Opinion ID: 745321
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Plaintiffs' Proposed Finding of Fact p 31

Text: 48 Finally, the defendants argue that the court below committed clear error when it adopted the plaintiffs' proposed finding of fact p 31, which stated the following: 49 31. Thereafter and in October of 1996, Gambino and Santos met with senior citizens' groups in Putnam Valley at which time the Supervisor advised those citizens that after abolition of the Police Department, police coverage in the Town would be sporadic at best. While Gambino and Santos were engaged in meetings with the seniors, Ferrante was advising town residents that the Putnam Valley Police headquarters would be used as a sub-station by the Sheriff's Department. 50 We have reviewed the record and find that the meeting with the senior citizens is supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. The last sentence, however, regarding Ferrante's activities, finds no support in the pages cited in the proposed finding of fact incorporated by the court. The plaintiffs have made no effort to counter the defendants' argument that this finding of fact was erroneous. We therefore vacate this finding of fact by the district court.