SCHODACK Alleged Raucci ally gets burglary charge reduced BY STEVEN COOK Gazette Reporter
Steven Raucci’s alleged coconspirator in a 2007 Schodack vandalism and attempted bombing could soon see a long-standing burglary charge against her dismissed. But, whether a future prosecution on other charges could or would happen, Rensselaer County District Attorney Richard McNally declined to say Thursday. Joanne DeSarbo, 50, of Schenectady, had faced one count of second-degree burglary related to the case since April 2009, a charge filed just two months after Raucci’s arrest on charges that included one related to the Schodack case. But the charge had sat in Schodack court until Wednesday. That’s when the district attorney’s office reduced the charge to a misdemeanor count of criminal contempt, then adjourned that charge in contemplation of dismissal, according to a Schodack court offi cial. The resolution required no admission from DeSarbo and means the reduced contempt charge would be dismissed in six months if she stays out of trouble. DeSarbo appeared in court with her attorney, Kenneth Litz. Litz did not return a call for comment Thursday. The Rensselaer County district attorney said Thursday that the decision to reduce the charge and possibly dismiss it was based on the strength of the case. McNally said the case would have been difficult to prosecute. He declined to comment on the possibility of any future prosecution........................>>>>..................>>>>......................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r01402&AppName=1
Bombing victim sues Raucci, wife SCHENECTADY — A man whose car was firebombed by convicted felon Steven Raucci is suing him and his wife for damages in connection with the July 2005 incident, according to court papers. Roland Kriss filed the lawsuit Aug. 11 in Schenectady County State Supreme Court. He is seeking unspecifi ed damages, saying he is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety. Kriss included Raucci’s wife, Shelly, in the lawsuit because she controls 50 percent of Steven Raucci’s assets, including their home. Raucci transferred partial control to his wife following his conviction April 1 of first-degree arson and 17 other counts in Schenectady County Court. He was sentenced to 23 years to life in prison. Kriss alleges Shelly Raucci was aware of her husband’s conviction and “accepted the transfer with the intent to defraud future judgment creditors of her husband.” Raucci damaged Ron Kriss’ car in 2005 and in the fall of 2006. Kriss had made allegations of sexual harassment and demeaning comments against Raucci and was seeking workers compensation. Kriss is a former custodial supervisor in the Schenectady City School District and the fi rst man to publicly make allegations against Raucci. He filed another lawsuit against Raucci and the school district over similar allegations a full year before Raucci’s arrest. Michael Lamendola
Judges rule in Raucci cases By Paul Nelson Staff Writer Published: 12:00 a.m., Friday, August 27, 2010
SCHENECTADY -- A bid by the Schenectady school district to block a former employee from expanding a federal lawsuit has met with mixed results.
U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby ruled that Ronald Kriss can modify his legal action against Steven Raucci to include as defendants the Board of Education, former Superintendent Eric Ely and Human Resources Director Michael Stricos. Suddaby dismissed three claims by Kriss while accepting seven others revolving around the Americans with Disabilities Act and the constitutional right to due process and civil rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
In a separate case in state court, Raucci, 61, has been temporarily blocked from transferring to his wife, Shelley Raucci, sole ownership of their Balltown Road home.
The legal action initiated by Laura Balogh, whose Schodack home was damaged by an explosive device in 2007, states that the property was "purportedly transferred" on April 1 and constitutes a "fraudulent conveyance." The transaction took place the day Raucci was convicted of 18 crimes, arson, conspiracy and weapons offenses for vandalizing the property of people who angered him or as a favor for friends who had problems with other individuals.
An order to show cause signed last week by Acting Supreme Court Justice Henry Zwack in Rensselaer County sets a Sept. 13 court date for the couple to contest the matter.
Balogh was a witness for the prosecution in the criminal trial in Schenectady County Court.
Kriss also testified against Raucci. He had worked for the school district as a custodial supervisor from August 1998 to October 2006. He later retired.
Kriss claims in his lawsuit, which was filed in 2008, that in 2003 he worked in such a hostile environment and had such a turbulent work relationship with Raucci, who was his boss, that he was diagnosed with anxiety disorder and eventually left the job and later filed for workers' compensation over anxiety and stress. Kriss also filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against the district.
SCHENECTADY Suits related to Raucci case advance in court BY STEVEN COOK Gazette Reporter
Two lawsuits related to the case of convicted arsonist Steven Raucci have passed preliminary hurdles, according to judicial orders fi led last week. In one of the cases, the judge also appeared to allow reference to prior crimes against the couple despite previously barring direct claims on those incidents. In that case, Harold and Deborah Gray are suing the Schenectady City School District and Raucci. Among the allegations in the Grays’ suit are that the district and school board members were told of vandalism and threats from Raucci but did nothing about it. State Supreme Court Justice Vincent J. Reilly Jr. in his ruling fi led Thursday turned back efforts by the school district to have the case dismissed. Reilly previously allowed the Grays to sue, but only in connection with a Feb. 16, 2009, vandalism incident at the Grays’ home, an incident days before Raucci’s arrest. No claims were allowed related to previous incidents dating back to 2005 because proper and timely notice wasn’t given. In his ruling last week, Reilly appeared to allow reference to the prior incidents to allow the Grays to try and prove an “ongoing pattern of conduct.” Raucci blamed the Grays for a whistle-blowing letter and targeted them in several acts of vandalism and attempted intimidation, according to trial testimony. Raucci, 62, was convicted earlier this year of first-degree arson and 17 other counts. He is currently serving 23 years to life in state prison. Raucci served as the city school district’s facilities manager and also led the union unit representing the workers he supervised. It was a dual position that prosecutors alleged made him valuable to the school administration for his ability to keep labor peace. The prosecution charged that Raucci was responsible for numerous criminal acts, including placing bombs on homes or cars, in a series of incidents intended to intimidate people he perceived as enemies or enemies of his friends. James Towne, attorney for the Grays, did not return a call for comment Monday. But the attorney for the district, Patrick Fitzgerald, noted that the decision in the Grays’ case and the one in the other case, that of former Raucci secretary Barbara Tidball, were motions to dismiss. In such motions, Fitzgerald said, the court must accept every allegation from the plaintiff as true. ..............>>>>......................>>>>...................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00904&AppName=1
SCHENECTADY Raucci lawsuit headed to mediation BY MICHAEL GOOT Gazette Reporter
The lawsuit brought by a former Schenectady school custodian against Steven Raucci and the school district is headed to mediation first before going to trial late next year. Ronald Kriss, who served as a custodial supervisor for the district from August 1998 through October 2006, sued the school for $8 million in February 2008 claiming that Raucci harassed him because he suffers from irritable bowel syndrome and an anxiety disorder. In his lawsuit, he claimed that Raucci, the school’s former facilities director, joked that Kriss should relieve himself in his pants and also He is appealing his conviction. grabbed his genitals. Kriss took medical leave from the district and filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment. He also asked to be reassigned to work under a different supervisor. Both requests were denied. Kriss was fired by the district in October 2006 for not returning to work. Kriss subsequently won a claim from the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board. Kriss’ lawsuit came a year before Raucci was arrested in February 2009 for planting explosive devices and vandalizing property of his enemies. Raucci was convicted this past April and is serving 23 years to life in prison. Both parties are to select from a list of court-appointed mediators within the next 10 days. Mediation is to continue until Nov. 30. If it is unsuccessful, both parties are to begin discovery, which is due by Sept. 15, 2011, and final motions are due by Oct. 28, 2011, according to papers fi led in U.S. District Court. The trial is anticipated to last 10 days. Kriss’ attorney, Elena DeFio Kean, did not return a message left for comment. School district spokeswoman Karen Corona said the school district was aware that the trial schedule was being set but cannot comment further on the case. Kriss also has a pending lawsuit he filed in August in state Supreme Court in Schenectady County on similar grounds. That lawsuit also includes Raucci’s wife, Shelly, because she controls half of Raucci’s assets including the couple’s home. ............................>>>>.................>>>>..................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r01402&AppName=1
Schenectady school district nears settlement with ex-employee in Raucci case Tuesday, November 23, 2010 By Steven Cook (Contact) Gazette Reporter
SCHENECTADY — The Schenectady City School District is close to reaching a final settlement in the first of several lawsuits related to the Steven Raucci case, an attorney for the district confirmed Monday. Patrick Fitzgerald, the attorney representing the district, said final details are being worked out in the lawsuit brought by former district custodial supervisor Ronald Kriss. Those details include how much the district would ultimately pay and how much the insurance company would pay. It was unclear if the district would admit wrongdoing. The sides are hopeful that a final deal will be in place for school board approval Dec. 1, Fitzgerald said. “The parties are working out the terms of a settlement,” Fitzgerald said. News of the pending settlement came last week in a federal court filing. In the filing, the court dismissed the case by reason of a settlement. The filing also notes that if a final agreement isn’t reached within 60 days of the dismissal, the suit would be reinstated. The move is the first public indication of a settlement in any of the multiple lawsuits brought by individuals related to the tenure of former district facilities director and now-convicted arsonist Steven Raucci. Fitzgerald, however, cautioned against extending anything beyond the Kriss suit. “It would be inappropriate to read into the settlement in this case that it would have any bearing on the other cases,” Fitzgerald said. Kriss is represented by attorney James T. Towne Jr. Towne could not be reached for comment Monday...................................>>>>..................>>>>.................http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2010/nov/23/1123_raucisettle/
ALBANY State appeals Raucci pension ruling Victims seek access to funds BY STEVEN COOK Gazette Reporter
The state Attorney General’s office is appealing a ruling that appears to put convicted arsonist Steven Raucci’s pension off-limits to his victims. In the ruling, state Supreme Court Justice Roger D. McDonough sided with Raucci’s wife, Shelley, finding Raucci’s more than $5,700 per month pension payout is protected under state pension law. The Attorney General’s offi ce, representing the state Office of Victims Services, filed its notice of appeal last week. If the ruling stands, Shelley Raucci’s attorney, Frank Putorti, said Monday, it would keep Raucci’s pension off-limits, even if his victims won their lawsuits against him. Putorti also said that they are hopeful that the ruling will stand on appeal. Despite that, attorneys for Raucci victims the Capitummino family, of Rotterdam, appear to be pressing forward with their suit, as though the pension money will be available, referencing them in a lawsuit filed last month in state Supreme Court in Schenectady County. The Capitummino suit was filed four weeks after Justice McDonough’s pension ruling. .............................>>>>.....................>>>>..................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00702&AppName=1
Appeals court lets Raucci-related suit proceed Suit says school district failed to monitor Raucci, couple's alleged nemesis By PAUL NELSON Staff writer Updated 09:54 p.m., Thursday, July 14, 2011
SCHENECTADY -- A midlevel appeals court has ruled a lawsuit, filed by a husband and wife against their alleged tormentor Steven Raucci, while he was the school district's facilities director and CSEA local union boss, can move forward.
The case centers around the years of misconduct of Raucci, who was convicted in April 2010 by a Schenectady County jury of vandalizing the homes and cars of his perceived foes, including Deborah and Harold Gray, who sued the district.
The decision issued Thursday by the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court in Albany stemmed from the earlier denial in Supreme Court of the district's earlier request to dismiss the Grays' complaint.
The couple, former Raucci friends, had their Saratoga County home spray-painted with the word "rat" and their vehicles vandalized five different times between 2005 and 2009.
Raucci, 61, apparently believed Deborah Gray penned an anonymous letter in January 2005 to the CSEA attempting to get him pushed out of his union post.
The appeals judges found that the lower court judge erred in September 2010 in not dismissing the Grays' claim that the district was responsible for "intentional infliction of emotional distress."
The decision, however, found merit in and affirmed the judge's ruling on the two other parts of the civil action regarding the district's alleged "negligent supervision and negligent retention" of Raucci on the job.
School district lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald III, said the "school district very strongly denies the truth of those allegations" and plans to again make a motion to dismiss the case after the appropriate legal papers are exchanged, known as the discovery process, which may not be until early next year.........................>>>>.........................>>>>................Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/loca.....77.php#ixzz1SAfLGFzN
Want a microwave? Better ask 'Energy Nazi' Raucci Emails show arsonist had tyrannical power as schools' energy boss By LAUREN STANFORTH Staff writer Updated 07:05 a.m., Wednesday, July 20, 2011
SCHENECTADY -- When now-imprisoned arsonist Steven Raucci was the city school district's energy manager, staffers tried a variety of ways to hang on to their beloved appliances -- from hiding refrigerators in padlocked closets to getting doctors' notes for microwaves.
But when you're dealing with the "Energy Nazi," you better bring your "A" game.
Raucci would reject the pleadings of physically challenged staff who said they couldn't get to a microwave on another floor, and he would cut extension cords to hidden refrigerators in the dead of night -- all in the name of saving the district money on energy consumption.
This glimpse into Raucci's reign -- revealed in some of the 11,000 pages of emails released to the Times Union and Daily Gazette on Monday -- shows tyrannical behavior from a man who was eventually convicted of placing explosive devices at the homes of his perceived enemies. Yet Raucci's actions, between 2004 and 2009, also appeared to be condoned by Superintendents John Falco and Eric Ely as the district became one of the top energy conservers in the state....................>>>>.........................>>>>...................Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Want-a-microwave-Better-ask-Raucci-1472682.php#ixzz1Sdyf3rak
SCHENECTADY Emails show how Raucci complaints went nowhere BY KATHLEEN MOORE Gazette Reporter
One of the biggest questions in the Steven Raucci scandal has been whether Schenectady City School District Superintendent Eric Ely knew what his employee was doing. No evidence has shown that Ely was aware that Raucci was setting explosives on private property to intimidate people, for which Raucci is now serving 23 years to life in prison. But in the thousands of emails reviewed so far through an outof-court settlement with the school district, there are many cases in which employees complained directly to Ely about Raucci’s threats and insults. They apparently got nowhere. Ely usually did not respond, letting his assistant superintendents brush away the complaints......................>>>>....................>>>>....................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00902&AppName=1
Raucci pension payout focus of legal fight Victims’ group wants to seize annual benefit BY STEVEN COOK Gazette Reporter
The fate of convicted arsonist Steven Raucci’s pension is now in the hands of a state appeals court, with arguments heard Wednesday on whether Raucci’s $79,000 annual benefit could be frozen, or even diverted to his victims. Attorneys for both sides made their case Wednesday after a lower court last year ruled in favor of Raucci’s wife, Shelly, fi nding Raucci’s pension is protected under state law. The state Office of Victim’s Services is arguing the state’s Son of Sam Law allows them to freeze Raucci’s pension for payout to victims after any successful lawsuit. The attorney for Shelly Raucci, however, argues that protections in state law trump the provisions of the Son of Sam Law, protecting proceeds even after the pension is paid out. Raucci has power of attorney over her imprisoned husband’s finances and access to the pension money. In questioning of attorneys Wednesday by the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court, though, justices appeared to suggest that some on the five-member panel believed that interpretation was so broad as to mean creditors couldn’t seize any pension money for unpaid bills because those payouts were protected. In each case, Frank Putorti, attorney for Shelly Raucci, argued such interpretation was correct, even on a question posed by Presiding Justice Karen Peters about whether Raucci could be forced to pay her legal bill if the pension were her only income. “That’s the way it goes,” Putorti ultimately responded, “but it’s the law. It may not be fair, but it’s the law.” The justices are expected to hand down their ruling in the coming weeks. Steven Raucci was convicted after a March 2010 trial on 18 of 22 counts against him, including placing bombs on homes or cars, in a series of incidents intended to intimidate people he perceived as enemies or enemies of his friends. No one was injured in any of the incidents. Raucci is currently housed at the maximum security Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, serving 23 years to life. Raucci served as the Schenectady City School District’s facilities manager and also led the CSEA union unit representing the workers he supervised. PROTECTION CHALLENGED Raucci’s pension, and the state pension of anyone convicted of a crime, has always been protected under state law, the state comptroller’s office has said. The Office of Victim Services accepted that argument but instead asked for a ruling allowing them to seize a large portion of the pension after it was paid, essentially skirting the protections by using the Son of Sam Law. That law aims to help victims get access to the “funds of a convicted person.” The state agency then notifi es victims of the funds and moves to seize them through an injunction request if victims respond that they have already fi led lawsuits or intend to. In Raucci’s case, two of his victims asked that the funds be seized. One, the victim of the most serious charge Raucci was convicted of, filed his suit early last year. The status of any suit filed by a second victim was unclear. Changes to the Son of Sam Law in 2001 were aimed at ensuring that victims knew when convicted criminals came into money and allowing them to sue related to the crimes. Lawmakers identified gifts, inheritances, lottery winnings, judgments in civil lawsuits and investment income as areas where money could be sought. Putorti noted Wednesday that pensions were not specifi - cally identified in the changes. Justice John Egan asked if the protections to the pension go on forever. “Until the legislature decides to change it,” Putorti replied. Regarding the question about whether Shelly Raucci could be forced to pay her legal bill to him, Putorti tried to liken it to clients who go bankrupt. Peters noted that she wasn’t bankrupt. As to Raucci’s direct interest in the pension as Steven Raucci’s wife, that issue is a separate one and wasn’t addressed by the lower court, Putorti said. A WIN FOR RAUCCI In the lower court ruling, fi led in January 2011, Justice Roger D. McDonough found Steven Raucci‘s pension was protected, even under the Son of Sam Law. McDonough recognized in his ruling “strong public policy arguments” supporting the victims, but he also found that the Legislature and the Court of Appeals clearly immunized “retirement allowances” from efforts such as those of the Office of Victims Services. ...........................>>>>.......................>>>>.......................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00100&AppName=1
For the taxpayers who are paying to support Raucci in prison and providing "him" a typical lavish pension, this is great news. But I suspect there will be more court "fights" over this.
It would be best if, at this point, his pension is put into an escrow account
Raucci's pension not exempt from Son of Sam law
By Paul Nelson
Published 04:04 p.m., Thursday, June 7, 2012
ALBANY — The $5,800 monthly pension Steven Raucci currently receives is not exempt from the reach of a state law intended to prevent criminals from profiting from the publicity of their crimes, a midlevel state appeals has concluded.
The ruling, issued Thursday by the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court in Albany, reverses a lower court order in Albany County that had denied a motion by the state Office of Victim Services on behalf of Laura Balogh for a preliminary injunction.
In 2010, Raucci, a retired Schenectady city school facilities supervisor, was found guilty by a Schenectady County jury of placing explosives at Balogh's Schodack home because of a dispute involving a union official. She testified for the prosecution.
All told, Raucci, 63, was convicted of 18 counts, including arson, conspiracy and weapons offenses for placing explosives on the property of people he perceived as enemies in Saratoga and Rensselaer counties. He was acquitted of a top-level terrorism charge. At sentencing, he received 23 years to life, a penalty he is seeking to overturn in hopes of getting a new trial.
Balogh had petitioned the court to have Raucci's pension deposited in his inmate account and be frozen until her attempts to collect monetary damages from him are resolved.
The Raucci and his wife, Shelley, countered that they were covered by the Retirement and Social Security Law that exempts pension funds from being garnished.
The legal battle revolved around whether Retirement and Social Security Law insulates state pensions from the broad reach of the Son of Sam Law. The measure, which was amended in New York in 2001, is designed to stop criminals from profiting from the publicity of their crimes. It does not expressly exempt pension funds, the decision stated.
It requires that crime victims be notified when a person convicted of a crime receives $10,000 or more — from any source. The Son of Sam moniker refers to the nickname of serial killer David Berkowitz, the perpetrator of a notorious 1978 murder spree.
The court decision Thursday notes that one of the statutes permits crime victims to take legal action within three years of discovering "profits from a crime or funds of a convicted person."
The justices wrote that "both the unambigious statutory language of the Son of Sam Law and the legislative history of the 2001 amendments support the petitioner's argument that respondent's pension funds are not exempt from the statute's reach."
The decision lists Raucci as the respondent and his wife Shelley as a non party respondent because she has power of authority that allows her to cash the $5,800 monthly check from the state and local employees' retirement system. She's been getting the checks since June 2010, the document states.
The ruling concluded that the argument advanced by the couple "would perpetuate the very injustice that the statute sought to eliminate in attempting to ensure that crime victims and their families will never again fear that they can only watch helplessly while convicted criminals freely spend their income."
Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent. Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
Raucci pension issue to court Victims’ claims may get access BY STEVEN COOK Gazette Reporter
New York’s highest court will decide whether the state can hold convicted arsonist Steven Raucci’s pension under the Son of Sam Law. The Court of Appeals last week formally accepted the case involving Raucci and the state Offi ce of Victim Services. The high court also decided to take the case on an expedited basis, a court spokesman said. That means arguments before the court could happen in January, approximately five months ahead of a standard schedule. Attorneys for Raucci asked the court to expedite the case, arguing the lower court’s ruling against them was placing a financial hardship on Raucci’s wife, Shelley, the spokesman said. The Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court in June ruled in favor of the Office of Victim Services, ordering the seizure of Raucci’s $79,000 annual pension under provisions of the state’s Son of Sam Law. The money has been seized since then. If the ruling stands, the money would be made available to Raucci’s victims, should they win lawsuits against him. If the Appellate Division ruling stands, it would also mean perpetrators of similar crimes with state pensions could see that money frozen for payment to victims. The Appellate Division essentially found that the Son of Sam Law, revised in 2001, took precedence over an older pension law aimed at protecting pension funds from recovery. Raucci’s pension, and the state pension of anyone convicted of a crime, have been protected under state law, the state Comptroller’s Office has said. The Office of Victim Services accepted that argument but instead asked for a ruling allowing it to seize a large portion of the pension after it was paid, essentially skirting the pension protections by using the Son of Sam Law. That law aims to help victims get access to the “funds of a convicted person.” The state agency then notifi es victims of the funds and moves to seize them through an injunction request if victims respond that they have already filed lawsuits or intend to. In Raucci‘s case, two of his victims asked that the funds be seized. One, the victim of the most serious charge Raucci was convicted of, filed his suit early last year. The status of any suit filed by a second victim was unclear. Raucci was convicted after a March 2010 trial on 18 of 22 counts against him, including placing bombs on homes or cars, in a series of incidents intended to intimidate people he perceived as enemies or enemies of his friends. No one was injured in any of the incidents. ................................>>>>.........................>>>>........................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r01303&AppName=1
his family has to live.....he committed the crime and no one stood up until it was almost too late...
I support the family's rights....what if he had died before he was found guilty.....who would get his pension then....and.....that could have happened..
kinda likened to what is going on today in our government.....lies, greed, and deceit...
leave his pension to his family.....yes the taxpayers have to pay for him....because the people who could have prevented all this didn't......bottom line...
his family has to live.....he committed the crime and no one stood up until it was almost too late...
I support the family's rights....what if he had died before he was found guilty.....who would get his pension then....and.....that could have happened..
kinda likened to what is going on today in our government.....lies, greed, and deceit...
leave his pension to his family.....yes the taxpayers have to pay for him....because the people who could have prevented all this didn't......bottom line...
I assume that this is tongue in cheek. Am I correct?
Logged
