 Based on interviews and
other information obtained by the Commission, the District Attorney's office actively joined the
probe into Michael Unterweiser's death in March, 1994.
Footnote: 58 These experts consulted on
this incident that the cause of the wall's collapse was directly attributable to the defective
construction. Prosecutors interviewed by the Commission added that, although there was some
disagreement among the experts consulted as to the precise condition which precipitated the
collapse, there was no dispute that it stemmed from the improper construction.
Footnote: 59 Prior to the
commencement of this trial, Mr. Peck, who had been originally assigned to prosecute Mr.
Corvacciola, resigned from the District Attorney's Office to become a Town judge in Nassau
County. Barry Grennan retired from the District Attorney's Office prior to the completion of the
investigation and evaluation of this matter.
Footnote: 60 No agreement was reached
because Mr. Corvacciola was only willing to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and, according to
Fred Klein, the District Attorney's Office was unwilling to agree to this.
Footnote: 61 Memoranda from the
District Attorney's Office reflect the suspicion of police and prosecutors that Mr. Poulikidis' offer
was merely a ruse to re-enter the country without fear of arrest in order to receive medical
treatment which was unavailable in Greece.
Footnote: 62 The Commission's
research into this issue confirms the conclusion of the District Attorney's Office. A 1931
extradition treaty between the United States and Greece does not provide for extradition
of Greek citizens, or anyone located in Greece, for the crime of involuntary manslaughter. Treaty of Extradition, May 6, 1931, United States - The Hellenic Republic, Art. II, 47 Stat. 2185. In addition, the Commission was advised by Richard Owen, an Assistant United States Attorney
in the International Affairs Division of the United States Department of Justice, that any request
to extradite Mr. Poulikidis, in view of the treaty's limitations in this matter, would "almost
certainly" be denied. According to Mr. Owen, the only remaining option for local
prosecutors would be to have the New York State Police request that INTERPOL notify
authorities should Mr. Poulikidis attempt to leave Greece. Footnote: 63 Mr. Robinson's awareness
of a problem with the south wall and his actions taken as receiver with respect to that structure
are detailed in the previous section. Footnote: 64 Prosecutors acknowledged
to the Commission that they did not know who brought this problem to Mr. Robinson's attention
or whether or not he had received information on the wall's "dangerous condition"
from anyone other than Mr. Amoroso.
Footnote: 65 According to Mr. Peck, it
was Chief Assistant District Attorney Leff who directed that Mr. Amoroso be interviewed under
Footnote: 66 Research has revealed
only one case in this country where a receiver was successfully prosecuted for a crime stemming
from acts committed in connection with receivership duties. State v. Norfolk & S.R. Co.,
152 N.C. 785 (1910). In this case, the court ruled that the defendants, receivers for a bankrupt
railroad, could be indicted for the crime of Nuisance, for permitting the parking of vehicles on a
Footnote: 67 The distinction between
Manslaughter in the Second Degree and Criminally Negligent Homicide lies in the mental state
of the defendant: "In [cases involving Manslaughter based on reckless conduct]
the actor perceives the risk, but consciously disregards it. In [cases involving Criminally
Negligent Homicide] he negligently fails to perceive the risk." People v. Stanfield, 36
N.Y.2d 467, 470 (1975).
Footnote: 68 See, e.g., People v.
Deitsch, 97 A.D.2d 327 (2d Dept. 1983); (compliance with local fire and building codes).
Footnote: 69 See, e.g. People v.
Reyes, 148 A.D. 756 (2d Dept. 1989); aff'd. 75 N.Y.2d 590, (1990); (lease agreements -
duty to repair, authority to alter premises).
Footnote: 70 See, e.g., People v.
Boutin, 75 N.Y.2d 692 (1990); (duty to operate motor vehicle safely).
Footnote: 71 "A long distance
separates the negligence which renders one criminally liable from that which establishes civil
liability." People v. Rosenheimer, 209 N.Y. 115, 123 (1913). See also,
Boutin, supra.
Footnote: 72 Conduct, in this context,
includes omissions as well as affirmative acts. People v. Steinberg, 170 A.D.2d 50 (1st
Dept. 1991); aff'd. 79 N.Y.2d 673 (1992). Footnote: 73 In Boutin, the
crashed into a police car, killing a state trooper and another person. The defendant claimed he
did not see the car before the crash, even though the police vehicle had its
emergency lights flashing. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals dismissed the indictment, holding
that there was no evidence that the defendant had engaged in any criminally culpable risk
creation, such as dangerous speeding or failure to obey traffic signals. Id., at 697.
Footnote: 74 In this case, the defendants
were convicted of depraved indifference murder, pursuant to section 125.25(2) of the Penal Law. In Warner-Lambert, 51 N.Y. 2d 295 (1980), the Court of Appeals cited the Kibbe
analysis on the issue of causation in the context of criminal culpability grounded in recklessness
or negligence. The Court held that the law on criminally negligent homicide and reckless
manslaughter requires a finding that the defendant's actions were a "sufficiently direct
cause of the ensuing death." Warner-Lambert, supra. at 306.
Footnote: 75 Defendant Velez did not
appeal the Appellate Division's reinstatement of the indictment.
Footnote: 76 The first interview
conducted of Mr. Robinson by police investigators does reflect that the receiver stated he had
been informed by Mr. Amoroso that "the wall was unsafe and should be torn down." Nassau County Police Report, undated. Even assuming the accuracy of this report, however, this
would be of limited value to the prosecution since both Mr. Amoroso and Mr. Robinson have
denied, under oath, that Mr. Amoroso ever made such a statement.
Footnote: 77 As noted earlier, the
District Attorney's Office concluded that Mr. Robinson would have had to have been aware that
the slight separation at the top of the wall would cause water to collect behind the facade, that the
water would freeze, and that this would cause the entire wall to collapse. The Commission does
not concur with the assessment. Had the District Attorney been able to prove, hypothetically,
that Mr. Robinson was aware that bricks were continually falling from the top of the wall,
and had he then failed to take any remedial action, his knowledge of the mechanism by which the
wall ultimately fell would have been, in the Commission's view, irrelevant to the proof of
criminally negligent homicide. See, Kibbe, Deitsch, supra.
Footnote: 78 See, e.g., Reyes,
wherein the owner of the building supervised the illegal and improper re- wiring of a residential
premise; Deitsch, supra., wherein the owner of a corporation and a warehouse foreman
found to have been in charge, on a daily basis, of the operation of a warehouse which contained
numerous fire hazards and lacked fire safety training for employees.
Footnote: 79 Similarly, the plea
negotiations in this case were clearly within the District Attorney's sole discretion.
Footnote: 80 Mr. Robinson
acknowledged to the Commission that he was aware that he had to file an accounting of his
actions as receiver before Judge Burke could order his discharge. Robinson, p. 71. This
was not accomplished until December 1, 1993.