Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
COUNTY OF ALBANY
_______________________________________________
Plaintiffs,
-against- COMPLAINT
Defendants.
_______________________________________________
Plaintiffs, Steven Mahler and Daniel Garrow, by their attorneys Boies, Schiller & Flexner
INTRODUCTION
1. This action, brought pursuant to State Finance Law § 123 and General Municipal
Law § 51, seeks restitution and declaratory and injunctive relief relating to the past and ongoing
misuse of State funds to pay S. John Campanie to represent Madison County in matters involving
the Oneida Nation of New York and relating to certain other misuse of State and County funds to
pay expenses of operating Defendant Campanie's private office. To date, at least $800,000, and
on information and belief more than $1 million, in State and County funds have been illegally
disbursed to Defendant Campanie or through his law firms, the Kiley Law Firm PC and
2. Defendant Campanie is the County Attorney for Madison County. The Board of
Supervisors appointed Defendant Campanie as County Attorney and fixed his salary. State law
forbids Defendant Campanie from obtaining additional compensation for representing Madison
County, even with the Board's approval. Nevertheless, Defendant Campanie has arranged to
1
receive, and has received on an ongoing and continuous basis, substantial additional, extra-salary
compensation. He has done so by sharing in the State's payments to Nixon Peabody LLP
("Nixon Peabody"), a large private law firm that the State has paid to represent Madison County
in defense of the Oneida land claim and in many other litigation and non-litigation matters. An
example illustrates the magnitude of these extra-salary payments: from January to August 1999,
Defendant Campanie earned approximately $36,000 from his salary as County Attorney; he also
received over $124,000 through Nixon Peabody during that same period for work as County
Attorney on the Oneida land claim litigation on behalf of Madison County. Defendant
Campanie's receipt of State funds for work within his duties as County Attorney has been and is
illegal.
201 and Public Officers Law § 67 from receiving additional compensation for representing
Madison County. Section 201 provides that his salary "shall be in lieu of all fees," and section
67 provides that he "shall not charge or receive a greater fee or reward" than his salary. Under
compensation, any extra compensation that might be paid in violation of the statutes "belong[s]
to the county," and the State can seek treble damages for funds illegally paid. Moreover, Rule
1.15 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct requires Defendant Campanie to turn these
funds over to the county and to avoid commingling them or using them for his own benefit, none
of interest and interests in County contracts, in violation of General Municipal Law § § 801. As
County Attorney, he decided or helped to decide which lawyers would represent Madison
County in disputes with the Oneida Nation, and, although the County Board already had chosen
2
Defendant Campanie to represent the County for a set salary, he selected both himself and the
Nixon Peabody firm to represent the County in certain matters and arranged to be paid additional
compensation as if he were an outside, private attorney billing for fees for County representation
in addition to his set salary. As County Attorney, Defendant Campanie had a conflict of interest
with respect to the foregoing, which constituted self-dealing. Moreover, Defendant Campanie
then proceeded to bill through the Nixon Peabody firm and to receive payment through the firm.
Defendant Campanie thus had a prohibited interest in Nixon Peabody's contract to represent
Madison County. General Municipal Law § 801 prohibits such interests in county contracts.
legal work for Madison County. That supervision involved the quality of the work and the
soundness of the strategies followed. Yet Defendant Campanie is paid through Nixon Peabody,
relies on Nixon Peabody to evaluate the merit of his work, benefits personally from a
continuation of all the litigation involved and would suffer economically from its settlement. A
County Attorney should consider County interests separately from his own interests in
continuing to receive extra-salary compensation for continuing and not settling litigation. That
Defendant Campanie has been receiving extra-salary compensation for at least twelve years, and
will be doing it in the future unless enjoined, provides a troubling explaination for Madison
6. Third, the State was not authorized to pay Defendant Campanie for most of his
work representing Madison County, even if he were considered a private attorney and not the
County Attorney. State Law § 10 authorizes State payments only for work by the County's
private attorneys on the Oneida land claim litigation, and then only for a relatively small part of
that work involving defense against a claim "to recover lands within the state." Of the more than
$12 million the State has paid to Nixon Peabody and Defendant Campanie, it appears that a
3
substantial portion or most has been for work for which State Law § 10 does not authorize
payment, such as tax and trust litigation and for lobbying state and federal legislative and
ethics disclosures dating back to 1998, Defendant Campanie submitted a form stating that the
work for which he received additional, extra-salary compensation was for the "defense of the
Oneida Indian Land Claim." See Campanie's 1998 Annual Statement of Financial Disclosure,
attached hereto as Exhibit A. But, in fact, Defendant Campanie (like Nixon Peabody, through
which he billed) has billed for a substantial amount of work other than the Oneida land claim,
including for tax litigation, administrative proceedings involving a trust land application, trust
land litigation, lobbying, and other matters not involving the Oneida land claim cases. Any
effort by Defendant Campanie to characterize his work as work in defense of the Oneida land
claim would have been to facilitate otherwise unauthorized receipt of State's funds.
(Remarkably, an early disclosure form admitted that the payments received through Nixon
Peabody were additional compensation for working as County Attorney, but Defendant
Campanie deleted that admission in later disclosure reports once he apparently realized the
payment to him of additional compensation is illegal. Compare Campanie's 1998 and 1999
8. Fifth, in addition to the State payments, Defendant Campanie has received from
Madison County lump sum expense reimbursements (i.e., paid by the County as a lump sum
without having received particularized, detailed billing with backup for each individual charge
for which reimbursement is made), even including reimbursement for expenses to support his
private law office. Those payments violate County Law § 203, which forbids lump sum expense
reimbursement, and, so far as they are for expenses of his private law office, also violate the
4
prohibition on additional, extra-salary compensation. Upon information and belief, these
payments to support Defendant Campanie's private law office total $6,000 per year and are
ongoing.
9. Defendant DiNapoli has authorized and has failed and refused to either cease
these illegal payments to Defendant Campanie or to seek the return of these illegal payments to
the State of New York, despite written requests that he do so and despite his duty as State
Comptroller to superintend the fiscal concerns of the state. See Letter to New York State
Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, dated October 25, 2010, attached hereto as Exhibit C.
10. Important public interests are involved here. The public has an interest in
preventing the improper expenditure of State and County funds, in preventing the unlawful
public contracts. The public is rightly concerned that more than $1 million in state and county
funds not be spent improperly. The public is rightly concerned that public officers, like County
Attorneys, conduct the public's business, including litigation, free of the compromise produced
by conflicting self-interest. The County is entitled to a County Attorney who exercises his or her
functions and provides legal advice to the County free of direct and personal financial interest in
the outcome. The public also has a strong interest in recovering funds that have been wrongfully
disbursed.
PARTIES
11. Plaintiff Steven Mahler is a citizen and taxpayer of New York State and a resident
of Madison County. He pays taxes on a real property assessment of more than $1,000.
12. Plaintiff Daniel Garrow is a citizen and taxpayer of New York State and a resident
of Madison County. He pays taxes on a real property assessment of more than $1,000.
5
13. Defendant S. John Campanie is the County Attorney for Madison County. He has
14. Defendant Campanie & Wayland-Smith PLLC is a law firm based in Oneida
County, New York. On information and belief, Defendant Campanie has been a member and
majority owner of Campanie & Wayland-Smith PLLC since August 14, 2000.
15. Defendant Thomas P. DiNapoli is Comptroller of the State of New York and is
16. Plaintiffs, as citizen taxpayers, have standing to bring this action under State
Finance Law § 123-b(1). Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action under General Municipal
Law § 51 because they pay taxes in Madison County on real property assessments exceeding
$1000.
17. Pursuant to State Finance Law § 123-c(1), the Supreme Court has jurisdiction,
and venue is proper in Albany County in that some or all of the illegal disbursements took place
in Albany County.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
18. For many years the State of New York paid private counsel to represent Madison
County (and also Oneida County) in federal land claim litigation brought by the Oneida Nation
of New York concerning land in Madison County and Oneida County. That litigation began
with Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (N.D.N.Y. Case No. 70-CV-35), often referred
to as the "test case," which was resolved by entry of judgment and is no longer pending.
19. From the beginning, the State's payments have been made based on the invocation
of State Law § 10, which authorizes the State to pay a county's lawyer "for the defense of any
6
action or proceeding[] against" the county if the action or proceeding is "to recover lands" from
the county. Section 10 authorizes payment for legal work to prevent a plaintiff from recovering
county lands, but, as the courts have decided, does not authorize payment for legal work to
protect a county from paying money damages (such as rent) based on a claim that the County
20. In 1974, the Oneidas filed a broader land claim action against Madison County
and Oneida County, No. 74-CV-187. New counsel from the Boston firm of Goodwin, Proctor &
Hoar represented the counties in that case and in No. 70-CV-35, which was still pending at that
time. The State of New York was also named as a defendant, but the State was ultimately
21. In 1998, the United States intervened as a plaintiff in No. 74-CV-187 on behalf of
the Oneidas so that the State of New York, which has no immunity as against the claims of the
II. The County Attorney's Decision to Bill through Nixon Peabody for Additional,
Extra-Salary Compensation for County Representation
22. In or about 1998, Madison County and Oneida County engaged Nixon Peabody
to represent them in the land claim litigation, with the State agreeing to pay the bills, as for
counsel in earlier years. Payments by the State were made under at least the following contract
numbers: C003088, C102843, and C102844. Payments from the State to Nixon Peabody under
the contracts over the past twelve years have exceeded $12 million. The billing by Nixon
Peabody continues, as do, on information and belief, the payments by the State.
23. At about the same time that Nixon Peabody was retained, Madison County
through Nixon Peabody for representing the County. Like all previous Madison County
7
Attorneys, Defendant Campanie (who was first appointed in May 1987) was and is restricted to
the salary established for his office by the Board of Supervisors. An illegal arrangement began
in 1998, nevertheless, whereby Defendant Campanie would bill through and be paid by Nixon
Peabody from funds paid by the State of New York pursuant to Nixon Peabody's contracts, such
as those specified above in the previous paragraph. Thus, Campanie received a direct, personal
benefit from the retention of Nixon Peabody. Not only was this additional compensation in
excess of his salary illegal for Defendant Campanie as County Attorney, but he also put himself
in the position of regularly accepting funds from a law firm that had a contract to represent the
24. Defendant Campanie was paid through Nixon Peabody a monthly, lump sum
payment of $6,500, without regard to hours, for most months. At times, he submitted bills to
Nixon Peabody for fees far in excess of that amount. He has, on information and belief, received
over $1 million through Nixon Peabody to date, and the payments continue.
25. On information and belief, all bills covering the time period through August 13,
2000 were submitted to Nixon Peabody on Defendant Campanie's behalf by his then-law firm,
Kiley Law Firm PC. Bills covering the period from August 14, 2000 until the present were
submitted to Nixon Peabody on Defendant Campanie's behalf by his law firm, Defendant
Campanie & Wayland-Smith PLLC. All payments to Campanie by Nixon Peabody described
herein were made via the Kiley Law Firm PC and Defendant Campanie & Wayland-Smith
PLLC.
26. In a 1998 ethics disclosure form relating to his work as County Attorney,
Defendant Campanie recorded the following admission of his plan to receive additional, extra-
salary compensation:
8
Lastly, there is a proposal pending that for 1999 may result in additional
compensation for extraordinary time commitments in defense of the
Oneida Indian Land Claim, to be paid by New York State. (Emphasis
added).
See Campanie's 1998 Annual Statement of Financial Disclosure, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
receive over and above his County Attorney salary fixed by the Board of Supervisors. The
reference to the Oneida land claim defined the extent of the work for which additional
compensation would be sought. There was no reference to the laws forbidding additional
compensation. There was no explanation why an extraordinary time commitment was required
by Defendant Campanie, or why the work would not be duplicative and unnecessary, given the
fact that Nixon Peabody would be representing Madison County – and given the fact that the
Attorney General had appeared in the action, along with the large law firm of White & Case,
acting as outside counsel to the State, advancing every argument that Madison County advanced.
Defendant Campanie never entered an appearance as counsel for Madison County in either of the
land claim cases, No. 70-CV-35 or No. 74-CV-187, for which he sought to be paid the additional
compensation.
27. For each of the following years (although plaintiffs are not in possession of
disclosure forms for 2009 or 2010), Defendant Campanie phrased his ethics disclosure form to
avoid the use of the incriminating "additional compensation" term that had been included in the
report for 1998. For 1999, for example, Defendant Campanie, presumably then aware of the
9
the State of New York, pursuant to the understanding that as part of its
contract with New York State to defend the Counties, such billings will
be paid by New York State. The final amount to be paid by New York
State is still a matter of negotiation.
See Campanie's 1999 Annual Statement of Financial Disclosure, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
The reference to "discussions" and to "the understanding" suggests that Defendant Campanie's
arrangement was not documented in a written contract. The description also suggests that
Defendant Campanie billed pursuant to Nixon Peabody's contract, although those contracts do
not mention Defendant Campanie. Further, the Nixon Peabody bills to the State merely listed
payments to Defendant Campanie as a lump sum disbursement by the Nixon Peabody firm, with
no time records or details. Moreover, on at least one Nixon Peabody bill where the requested
is merely lumped into a request for $165,691.49 in "Charges and Disbursements." See Statement
for Legal Services, dated September 15, 1999, attached hereto as Exhibit D.
28. Defendant Campanie (like Nixon Peabody, through which he billed and from
which he received a portion of payments made by the State to Nixon Peabody) has billed and
received payment for work on matters outside of the land claim cases – the tax, trust and
lobbying work described above. See Oneida Indian Nation v. Madison County, 401 F. Supp.2d
219 (N.D.N.Y. 2005) (the "Tax Litigation"); State v. Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 32497, No.
08-CV-644 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (the "Trust Litigation"). The level of payments – which exceed a
total of $12 million – reveals that such non-land claim work was included in the bills because so
much work could not have been done just on the land claim litigation.
10
29. Even as to work on the land litigation, Defendant Campanie (through Nixon
Peabody) billed the State for work that did not concern recovery of lands from the Counties, the
only circumstance that can justify payment under State Law § 10, the statute under which
payments were sought and under which they were made. Section 10 authorizes only payment for
a legal defense against claims for recovery of the Counties' lands, and not for most of the work
that Defendant Campanie billed through Nixon Peabody. In June 2005, the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals held in Cayuga v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2005), that Indian tribes in New
York could not sue to recover lands long-ago sold to the State and obtained by its counties or by
others. Madison County was, therefore, no longer even theoretically exposed to a claim for
recovery of its lands by the Oneidas. Yet for the following five or more years Defendant
Campanie and Nixon Peabody have continued to bill the State for all the work they did on land
claim matters, even though they could not possibly be said to involve recovery of county lands
and, of course, also for work on matters involving trust, tax and other non-land claim disputes.
30. At the very least, no work on land claim matters has been needed since argument
on June 3, 2008 in the Second Circuit on appeal from a District Corut order partially granting
and partially denying the State and the Counties' motion for partial judgment. Yet bills were
submitted to and paid by the State for the rest of 2008, all of 2009, and continuing into 2010.
Those bills almost certainly were for non land claim work involving, among other things, the
Tax Litigation and the Trust Litigation that the Counties chose to file against the Oneidas.
31. Although County Law § 203 forbids "lump sum" reimbursements "in lieu of
actual and necessary disbursements" involving specifically, separately itemized expenses, the
Madison County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution authorizing monthly lump sum
payments of $500 to Defendant Campanie as reimbursement for such things as having a library,
11
computers, telephones and staff in his private law office, located outside of Madison County,
from which he apparently does some Madison County Attorney work as a convenience to
himself. Defendant Campanie, of course, would maintain his private law library and email-
capable computers even if he were not also the County Attorney and even if he chose to do all of
his County Attorney work at the public office that Madison County provides for Defendant
Campanie at County expense at the County Office Building. For that reason, the payments are
also illegal under County Law § 203 as not for a reimbursable expense, which means they are
prohibited additional compensation, even if they were not impermissibly made in a lump sum
COUNT I
(County Law §§ 201 and 501; Public Officers Law § 67; State Finance Law § 123-b and
General Municipal Law § 51 - Misappropriation of State Funds and Waste)
(Against Defendants Campanie, and Campanie & Wayland-Smith PLLC)
32. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
in all of its legal matters; any legal representation that he provides the County falls within his
duties. County Law § 501(1) provides that the County Attorney "shall … defend all civil actions
or proceedings brought by or against the county." County Law § 501(3) also requires that
Defendant Campanie "shall perform such additional and related duties as may be prescribed by
Supervisors in the form of a salary, and is not open to supplementation through side payments.
[E]ach board of supervisors shall fix the salary of all such officers paid
from county funds, except the members of the judiciary. Such salary
shall be in lieu of all fees, percentages, emoluments or other form of
compensation payable for services rendered in the performance of the
powers and duties of the office.
12
County Law § 201. Section 201 further stipulates that fees received by Defendant Campanie or
any County Attorney "by virtue of his office from whatever source" are required to "be paid into
the county treasury" because they "belong to the county." (Emphasis added). Under this
provision of section 201, the funds Defendant Campanie has received are client property
misappropriated by Defendant Campanie and his law firms. Rule 1.15 of the New York Rules of
35. Similarly, Public Officers Law § 67 provides that persons such as County
Attorneys, whose compensation for a service is allowed by law, "shall not charge or receive a
greater fee or reward, for that service, than is so allowed." Section 67 authorizes the State to
seek treble damages for any funds received in violation of the statute. Any purported direct or
indirect agreement between Madison County and Defendant Campanie to vary this or any other
36. In Thompson v. Hofstatter, 265 N.Y. 54, 61 (1934), the Court of Appeals
explicitly addressed the question of "whether a County Attorney can thus be paid additional
compensation over and above his salary for ordinary legal attorney work because the salary fixed
13
37. Because these payments to Defendant Campanie are illegal under Public Officers
Law § 67 and County Law § 201, Defendant Campanie has caused a misappropriation of state
funds under State Finance Law § 123-b. Defendant Campanie should be enjoined from receiving
any further such payments and compelled to account for and repay those funds he has already
received.
38. Because these payments to Defendant Campanie are illegal under Public Officers
Law § 67 and County Law § 201, they constitute waste under General Municipal Law § 51.
Defendant Campanie should be enjoined from receiving any further such payments and
COUNT II
(General Municipal Law §§ 801 and 804; State Finance Law § 123-b and General
Municipal Law § 51 - Misappropriation of State Funds and Waste)
(Against Defendants Campanie, and Campanie & Wayland-Smith PLLC)
39. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations in paragraphs 1 to 31 as if fully set
forth herein.
40. General Municipal Law § 801 prohibits Defendant Campanie from having an
interest in Madison County's contract with Nixon Peabody for legal representation. Madison
County has an oral or written contract with Nixon Peabody through which the retention of the
firm as the County's lawyers was established. For Defendant Campanie to be paid as if he were a
part of the Nixon Peabody firm or covered by its contracts, and to receive checks from the Nixon
41. Under General Municipal Law § 804, "[a]ny contract willfully entered into by or
with a municipality in which there is an interest prohibited by this article shall be null, void and
wholly unenforceable." Any purported direct or indirect agreement between Madison County
14
42. Because this agreement is unlawful under General Municipal Law § 801, by
receiving payments under it, Defendant Campanie caused a misappropriation of state funds
under State Finance Law § 123-b. Defendant Campanie should be compelled to repay those
funds he has already received under this agreement and enjoined from receiving any further such
payments, and all direct and indirect contracts between Madison County and Defendant
Campanie with respect to billing a payment through Nixon Peabody should be declared void.
43. Because this agreement is unlawful under General Municipal Law § 801,
payments to Defendant Campanie under the agreement constitute waste under General Municipal
Law § 51. Defendant Campanie should be compelled to repay those funds he has already
received under this agreement and enjoined from receiving any further such payments, and all
direct and indirect contracts between Madison County and Defendant Campanie should be
declared void.
COUNT III
(State Law § 10; State Finance Law § 123-b and General Municipal Law § 51 -
Misappropriation of State Funds and Waste)
(Against Defendants Campanie, and Campanie & Wayland-Smith PLLC)
44. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations in paragraphs 1 to 31 as if fully set
forth herein.
45. State Law § 10 authorizes state payments for the County's legal work only for
The governor shall, at the expense of the state, employ counsel and
provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, instituted against the
state, or against any person deriving title therefrom, to recover lands
within the state, under pretence of any claim inconsistent with its
sovereignty and jurisdiction.
46. The State's indemnity of County legal fees and expenses has not been restricted to
the payments authorized by § 10. State payments have been made to Defendant Campanie and
15
Nixon Peabody for work entirely outside the land claim litigation, work that involved tax
47. Further, the bulk of the legal work performed by Defendant Campanie and Nixon
Peabody in the land claim litigation could not have included and did not include defense of a
claim to recover county land, the sole basis under state law for the State to pay the County's legal
fees. For example, the bulk of the work involved defense of claims for monetary damages,
which did not involve efforts to recover county land and has been held by the courts not to be
covered by § 10.
48. Because these payments to Defendant Campanie are not authorized by State Law
§ 10, Defendant Campanie has caused a misappropriation of state funds under State Finance Law
§ 123-b. Defendant Campanie and his law firm should be enjoined from receiving any further
payments under State Law § 10 for work not involving the defense of an action to recover lands
within the state. Defendant Campanie and his law firm should be compelled to repay all funds
49. Because these payments to Defendant Campanie are not authorized by State Law
§ 10, they constitute waste under General Municipal Law § 51. Defendant Campanie and his law
firm should be enjoined from receiving any further payments under State Law § 10 for work not
involving the defense of an action to recover lands within the state. Defendant Campanie and his
law firm should be compelled to repay all funds already received for work not authorized by
16
COUNT IV
(County Law §§ 201 and 203; Public Officers Law § 67; Finance Law § 123-b and General
Municipal Law § 51 - Misappropriation of State Funds and Waste)
(Against Defendants Campanie, and Campanie & Wayland-Smith PLLC)
50. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations in paragraphs 1 to 31 as if fully set
forth herein.
monthly lump sum payments of $500 to Defendant Campanie to cover certain expenses of his
private law office operated as Campanie & Wayland-Smith. The County Attorney has a public
office in the County Building, provided at public expense. The resolution indicates that
Defendant Campanie prefers to conduct some public business from his private law office –
52. The lump sum payments violate County Law § 203, which prohibits lump sum
expense reimbursements.
53. That illegality is compounded by the fact that $500 payments cover items that
Defendant Campanie would have had to purchase whether or not he were County Attorney, such
as law books, computers and staff who answer telephone calls. Such payments for expenses not
directly incurred in doing work as the county Attorney constitute prohibited additional
compensation to the County Attorney in violation of County Law §§ 201 and 203 and Public
54. Because these payments to Defendant Campanie are prohibited by County Law
§§ 201 and 203 and Public Officers Law § 67, Defendant Campanie has caused a
misappropriation of state funds under State Finance Law § 123-b. Defendant Campanie and his
law firm should be enjoined from receiving any further lump sum payments, and should be
17
55. Because these payments to Defendant Campanie are prohibited by County Law
§§ 201 and 203 and Public Officers Law § 67, they constitute waste under General Municipal
Law § 51. Defendant Campanie and his law firm should be enjoined from receiving any further
lump sum payments, and should be compelled to repay all such payments already received.
COUNT V
(Public Officers Law § 67 and Finance Law § 123-b - Misappropriation of State Funds)
(Against Defendant DiNapoli)
56. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations in paragraphs 1 to 31 as if fully set
forth herein.
57. Despite written demand that he do so, Defendant DiNapoli has refused to prevent
continued illegal payments to Defendant Campanie and his law firm as set forth above. The
Office of the Comptroller, on information and belief, continues to make such payments, and
58. Because he has failed and refused to voluntarily discontinue such illegal
payments, or to seek to recover those already made, Defendant DiNapoli has caused a
misappropriation of state funds under State Finance Law § 123-b. Defendant DiNapoli should
be permanently enjoined from making those payments, and compelled to bring an action under
18
PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
D. Declare void any and all direct and indirect contracts between Madison
19
Madison County's County Attorney, pursuant to State Finance Law § 123-
F. Award costs and fees to Plaintiffs in accordance with State Finance Law
§ 123-g; and
By:
George F. Carpinello
10 North Pearl Street, 4th Floor
Albany, NY 12207
Ph: 518-434-0600
S:\wpdata\7515002\Mahler Complaint.doc
20