The Fraser BESS Project in Hamden, New York: An Irrevocable Purchase Option, a Deceased Co-Owner, and the Agreements Behind a Proposed Industrial Battery Facility. How a rural residential property in Delaware County became the proposed site of a 125 MW battery energy storage facility — and what the recorded deeds reveal about the developer's contractual rights, the landowner's commitments, and the unanswered questions facing the Town of Hamden.

 

I. A Battery Storage Project Four Years in the Making

The proposed Fraser Energy Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in the Town of Hamden, Delaware County, New York, is being presented to the public as a major energy infrastructure development intended to support electric-grid reliability.

According to the developer's project materials, the proposed installation would have a capacity of 125 megawatts and a four-hour storage duration, equivalent to 500 megawatt-hours of stored energy.

The facility would use lithium-iron-phosphate batteries and occupy approximately 33 acres of rural residential land at 552–682 Cobbe Cross Road, Hamden, New York 13782.

The project is being developed by EDF Power Solutions through Fraser Storage, LLC.

What the developer's public presentations do not fully explain is the history of the contractual arrangements through which EDF secured rights to this property years before Hamden enacted its battery storage zoning law.

An examination of recorded documents in the Delaware County Clerk's Office reveals that EDF obtained an exclusive, irrevocable option to purchase the proposed BESS property in December 2021.

The option was subsequently amended in November 2024, extending the developer's potential acquisition rights for additional years.

These agreements raise questions concerning the property's ownership, the developer's legal authority to pursue the project, the financial arrangements underlying the proposed development, and the responsibilities of the landowner who made the property available.

II. Who Owns the Proposed Fraser BESS Property?

The Town of Hamden's 2026 Final Assessment Roll, page 44, identifies the following property:

Property information	Assessment-roll entry
Address	552–682 Cobbe Cross Road
Tax Map Parcel	191.-1-4.22
Acreage	38.12 acres
Property classification	Rural residential
Assessed value	$229,700
Listed owners	Brett M. Miller and Thomas D. Parrotti
Deed reference	Book 1215, Page 30

The assessment roll identifies two owners.

However, one of them has been deceased for more than five years.

Thomas D. Parrotti died on February 14, 2021, according to his published obituary. The obituary identifies Brett Miller as his surviving husband.

To understand the legal significance of that fact, it is necessary to examine the original deed.

The 2008 deed: Joint tenancy with right of survivorship

On April 28, 2008, Archie L. Miller executed a warranty deed conveying the property to Brett M. Miller and Thomas D. Parrotti.

The deed was recorded on May 12, 2008, in Delaware County Deed Book 1215, beginning at page 30.

As to the signature on the deed of the notary public John F. Lambert, Esq. - PAY ATTENTION.

Attorney John F. Lambert, Esq. has been counsel for one of the parties to these underlying deed.

Since then, John F. Lambert, Esq. became the Otsego County Judge, and Acting Supreme Court Justice presiding over Delaware County Supreme Court cases.

Be aware that the 6th Judicial District assigns judges to cases even where the judge is a DEFENDANT in the case - I wrote about it on this blog.

Naturally, the District will not think twice before assigning Judge Lambert to a case where Judge Lambert was formerly an attorney on the underlying transaction and a material witness.

The District recently assigned such a witness-attorney-judge (Joseph A. McBride) to my case and refused to remove him.

Just be aware and raise the issue timely, otherwise the appellate division will tell you you "waived" it.

Back to the "BESS property" deed - it expressly identifies the grantees as:

“Brett M. Miller and Thomas D. Parrotti, as joint tenants with the right of survivorship.”

This language is legally consequential.

Joint tenancy by the entirety is 100% ownership of the property from the very beginning by both joint tenants.  Thus, when one joint tenant dies, the other simply continues his ownership, and ownership of the deceased joint tenant is extinguished, no need for probate proceedings.  

Accordingly, upon Parrotti's death in February 2021, Miller simply became the sole owner of the property.

No probate proceeding or new deed is necessary to effectuate that survivorship transfer.  The only thing that would be needed is to take the deceased tenant off the deed - which was not done.  I reviewed records in the online registry of Delaware County Clerk's office - there is no new deed filed.

Hamden's 2026 Final Assessment Roll continues to identify both men as owners.

The assessment roll thus appears not to have been updated to reflect Parrotti's death and the resulting change in ownership.

The discrepancy does not itself invalidate Miller's title. It does, however, illustrate why assessment records must be examined alongside the actual recorded conveyances.

III. December 2021: Miller Grants EDF an Exclusive, Irrevocable Option to Purchase

Less than ten months after Parrotti's death, Miller entered into a contractual arrangement with EDF Renewables Development, Inc.

The recorded Memorandum of Option Agreement to Purchase Real Property identifies:

• Optionor: Brett M. Miller.

• Optionee: EDF Renewables Development, Inc.

• Property: Tax Parcel 191.-1-4.22, containing 38.12 acres.

• Effective date: December 16, 2021.

• Recording date: July 26, 2022.

• Recording reference: Delaware County Clerk, Book 1720, Page 197, Instrument No. 5814.

The memorandum identifies EDF's right as an exclusive, irrevocable option to purchase the property.

That is a significant contractual commitment.

An option to purchase gives the option holder the right to acquire the property according to the agreement's terms and conditions.

An irrevocable option generally prevents the property owner from unilaterally withdrawing the contractual purchase right during its enforceable term.

An exclusive option also restricts the owner's ability to grant competing acquisition rights inconsistent with the option.

The option is not itself a completed sale. Title remains with the property owner until a conveyance occurs.

However, the option creates an enforceable contractual relationship concerning the property's future disposition.

The original option period

The recorded memorandum provides for an initial two-year option period, with three consecutive one-year extensions.

Thus, the original arrangement contemplated a potential five-year option period.

The Delaware County Clerk's indexing information identifies consideration of $40,000 in connection with the recorded instrument.

The memorandum does not disclose the complete financial arrangements, and the recorded consideration figure does not establish the amount actually paid to Miller or the ultimate purchase price.

Those terms are contained in the underlying Option Agreement, which was not included in the recorded memorandum.

IV. November 2024: EDF Obtains Additional Time

The contractual relationship did not end with the original 2021 agreement.

In November 2024, Miller and EDF executed a First Amendment to the Option Agreement.

A memorandum of that amendment was recorded in the Delaware County Clerk's Office on December 6, 2024, in Book 1803, Page 267, Instrument No. 9006.

The amendment expanded EDF's extension rights from three to five consecutive one-year extensions.

Together with the initial two-year period, the amended arrangement contemplates a potential seven-year option term.

Measured from December 16, 2021, that period could extend through December 2028, assuming the contractual extension conditions are satisfied.

The Clerk's indexing information identifies consideration of $125,000 associated with the amendment.

The memorandum also acknowledges changes to the financial terms of the original agreement.

However, those changes are not reproduced in the recorded document.

The underlying First Amendment remains essential to determining the actual payment obligations, option conditions, and contractual rights of the parties.

Can Miller withdraw from the agreement?

The word irrevocable has legal consequences.

If the option remains enforceable, Miller cannot simply cancel EDF's contractual right because he no longer wishes to sell the property.

If EDF properly exercises its option and Miller refuses to perform, EDF could potentially seek remedies for breach of contract, including specific performance compelling conveyance of the property.

The precise rights and remedies depend on the complete agreement.

Thus, by November 2024, Miller had reaffirmed and extended a contractual commitment concerning the proposed BESS property.

This occurred more than a year before Hamden enacted its battery storage zoning law.

V. The Developer's Property Rights Predated Hamden's BESS Zoning Law

The chronology of the property agreements and municipal proceedings deserves particular attention.

December 16, 2021: EDF's original purchase option becomes effective.

July 26, 2022: The option memorandum is recorded in the Delaware County Clerk's Office.

September 21, 2022: According to the developer's NYSERDA project summary, engagement with Hamden begins.

November 2024: Miller and EDF amend the option, extending its potential duration and modifying financial terms.

October 28, 2025: EDF representative Drazen Gasic appears before the Hamden Planning Board. The minutes record that EDF had already submitted a draft site-plan application for a BESS facility on Cobbe Cross Road.

November 25, 2025: Town Attorney Kevin Young reviews Hamden's proposed Battery Energy Storage Law with the Planning Board.

December 3, 2025: Hamden adopts its Battery Energy Storage Law.

December 16, 2025: EDF submits its site-plan and special-use-permit application materials identifying 552–682 Cobbe Cross Road as the proposed project location.

March 4, 2026: The Hamden Town Board approves an escrow agreement and conflict-of-interest agreement concerning EDF's project.

The March 4 conflict waiver acknowledges that Young/Sommer LLC represents both the Town of Hamden and Fraser Storage, LLC in specified matters connected with the development.

It authorizes the firm to continue providing Fraser with advice concerning environmental permitting and development while representing Hamden in its municipal review, subject to stated restrictions.

This creates a separate question concerning the independence of the Town's legal representation during the regulatory process.

The developer had secured contractual rights to acquire the proposed project site nearly four years before the BESS zoning law was adopted.

The public record therefore invites examination of how the Town developed its regulatory framework while the developer was already pursuing the project.

VI. The Complete Purchase Agreements Are Missing From the Recorded Instruments

The two documents available from the Delaware County Clerk are memoranda of agreements.

They establish the existence of the contractual relationship and disclose certain important provisions.

They do not reproduce the complete underlying contracts.

The original Option Agreement and its First Amendment would answer questions that the recorded memoranda leave unresolved.

What is the purchase price?

The Clerk's records contain consideration figures of $40,000 and $125,000, but those figures do not establish the final purchase price or the complete payment arrangements.

What must EDF do to exercise its option?

The recorded memoranda do not disclose the precise notice requirements, exercise procedure, closing conditions, or contractual deadlines.

Does EDF have rights to enter or develop the property before purchasing it?

The memoranda establish acquisition rights. They do not disclose the full extent of any pre-closing access, testing, construction, or development rights.

Can EDF assign the option to Fraser Storage, LLC?

The complete agreement would establish the relevant assignment provisions.

Are municipal approvals conditions of the purchase?

The recorded memoranda do not disclose whether EDF's obligation or decision to purchase depends on obtaining zoning, environmental, or other governmental approvals.

These questions are directly relevant to understanding the proposed development.

The complete agreements have therefore been requested from the Town of Hamden under the New York Freedom of Information Law, together with records establishing site control and landowner authorization.

VII. Why the Landowner's Participation Matters

The proposed Fraser BESS facility is not being developed on land acquired through an involuntary taking.

The recorded instruments establish that Brett M. Miller voluntarily entered into an agreement granting EDF exclusive contractual acquisition rights.

He subsequently amended that agreement to extend the developer's option period.

This places the landowner's participation squarely within the history of the project.

It also raises the question of potential liability for landowners who authorize industrial uses that may create foreseeable risks to neighboring properties.

A recent Texas appellate decision

On April 9, 2026, the Texas Court of Appeals issued its decision in Clements v. McBroom, No. 03-25-00442-CV.

The case arose from a proposed 200 MW battery energy storage facility on property leased by the McBroom landowners to a developer.

Neighboring property owners brought suit alleging that the proposed facility threatened their property interests through battery fires, environmental contamination, inadequate emergency-response capabilities, and other foreseeable hazards.

They sought prospective injunctive relief, including measures addressing fire containment, contamination prevention, and emergency preparedness.

The trial court dismissed their lawsuit.

The appellate court reversed, holding that the landowners had sufficiently pleaded a legally cognizable claim involving prospective nuisance and a potential entitlement to injunctive relief if their allegations were proven.

The decision did not establish liability or grant the requested injunction. It permitted the claims to proceed.

The Fraser transaction involves an option to purchase, while Clements involved a lease. The legal consequences of those arrangements differ.

Nevertheless, Clements demonstrates that courts are being asked to consider the responsibility of property owners who make land available for potentially hazardous battery storage developments.

The question deserves examination under New York's own nuisance and property law.

VIII. The Suffolk County BESS Fire: Why the Risks Are Not Merely Theoretical

The environmental implications of BESS facilities have already become the subject of litigation in New York.

On May 29, 2026, the Suffolk County Water Authority filed Suffolk County Water Authority v. East Hampton Energy Storage Center, LLC et al., No. 2:26-cv-03246-ARL, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The lawsuit arose from a May 31, 2023 fire at a lithium-ion battery storage facility in East Hampton.

The Authority alleges that chemicals associated with the fire and firefighting activities migrated through groundwater and contaminated public drinking-water wells approximately 2,500 feet from the facility.

The complaint identifies PFPrA, a PFAS compound, among the contaminants detected.

The Authority asserts negligence, public nuisance, trespass, and strict product-liability claims.

The allegations have not been adjudicated.

Nevertheless, the lawsuit provides a concrete example of the kinds of environmental and economic injuries that may follow a BESS incident.

For rural communities such as Hamden, where water resources, private wells, agricultural properties, and residential land uses are important, the potential consequences of fire, contaminated runoff, and groundwater migration warrant examination before a project is approved.

IX. The Questions Hamden Property Owners Are Entitled to Ask

The recorded documents establish that EDF has held contractual acquisition rights concerning the proposed Fraser BESS property since December 2021.

They establish that the landowner extended those rights in 2024.

They establish that the developer's contractual involvement preceded Hamden's adoption of its BESS zoning law.

And they establish that the complete financial and operational terms of the property agreements are not disclosed in the recorded memoranda.

As a property owner in the Town of Hamden, I am examining the potential consequences of this development for neighboring properties and the public environment.

The questions are straightforward.

What environmental safeguards will protect neighboring landowners?

Who will be responsible for contamination, fire damage, and other off-site injuries?

What financial resources will be available if the developer's operations cause substantial damage?

What rights has the developer already obtained from the landowner?

What conditions must be satisfied before the developer acquires the property?

And how has the Town ensured independent legal and environmental review of a project whose developer secured rights to the site years before the governing zoning legislation was enacted?

These questions concern property rights, contractual obligations, municipal government, and the protection of public resources.

They warrant answers while the project remains under review.

X. Conclusion: The Property Agreements Are Part of the BESS Story

The Fraser BESS project did not begin with its public presentation to the Hamden Planning Board.

Its documented property history extends back to December 2021, when Brett M. Miller granted EDF Renewables Development, Inc. an exclusive, irrevocable option to purchase the proposed site.

That option was amended in November 2024, potentially extending EDF's acquisition rights through December 2028.

The Town subsequently enacted its BESS zoning law and began processing the developer's municipal applications.

The complete purchase agreements remain unavailable in the recorded documents examined to date.

The landowner's identity is established. The property is identified. The developer's exclusive purchase option is documented. The extension of that option is documented. The complete contractual terms remain to be obtained.

For neighboring property owners, the inquiry does not end with the developer.

It also includes the landowner who made the property available, the municipality responsible for reviewing the project, and the legal arrangements through which a rural residential parcel became the proposed site of a large industrial battery storage facility.

The investigation continues.

---

Primary Documentary Sources

1. Delaware County Clerk, Deed Book 1215, Page 30: Warranty Deed, Archie L. Miller to Brett M. Miller and Thomas D. Parrotti, executed April 28, 2008, recorded May 12, 2008.

2. Delaware County Clerk, Book 1720, Page 197, Instrument No. 5814: Memorandum of Option Agreement to Purchase Real Property, Brett M. Miller and EDF Renewables Development, Inc., recorded July 26, 2022.

3. Delaware County Clerk, Book 1803, Page 267, Instrument No. 9006: Memorandum of First Amendment to Option Agreement to Purchase Real Property, recorded December 6, 2024.

4. Town of Hamden, 2026 Final Assessment Roll, Page 44: Tax Map Parcel 191.-1-4.22, 552–682 Cobbe Cross Road.

5. Town of Hamden Planning Board Minutes: October 28 and November 25, 2025.

6. Town of Hamden Town Board Minutes: December 3, 2025, and March 4, 2026.

7. EDF Power Solutions: Fraser Energy Site Plan and Special Use Permit Application Cover Letter, December 16, 2025.

8. Clements v. McBroom, No. 03-25-00442-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 9, 2026).

9. Suffolk County Water Authority v. East Hampton Energy Storage Center, LLC et al., EDNY No. 2:26-cv-03246-ARL, Complaint filed May 29, 2026.

DELAWARE COUNTY'S PATRIOTISM: SALUTE THE SOLDIER, PUNISH THE PARENTS One Afghanistan veteran gets a public tribute. Another Afghanistan veteran's disabled parents get enraged perjuries of Delco litigation counsel Frank Miller, sanctions motions, and a courthouse full of government lawyers.

 On October 28, 2026, at precisely 1:45 p.m., Delaware County District Attorney Shawn Smith's office distributed a heartwarming announcement.

“District Attorney Shout-Out — Officer Logan Wood.”

Officer Wood, the public was informed, served in Afghanistan twice. He fought terrorists. He returned home, became a police officer, and continued serving his community.

The District Attorney was positively overflowing with gratitude.

“Officer Logan Wood has demonstrated a lifetime commitment to protecting others, and we are grateful for all he does.”

 

I will be THE LAST PERSON who would denigrate a service member's sacrifice.  My husband and I are parents of a U.S. soldier that served in Afghanistan, Iraq and is serving at the Strait of Hormuz now.

I have suffered a LITERAL stroke - the THIRD in a row - after the blast in the airport of Kabul, Afghanistan on August 26, 2021.

On hearing the news that 13 U.S. military members, including soldiers, were killed there, my hair instantly turned white at the ripe old age of 58 - and remained this way.

This is my natural hair color:

As I said, it went INSTANTLY white when I heard on the news about the blast.

Our then-20-year-old U.S. paratrooper son was THERE, helping evacuate people and equipment.

By military regulations, the identities of military personnel who perished, could not be disclosed until families were informed IN PERSON.

IN PERSON.

So, the next frantic two days - until our son was able to call us and notify that he was alive - we were glued to the windows and jumped from the sound of every passing car on our quiet road.

Because we were, with horrified anticipation, waiting for two military officers coming to our house delivering the worst news any parent can suffer during his lifetime.

Our son survived.

It is OTHER parents and OTHER spouses and OTHER sisters and brothers who received the HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE news.

We are grateful our son survived.

My stroke and its consequences, imposed upon two recent previous strokes, COVID-related and stress related (my 85-year-old mother was taken to a hospital in Moscow, with COVID, and disappeared from the radars for several days) - stay with me until this day.

As does my white hair.

So, Officer Wood, if you are reading these lines, what I say here - is NOT about you and is NOT about your service, and I am NOT in ANY way disparaging you or your service, please, be assured.

I HONOR you and your service and your sacrifice - as I do my own son's.

But - as to County's selective treatment of service members and their families:

• How touching.
• How patriotic.
• How very much - Delaware County.

Because on that very same day, Delaware County government was continuing its campaign of litigation against two disabled parents of another American soldier.

A soldier who drew guns instead of butterflies since he was 5 - and was constantly PUNISHED by Delaware Academy for it.  Because he WANTED to become a service member since he could walk and talk.  But that does not count.

He also served in Afghanistan.  In fact, when I ride in a car with him at the wheel - and he has only turned 25 - I feel safer than with any other family member, including myself, at the wheel.  He is calm, and he is not daring, but he is a very precise and measured driver.  When I addressed his driving skills, taught in the Army, he did not give me much.

He gave me only this: "we are taught to drive anything, Mom, in all conditions, day or night, including very fast so we drive over an exploding mine before it kills us.  So - a peaceful road is a treat for me."

He also served in Iraq.

He is still serving, a Fort Bragg paratrooper, now in the Strait of Hormuz.

But to honor him? His parents who raised him?

Nah.

Frederick J. Neroni, 79, permanently disabled.

Tatiana Neroni, 63, disabled following three strokes and other serious medical complications.

Faithful taxpayers of ELEVEN parcels of Delaware County property who NEVER - while possessing indisputable skills of trained and skilled TRIAL LAWYERS - NEVER sued Delaware County over their property rights.

Until during and post-COVID when the County INTERFERED into those rights.  Badly.

And then...

You should SEE what kind of repeated GARBAGE the County and its serial perjurer litigation counsel Frank Miller puts in front of the court against us - so far unabated.

Demand after demand for sanctions - at YOUR, dear taxpayers, expense.

Attempt to represent our property ownership constitutional claims as frivolous - while hiding, Delaware County style, pertinent records in the County's exclusive possession from review.  

And, the County contests EVEN OUR DISABILITIES - having NO evidence to the contrary that we ARE indeed deeply disabled.  The County tried to drag us to mundane motion hearings on motions that did not require a hearing, 1500 miles roundtrip from South Carolina, squeezed us out of federal court because federal court (a judge who employed Frank Miller's employee, Justice Mark Masler's daughter, before and after forced remand), and continued POUNDING and POUNDING and POUNDING, including advancing PERJURY after PERJURY after PERJURY, as shown by the COURT RECORD - 

because WHO would prosecute Miller?  DA SMITH?  Who is a DEFENDANT in that same case and is REPRESENTED by MILLER, who ADVANCES those PERJURIES on Shawn Smith's own BEHALF?  It is called, ladies and gentlemen, PUBLIC CORRUPTION.  Smith HAD to seek appointment of a special investigator and prosecutor to investigate PROSECUTE MILLER.

But nah - because who would force him to do THAT to HIS OWN litigation counsel?

So Miller continues to parade his "clean disciplinary history" - which was BOUGHT with PUBLIC CORRUPTION over 30 years of representation of the very people who were supposed to investigate and prosecute Miller - or seek appointment of a special investigator or prosecutor if they were as honest and faithful to their jobs as they continuously assure the public they are.

So, Miller continues to run his filthy mouth that my 79-year-old permanently disabled husband - who WIPED THE FLOOR with Miller in his career as a lawyer, TIME after TIME after TIME - can just as well strain himself some more to protect himself from the CONSTANT PERJURIES coming out of Miller's FILTHY PERJURIOUS mouth.

And, the sweetness of Delco hypocrisy never ceased to amaze me - on the SAME day that DA Smith, through Miller, advanced their filthy anti-disability perjurious theories against elderly disabled parents of honorably serving paratrooper - this press release, an accolade to Officer Wood.  And - once again, Officer Wood's HONORABLE service in Afghanistan IS NOT QUESTIONED by me in ANY way.

Apparently, Delaware County has two different ways of thanking military families.

One involves a press release.

The other involves THA NERONIS who need to be mowed into the ground, using YOUR taxpayer money, by any means, legal and illegal.

PATRIOTISM, DELAWARE COUNTY STYLE

Because, in Delco government mentality, there is an important difference between Officer Wood and the Neronis' son.

Officer Wood works for local law enforcement.

The Neronis' son has parents who dare to sue local government.  In MERITORIOUS, METICULOUSLY PLED lawsuits put together by SUCCESSFUL TRIAL LAWYERS, including Tatiana Neroni, who, in her capacity as civil rights attorney, was the ONLY civil rights attorney in the tri-county area who represented MULTIPLE clients in federal court - including against Delaware County DSS - FOR FREE.

Not to mention Frederick J. Neroni whose phone was always answered - with free consultations if needed, and whose door was open to people, far and wide, 24/7, FOR 37 YEARS - also for FREE consultations - something that the locals do not have anymore after the local government got what they wanted and eliminated law licenses of both.

And there, apparently, lies the dividing line between a veteran worthy of public celebration and a military family whose rights can be fought over, year after year, at public expense.

One serviceman's Afghanistan deployment is a source of official pride.

Another serviceman's Afghanistan and Iraq deployments apparently count for nothing when his disabled parents challenge Delaware County officials.

The County's message could hardly be clearer:

Thank you for your service.  Now tell your parents to shut up.

Of course, Delaware County has not actually issued that statement.

It doesn't need to.

Its litigation conduct speaks for itself.

A PERFECTLY TIMED AFTERNOON

The October 28 festivities did not end with the District Attorney's patriotic announcement.

That morning, the Neronis faced another court calendar of 14 (fourteen) motions that the court REFUSED to sparse out or move to an afternoon calendar, despite REPEATED requests of both Neronis based on NIGHTLY SEVERE pains of Mr. Neroni due to his SEVERE disabilities that leave both spouses EXHAUSTED in the morning due to lack of sleep and UNABLE to concentrate for purposes of arguing even ONE motion, much less FOURTEEN at a time.

Among the pending matters were motions seeking sanctions against Neronis - and their dueling motoins for sanctions against Miller and Delco government officials.  For which Delco conveniently BARRED the doors to necessary records to Neronis - because GUESS WHAT - Delco KNEW WHAT the Neronis could DO with those records, KNOWING exactly HOW the Neronis WIPED THE FLOOR with those same government officials in court before.

Interestingly, a September 14, 2026 FOIL/1st Amendment request for municipal insurance records of the illustrious Town of Hamden (ALSO represented by MILLER) had remained unanswered for 44 calendar days straight - while being PERTINENT for several motions on the 14-motion calendar.

The requested records concerned an EXPLOSIVE fiscal topic: WHETHER the illustrious Town of Hamden's Attorneys Young and Sommer, currently brow-deep in the conflict-of-interest public controversy regarding construction of a battery storage (BESS) facility in that same Town of Hamden, "serving" both the developer, and the Town (drafting legislature to help the developer, obviously) - added insult to the injury and allowed the current Town of Hamden Supervisor to put his filthy hand deep into the pocket of taxpayers to fund his own private legal defense - BY THE SAME MILLER - through publicly funded insurance carrier NYMIR, in violation of New York State Constitution, Article VIII, Section I, the so-called Gifts and Loans Clause.   

So, Marshfield did not comply with discovery on the issue, Miller - RUDELY - denied me disclosure even as to the IDENTITY OF MUNICIPALITY who backed up NYMIR-covered legal defense of Marshfield which became apparent only after Marshfield, through Miller, obtained a sua sponte prejudgment of our entire PENDING litigation docket from a judge who, as a Chenango County DA (Joseph A. McBride) has been adjudicated 20 years ago by the 3rd Department as "maligning" my husband as litigation counsel, which let to (1) reversal of the murder trial (People v Wlasiuk, 2006) and (2) the slowing of DA's advancement to the judicial status - something he could not possibly forgive my husband for.

So, after sitting with their combined butts on the evidence WHO AUTHORIZED MARSHFIELD'S STEALING of THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS from PUBLIC COFFERS on his PRIVATE LEGAL DEFENSE in Neroni v Watershed, EF2026-106 - the Town of Hamden (Cathy Roloson, candidate Shepard's sister) - suddenly coughed up a response - 5 hours after the hearing where that evidence could pertinently be used - concluded.

The hearing was held at 10:00 today.

Cathy Roloson gave birth to a response at 3:19 p.m.  AND - Cathy Roloson DID NOT honor my request to CERTIFY her response of "no records" if she wants to claim no records - which she did.

What a coincidence.

Forty-four days to respond.

And the records arrive on the exact date of the hearing — after the hearing.

The Town Clerk reported no responsive records of requests by Hamden for NYMIR-funded legal defense, tenders of claims, requests for indemnification, or litigation-specific NYMIR expenditures.

And did not certify her response - meaning whatever she said means NOTHING.

That raises an obvious question:

If Hamden did not request the defense, who did?

The only OTHER municipality that Marshfield could ask to provide TAXPAYER-PAID PRIVATE legal defense at PUBLIC EXPENSE is DELAWARE COUNTY.

The County and its municipal allies may now find themselves facing additional applications based on the very records produced that afternoon.

Apparently, somebody forgot that email comes with a timestamp.  Hearing - 10:00 a.m.  Disclosure of "no records" without certification - 3:19 p.m. the same day.  They did not even bother to wait a week and pretend.  Same day, 5 hours later.

THE PUBLICITY DEPARTMENT AND THE LITIGATION DEPARTMENT

Consider the day's schedule.

Morning: Government lawyers oppose claims brought by disabled litigants, including the parents of an active-duty serviceman.

1:45 p.m.: The District Attorney's Office distributes a patriotic tribute to an Afghanistan veteran employed by local police.

3:19 p.m.: Hamden releases a "three monkeys" uncertified and, very possibly, false response, about WHO COULD AUTHORIZE Marshfield's ILLEGAL DIPPING into TAXPAYERS' POCKETS for his PRIVATE LEGAL DEFENSE - for THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, right now close to 10K.  

Delaware County taxpayers - do you have extra 10K for Marshfield's private legal defense?   Him and Miller and WHOEVER authorized it - thought so.

One thing I am GLAD about - the HYPOCRISY finally came out full speed.

One county. One day. Two very different attitudes toward military service and military families.

In the press release, military service is noble, heroic, and worthy of public recognition.

In the courthouse, the disabled parents of a soldier who has served in two wars and continues serving his country are treated as litigation adversaries to be defeated.

And the taxpayers get to finance the spectacle.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE — TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY

Perhaps Delaware County should revise its patriotic announcements to include the fine print.

Delaware County proudly supports our troops.

Offer valid only when the servicemember or family does not challenge County officials, seek accountability for government misconduct, demand disability accommodations, or insist upon constitutional rights.

Public gratitude may be withdrawn without notice.

Government-funded litigation may apply.

For additional terms and conditions, contact Frank Miller.

It would certainly be a more candid description of the contrast on display October 28.

Let us be perfectly clear about one thing: Officer Logan Wood deserves recognition for his military service.

So does every American who served in Afghanistan, Iraq, or elsewhere.

But patriotism is not a public-relations accessory to be worn by government officials when convenient and discarded when citizens demand accountability.

The Constitution protects the disabled parents of a soldier just as surely as it protects everyone else.

And Delaware County does not get to substitute patriotic press releases for compliance with the law.

ONE LAST QUESTION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY SHAWN SMITH

District Attorney Smith says Delaware County is grateful to Officer Wood for his service.

Very well.

What does Delaware County have to say to the American soldier who served in Afghanistan, served in Iraq, and is still serving his country while his disabled parents spend their limited strength and resources fighting Delaware County government in court?

Does the County thank him, too?

Or does gratitude stop at the courthouse door?

October 28, 2026, gave us Delaware County's answer in two emails, ninety-four minutes apart.

At 1:45 p.m., a patriotic salute.

At 3:19 p.m., the delayed release of records potentially relevant to litigation against the County's municipal allies.

God bless our troops.

And God help their parents if they sue Delaware County.

DRUG PROLIFERATION IN UPSTATE NEW YORK AND DRUG COURTS — PART V - HOW NEW YORK'S PRO-SQUATTER LAWS AND COVID-19 EVICTION RESTRICTIONS CREATED OPPORTUNITIES FOR GOVERNMENTAL APPROPRIATION AND DESTRUCTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

 

I. NEW YORK'S STATUTORY TRAP: AN INVITATION TO ENTER CAN BECOME AN EXCUSE TO SEIZE A HOUSE

In April 2024, New York enacted legislation supposedly protecting property owners from squatters.

The Legislature amended Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) § 711 to declare:

"A tenant shall not include a squatter."

That sounds like protection for property owners.

But examine the actual definition the Legislature adopted:

"A squatter is a person who enters onto or intrudes upon real property without the permission of the person entitled to possession, and continues to occupy the property without title, right or permission of the owner or owner's agent or a person entitled to possession."

The definition requires unauthorized entry as well as unauthorized continued occupation.

What happens when the initial entry was authorized, but the subsequent occupation was not?

That is the statutory defect challenged in Neroni v. Delaware County, Index No. EF2025-447, Amended Verified Complaint, Section VIII, paragraphs 371–388.

The complaint identifies an extraordinary range of individuals who may initially enter private property with permission:

• Delivery people and mail carriers.

• Contractors hired to perform repairs.

• Social visitors and temporary guests.

• Municipal property inspectors.

• Other persons admitted for a limited purpose.

None of these individuals necessarily possesses any right to reside in the property.

Yet the definition in RPAPL § 711 makes the circumstances of initial entry central to determining whether someone is a squatter.

A person admitted to repair a leaking pipe is not thereby authorized to move into the house.  A municipal inspector admitted to examine a building is not thereby authorized to occupy it.

Nevertheless, the literal wording of § 711 creates an opening for a person who initially entered with permission to argue that the statutory definition of squatter does not apply.

Paragraph 384 of the Amended Verified Complaint identifies precisely this problem, describing the legislation as:

"extraordinarily overbroad, makes no exceptions as to the reasons for invitation of people by landlords onto the property in order for them to be deemed tenants"

The complaint argues that the statute thereby encourages opportunistic claims of possession by individuals who were admitted for entirely different purposes.

The Legislature purported to protect owners against squatters while creating uncertainty concerning people who initially entered lawfully and subsequently refused to leave.

RPAPL § 713: The Legislature Refers Owners to Another Statute Without Resolving the Problem

The second defect appears in the very next sentence of RPAPL § 711.

The statute provides:

"In the event of a conflict between the provisions regarding squatters of this section and the provisions of subdivision three of section seven hundred thirteen of this article, the provisions of section seven hundred thirteen of this article shall be controlling."

What does the controlling statute actually say?

RPAPL § 713(3) authorizes a special proceeding where a person squatted upon property without permission and continued occupying it without permission, or where permission was revoked and notice of revocation was given.

This provision expressly addresses revocation of permission.

But the cross-reference does not expressly answer another question: whether the special proceeding is the exclusive lawful means of removing every non-tenant whose permission has been revoked.

Paragraph 375 of the Amended Verified Complaint identifies that omission:

"RPAPL 713 does not indicate whether evictions through courts constitute an exclusive remedy for removal of non-tenants."

That is not an academic concern.

New York's legal system recognizes distinctions between tenants, licensees, invitees, and trespassers.

The Legislature has provided judicial procedures for recovering possession in specified circumstances.

But the existence of an available judicial remedy raises the question whether it eliminates every otherwise lawful method of removing a trespasser.

The complaint challenges the failure to define that boundary clearly, especially when the owner's conduct may subsequently be characterized as a criminal unlawful eviction.

RPAPL § 768: Criminal Punishment for Owners Who Guess Wrong

The third statute supplies the enforcement mechanism.

RPAPL § 768 protects specified occupants who have lawfully occupied a dwelling for thirty consecutive days or entered into a lease.

It prohibits specified methods of removing those occupants without lawful authority.

The prohibited conduct includes force, threats, interference with essential services, removal of possessions, and changing locks to prevent lawful occupancy.

Violations can constitute a class A misdemeanor.

The statute also authorizes civil penalties of $1,000 to $10,000 per violation, with additional daily penalties in specified circumstances involving failure to restore occupancy.

Thus, the statutory scheme creates a serious asymmetry.

An occupant can claim that the original entry was authorized.

The owner can maintain that permission was limited and subsequently revoked.

Police may decline to determine the occupant's legal status.

And the owner contemplating removal must evaluate the possibility of criminal prosecution and substantial financial penalties.

The government has made the consequences of an incorrect classification severe while leaving important boundaries of the classification open to dispute.

The Attorney General's own published enforcement guidance illustrates the significance of the initial-entry question.

It instructs police to determine whether the occupant lawfully entered and whether the occupant has a lease or has occupied the dwelling for more than thirty days.

It expressly includes certain licensees among persons protected after thirty days of lawful occupancy.

The result is a framework in which the original circumstances of entry, the duration of occupancy, the withdrawal of permission, and the existence of possessory rights may all become contested questions.

For an owner confronting an unauthorized occupant, those distinctions determine whether immediate removal is lawful or exposes the owner to criminal and civil prosecution.

The Missing Common-Law Right of Ouster

The Amended Verified Complaint raises a further constitutional issue.

Paragraphs 376 and 380 invoke the common-law right of ouster of trespassers.

Paragraph 376 asserts that this right predates the New York Constitution and is preserved by Article I, § 14.

That constitutional provision preserves the common law as part of New York law, subject to lawful alteration.

The complaint contends that the Legislature's creation of special eviction proceedings did not necessarily abolish the existing common-law right to remove trespassers without judicial process.

Paragraph 383 challenges the combined operation of RPAPL §§ 711, 713, and 768 as vague, overbroad, and susceptible to arbitrary enforcement, including interference with that claimed constitutional protection.

The question is specific:

Where has the Legislature clearly abolished the common-law right of ouster of non-tenants, and where has it established that RPAPL § 713 is the exclusive remedy in every disputed-occupancy situation?

If those questions are unresolved, the consequences are borne by the owner.

Good Cause Eviction: Even the Number of Residential Units Becomes a Disputed Question

The 2024 Good Cause Eviction Law, Real Property Law Article 6-A, introduces additional restrictions on recovering possession of covered residential accommodations.

Real Property Law § 211 defines a small landlord by reference to ownership of no more than ten units statewide, subject to applicable local provisions.

But the Amended Verified Complaint, paragraphs 394–396, identifies an important omission.

What constitutes a "unit" when a building is classified as residential for taxation purposes but cannot lawfully be occupied?

Is a unit a building?

An apartment?

A separately rentable room?

Does an uninhabitable house count?

Does a house undergoing reconstruction count?

What about a building vacated pursuant to a municipal code-enforcement order but still listed as residential on the tax rolls?

The complaint identifies four such buildings in Delaware County.

These distinctions affect whether an owner qualifies for the small-landlord exemption and whether statutory restrictions govern termination or nonrenewal of existing tenancies.

The classification of uninhabitable buildings as residential property can therefore have consequences beyond taxation.

A building may be too damaged to house anyone, yet its classification may still affect the owner's obligations under housing legislation.

The statute supplies a numerical threshold but does not expressly resolve every question concerning the treatment of uninhabitable buildings.

That creates another opportunity for disputed interpretation and enforcement.

Why Elderly, Disabled, Retired, and Out-of-State Owners Bear a Disproportionate Burden

Paragraph 399 of the Amended Verified Complaint directly identifies the consequences:

"GCEL has a disparate impact upon elderly and disabled absentee property owners and landlords"

It further alleges that the State and local governments can use the legislation to resolve their housing problems at property owners' expense.

The mechanism is concrete.

An out-of-state owner depends on local officials to investigate unauthorized occupation.

An elderly or disabled owner may be unable to travel, inspect damage, supervise repairs, or attend repeated proceedings.

A retired owner may have limited resources for prolonged litigation.

Meanwhile, the owner remains responsible for taxes, maintenance, insurance, and code compliance.

An occupant who refuses to leave may remain while the owner pursues judicial remedies.

The government may avoid providing alternative housing.

And the property may continue deteriorating.

The owner bears the financial consequences of statutory uncertainty while the government controls the practical machinery of enforcement and benefits from its non-enforcement by utilizing the owner's vulnerability created by the statutory schemes to use the house for the unhoused individuals - including just-released convicted heroin dealers.

If a local agency has an independent interest in keeping the occupant at the property, the opportunity for selective enforcement becomes particularly serious.

That interest might be avoiding public housing expenditures.

It might be maintaining access to an individual cooperating with narcotics investigators.

It might involve preserving a location useful for surveillance or controlled drug transactions.

The challenged statutes make such de facto seizure and exploitation of out of state owners' private property for public use - including for drug enforcement or rather drug trafficking use - possible.

The Central Constitutional and Financial Question

The interaction of RPAPL §§ 711, 713, and 768 and Real Property Law Article 6-A raises questions concerning due process, property rights, and the potential for uncompensated governmental seizures of private property.

An owner may retain title while losing effective control over possession, without effective means of regaining it before the property is completely destroyed by drugs.

Remediation of a drug-contaminated property may be costly, dangerous and may exceed in cost the former value of the property at its prime - while local municipalities continue (as they actually do in the case described) to tax the property as if it is still economically viable, in full knowledge that it is not - a stop occupancy order is on the door in this case.

An occupant may remain while legal classifications are disputed.

The government may obtain the benefit of continued housing of its CI drug dealers without assuming ownership expenses.

And the owner may ultimately bear the cost of a destroyed building.

The central question is whether New York's occupancy laws permit public agencies to shift housing and other governmental costs onto private owners through vague pro-squatter statutes, restrictions on possession, selective enforcement, and the threat of criminal prosecution.

That question becomes especially important when the occupant is a convicted drug offender useful - and likely used - by law enforcement for a supposedly public purpose.

It is the question raised by the controversy surrounding James Laughman and 201 Main Street in Delaware County.

---

Documentary authorities: RPAPL §§ 711, 713(3), 768; Real Property Law §§ 211, 213–216, 231-c; N.Y. Const. art. I, §§ 6, 14; New York State Office of the Attorney General, Unlawful Evictions (RPAPL § 768): Guidance for Law Enforcement; Neroni v. Delaware County, Index No. EF2025-447 (Sup. Ct., Delaware County), Amended Verified Complaint, NYSCEF Doc. 143, Sections VIII–IX, ¶¶ 371–400; Memorandum in Opposition to Motion #8, NYSCEF Doc. 202, Section VII, pp. 21–23.

DRUG PROLIFERATION IN UPSTATE NEW YORK AND DRUG COURTS — PART IV MORE OVERDOSE DEATHS, MORE GOVERNMENT MONEY: WHAT NEW YORK'S OWN SENATE INVESTIGATIONS REVEAL

 

I. THE WORSE THE HEROIN EPIDEMIC BECAME, THE MORE MONEY THE GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATED TO FIGHT IT

What happens when the government receives more money to combat a problem as that problem grows worse?

And what happens when the same government finances narcotics enforcement, recruits drug offenders as confidential informants, diverts certain heroin dealers from prison, provides public assistance to offenders, and then requests additional funding because heroin distribution and overdose deaths remain a crisis?

Does the government have a financial incentive to eliminate the problem — or to administer an increasingly expensive problem indefinitely?

Three New York State Senate investigations, conducted between 2014 and 2018, raise that question.

The documentary evidence is unusually revealing because it comes from the government itself.

The New York State Senate's 2014 report, Solutions to New York's Heroin Epidemic, documented an escalating heroin crisis throughout upstate New York, including Delaware, Otsego, and Chenango Counties.

At the February 23, 2016, Senate hearing at SUNY Oneonta, prosecutors, sheriffs, treatment providers, and public officials described the operation of Drug Courts, the use of cooperating offenders, the dangers of heroin distribution, fatal overdoses, and the shortage of housing for addicted offenders.

Then, on October 23, 2018, the Senate Majority Task Force on Heroin and Opioid Addiction issued another report, describing its accomplishments, recommendations, and increasing public expenditures.

Read together, these documents reveal an extraordinary financial trajectory.

New York's opioid-response funding increased from $168 million in fiscal year 2015–2016 to $247 million in fiscal year 2018–2019.

That was an increase of $79 million — or 47%.

Meanwhile, the Senate's 2018 report documented that opioid-related deaths in New York had more than doubled, from 1,030 in 2009 to 2,158 in 2015, that was BEFORE the dramatic funding increase started.

Measure	Earlier figure	Later figure	Increase
Opioid-related deaths	1,030 (2009)	2,158 (2015)	+109.5%
Heroin-related deaths	638 (2013)	1,041 (2015)	+63.2%
State opioid-response funding	$168M (FY 2015–16)	$247M (FY 2018–19)	+47.0%

Huh?

New York opioid-related deaths increased 109.5% between 2009 and 2015. Heroin-related deaths increased 63.2% between 2013 and 2015. State opioid-response funding subsequently increased 47.0%, from $168 million in FY 2015–2016 to $247 million in FY 2018–2019.

These figures come from the New York State Senate's own 2018 report.

Let's overlay the increase in heroin deaths, specifically.

The question: What measurable results did taxpayers receive for the additional $79 million in annual appropriations?  More OD deaths - and those are only the ones reported?

All of those people gloriously reporting their accomplishments, were DEALING in people's DEATHS, deliberately putting drug dealers into the streets, exposing them - and their customers, to increased risk of fatal overdoses IN THE HOPE - substantiated, apparently - of MORE FUNDING of their law enforcement endeavors? To build their careers and businesses, big and small, OFF THOSE DEATHS?

The number of heroin-related deaths increased from 638 in 2013 to 1,041 in 2015 — an increase of 63%.

These are the Senate's own figures.

The periods are not identical, and the reports do not establish that increased funding caused additional deaths.

They establish something equally important for public accountability.

The government was expanding its financial commitment to combating an epidemic that its own mortality statistics showed had grown dramatically worse.

And the Senate presented the expansion of public spending as an accomplishment.

Sources: New York State Senate Majority Task Force on Heroin and Opioid Addiction, 2018 Report & Recommendations, pp. 1, 4, 15.

II. FROM $168 MILLION TO $247 MILLION: THE GROWTH OF THE GOVERNMENT'S OPIOID-RESPONSE INDUSTRY

The 2018 Senate report contains a chart titled "Record Funding Growth to Combat Heroin."

The figures are:

Fiscal year	State funding
2015–2016	$168 million
2016–2017	$174 million
2017–2018	$210 million
2018–2019	$247 million

The total increase over three fiscal years was $79 million.

The Senate characterized this as a 47% increase in funding.

But what did taxpayers receive in exchange?

How many heroin dealers stopped distributing drugs?

How many addicted offenders completed treatment and remained free of criminal activity?

How many overdose deaths were prevented?

How many confidential informants died from overdoses while maintaining contact with drug-distribution networks?

How many private homes were damaged or contaminated by offenders whom the government chose to keep in the community?

How much of the money went to actual medical treatment?

How much went to administrative expenses, salaries, court operations, law enforcement, consultants, contractors, and organizations receiving public grants?

The 2018 report described funding increases, legislative initiatives, and new programs.

It did not provide a comprehensive accounting connecting those expenditures to reductions in heroin distribution, repeat offending, or overdose mortality.

Spending more money is not proof of solving a problem.

It is proof of spending more money.

And when the existence and severity of a public crisis justify increasing appropriations, an obvious institutional incentive arises.

Government agencies and publicly financed organizations can seek larger budgets, more employees, expanded facilities, and additional grants as the crisis worsens.

The same agencies may face little direct financial consequence when the underlying problem persists.

This does not establish that officials deliberately caused overdose deaths to obtain funding.

It raises a legitimate question about the incentives created by a system that finances institutional expansion in response to worsening outcomes.

Who measures success, and what happens to an agency's funding when its policies fail?

III. THE SENATE'S OWN REPORT DOCUMENTED THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS FINANCING MULTIPLE SIDES OF THE SAME CRISIS

The financial structure extended well beyond Drug Courts.

The 2018 Senate report identified new appropriations for several initiatives, including:

• $3.75 million for jail-based substance-use-disorder treatment.

• $1 million for the Children and Recovering Mothers program.

• $350,000 for Infant Recovery Centers.

• $500,000 for an emergency-room Opioid Alternative Project.

• $1.5 million for an independent Substance Use Disorder and Mental Health Ombudsman.

These appropriations addressed different consequences of the opioid epidemic.

Some funded treatment.

Some funded specialized services for infants and mothers.

Some financed administrative and institutional responses.

Meanwhile, the government continued paying for narcotics investigations, prosecution, incarceration, diversion, public assistance, emergency housing, and child-protection interventions.

At the February 23, 2016, Senate hearing, Delaware County Undersheriff Craig DuMond estimated that nine out of ten people arrested in the drug investigations he described, if not more, were receiving public assistance.

That estimate included drug dealers and addicts committing lesser offenses.

The government was therefore providing financial assistance to a substantial portion of the population simultaneously being investigated for drug-related criminal activity.

The 2014 Senate report also recorded proposals to provide law enforcement with funding for confidential informants.

Franklin County District Attorney Derek Champagne expressly advocated such funding.

The government's expenditure categories thus included support for people with addiction, law enforcement seeking to prosecute drug distribution, and proposals to compensate people who provided information about drug dealers.

The same heroin epidemic generated expenditures across multiple public institutions, each with its own budget, personnel, contractors, and claims of public necessity.

But where was the consolidated financial accounting?

How much was spent per offender?

How much was spent per successful treatment outcome?

How much was spent per criminal prosecution?

What happened to cooperating offenders afterward?

And what was the total financial burden imposed on victims and private property owners?

The public deserves to know whether the expanding system produced measurable improvements proportionate to its cost.

IV. THE CRITICAL QUESTION: ARE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES REWARDED FOR THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THE CRISIS?

The relationship between worsening conditions and expanding public funding creates a structural problem.

A successful intervention should eventually reduce the number of people requiring emergency services, treatment, repeated prosecution, and other publicly financed responses.

But agencies may receive additional resources when they demonstrate that the need for those services is increasing.

That creates a potential conflict between institutional financial interests and long-term public outcomes.

The government can justify additional appropriations by citing more overdoses, more addicted individuals, more children requiring specialized services, and more communities affected by heroin distribution.

The 2018 Senate report did precisely what public-budget advocacy ordinarily does: it identified the severity of the problem, described legislative accomplishments, and advocated continued funding and expansion.

But the missing question is whether the government's own policies contributed to the persistence of the conditions used to justify that expansion.

Consider the testimony of Chenango County District Attorney Joseph A. McBride.

At the February 23, 2016, hearing, McBride described diverting certain heroin dealers into Drug Court because they sold heroin to support their own addictions.

He expressly identified avoiding county jail and state prison as benefits of that policy.

What happened to those dealers afterward?

Were they still distributing heroin?

Were they receiving public assistance?

Were they being used as confidential informants?

Were they placed in safe housing?

Did they relapse?

Did they overdose?

Did they expose other residents to criminal activity?

Without those answers, the government cannot establish the complete financial or public-safety consequences of its diversion policies.

The public is being asked to finance a system without receiving a complete accounting of what the system actually produces.

And the people who bear its costs are not limited to taxpayers.

They include addicted offenders, overdose victims, neighboring residents, and private property owners.

V. THE MISSING VICTIMS: HOW MANY PRIVATE HOMES WERE DESTROYED WHILE GOVERNMENT FINANCED THE HEROIN EPIDEMIC?

There is a remarkable omission from New York State's extensive investigations into the heroin epidemic.

The 2014 Senate Task Force report expressly recognized drug-related crime and the destructive consequences of heroin addiction for local communities.

The 2018 report acknowledged the devastation inflicted upon families, neighborhoods, and entire communities.

The government counted overdose deaths, drug arrests, treatment needs, addicted newborns, emergency medical expenditures, and the growing cost of addiction services.

It celebrated increased public appropriations — from $168 million to $247 million annually.

But where is the accounting of privately owned homes destroyed, damaged, contaminated, or rendered uninhabitable by the drug offenders whom the government kept in the community?

How many houses were occupied by convicted heroin dealers who had been diverted from incarceration?

How many were occupied by offenders cooperating with narcotics investigators?

How many were used for drug distribution, controlled purchases, surveillance, or confidential-informant operations?

How many property owners were deprived of possession while police characterized unauthorized occupants as tenants and directed the owners to pursue eviction proceedings?

How many buildings suffered extensive damage before local code-enforcement officials intervened?

And how many owners received compensation?

These losses do not appear as a separately accounted category in the Senate reports.

Yet the criminal record of the Jose Rodriguez heroin-distribution organization demonstrates that private residences were used in the drug trade.

Cooperating prosecution witness Mark Rathburn testified that Rodriguez directed him to rent an apartment and maintain it as a heroin stash house. Rodriguez provided money for rent and paid Rathburn an additional $400 to $500 weekly.

Police subsequently recovered 250 bags of heroin from the apartment.

That arrangement was documented in the criminal proceedings and summarized in Rodriguez v. Griffin, No. 9:16-CV-1037, 2018 WL 6446199 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2018).

Private residential property was an operational asset in a heroin-distribution network.

The subsequent controversy concerning James Laughman at 201 Main Street in Delhi raises an even more troubling question: what happens when a convicted heroin dealer occupies property without the owners' consent, and the owners allege that law enforcement permits the occupation because the offender is useful as a confidential informant?

Laughman was a twice-convicted felon who admitted selling heroin to support his own addiction.

He occupied 201 Main Street without the owners' permission.

The owners reported threats, lack of essential utilities, unsanitary conditions, unauthorized occupants, drug activity, and serious safety hazards.

Police and Village officials were aware of complaints concerning the premises.

Yet the Village of Delhi issued its stop-occupancy order only after Laughman's death on October 24, 2024.

By then, the owners alleged, the property had sustained extensive physical damage and contamination involving drugs, needles, human and animal waste, and other hazardous materials.

According to a sworn affirmation, Village Police Chief Michael Mills subsequently warned a neighboring resident about fentanyl, needles, and drug paraphernalia inside the building and offered Narcan in connection with a possible cleanup.

The owners state that they received no written notice identifying those hazards.

The government had the authority to address the uninhabitable conditions while Laughman was alive. It exercised that authority after he was dead.

The owners allege that the delay was connected to Laughman's usefulness in confidential-informant operations.

That allegation is part of their pending inverse-condemnation litigation against local governmental defendants.

And it raises an important financial question.

If law enforcement obtained investigative benefits from maintaining an offender's presence at a privately owned property, why should the owners bear the resulting damage, loss of possession, and remediation expenses?

Consider the financial arrangement.

The government may avoid incarceration costs.

It may obtain information from cooperating offenders.

It may receive federal and state funding for narcotics enforcement, treatment, and diversion.

Its agencies may obtain additional appropriations as the epidemic worsens.

Meanwhile, a private property owner may lose a building.

The government counts its expenditures as the cost of fighting heroin. Where does it count the private property it allegedly sacrificed in the process?

The Senate's reports provide no identified statewide accounting of those losses.

There is no figure for the number of homes occupied by diverted drug offenders.

No identified accounting of properties damaged during confidential-informant operations.

No calculation of losses suffered by owners who were unable to obtain timely police or code-enforcement intervention.

No statewide measure of uncompensated private property damage attributable to the government's decisions concerning the continued liberty, housing, or investigative use of drug offenders.

Without those figures, the government's financial presentation is incomplete.

A dollar saved on incarceration may become thousands of dollars in damage to somebody else's property.

A successful narcotics investigation may generate evidence for prosecution while leaving a private residence damaged or contaminated.

An offender's continued liberty may benefit one agency's budget while imposing costs on another agency, neighboring residents, and property owners.

Those costs do not disappear merely because they are excluded from the government's financial reports.

And this brings us to the fundamental question:

How many more 201 Main Streets are there in upstate New York?

How many property owners have been forced to finance, through the destruction of their own property, the government's policies concerning heroin dealers, Drug Court diversion, and confidential informants?

Until those losses are identified and counted, New York cannot present a complete accounting of the financial consequences of its heroin policies.

The public is entitled to know not only how much the government spent fighting the heroin epidemic, but how much damage was inflicted upon private citizens while that publicly financed system operated.

---

Documentary Sources and Authorities

1. New York State Joint Senate Task Force on Heroin and Opioid Addiction, Solutions to New York's Heroin Epidemic (2014), including Southern Tier regional findings, testimony summaries, and recommendations of law-enforcement officials, prosecutors, and treatment providers.

2. New York State Joint Senate Task Force on Heroin and Opioid Addiction, Roundtable Discussion to Examine the Issues Facing Communities in the Wake of Increased Heroin and Opioid Abuse, SUNY Oneonta, February 23, 2016, particularly the testimony of Chenango County District Attorney Joseph A. McBride, Delaware County Undersheriff Craig DuMond, and Otsego County District Attorney John Muehl.

3. New York State Senate Majority Task Force on Heroin and Opioid Addiction, 2018 Report & Recommendations (October 23, 2018), pp. 1, 4, 11, 15, documenting opioid-related mortality, public funding increases, and jail-based substance-use-disorder treatment.

4. People v. Rodriguez, 121 A.D.3d 1435 (3d Dep't 2014).

5. Rodriguez v. Griffin, No. 9:16-CV-1037, 2018 WL 6446199 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2018), summarizing the criminal trial testimony concerning heroin distribution, residential stash houses, cooperating witnesses, and confidential informants.

6. People v. Laughman, Chenango County Indictment/Superior Court No. 2014-78; Delaware County Indictment No. 2017-025, County Court Case No. 2017-321.

7. Neroni v. Delaware County, Index No. EF2025-447 (Sup. Ct., Delaware County), Amended Verified Complaint and related exhibits concerning James Laughman, 201 Main Street, alleged governmental use of confidential informants, property destruction, and inverse condemnation.

8. Village of Delhi Police Department records concerning James Laughman and 201 Main Street, including incident reports, photographs, code-enforcement records, and materials produced in response to FOIL requests.