Yankee Stadium in the Bronx is more than just the new home of 26 World Series championships. The newly built stadium on 161st Street also “is a model of accessibility to people with disabilities.”

So says the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District in Manhattan. The district includes Rockland and Westchester, as well as the Bronx.

Today, Yankee brass and U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin held a news conference at the stadium to announce that the office has completed its review of the ball park. 

Providing proper accessibility for people with disabilities resulted from cooperation between the Yankees, the Department of Justice, and private groups during the stadium’s design and construction.

The Yankees voluntarily sought input from the Justice Department to ensure that the stadium would be accessible to people with disabilities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said today in a news release. The act is meant to guarantee that people with disabilities have equal opportunities, including the opportunity to enjoy a sporting event as others do.

Following the news conference at 11 a.m. today, officials offered a tour of some of the new Stadium’s accessible features. The Yanks open the season at the stadium on Thursday, though the team played the Cubs at the new ballpark to cap off spring training.

This is how it goes sometimes when you cover Westchester County Courts:

I get to Judge Barbara Zambelli’s courtroom at 9:33 a.m.—3 minutes after court “officially” begins and about 20 minutes before most judges put on their robes. Zambelli, ever punctual, was already on the bench hearing cases when I walked in.

I was waiting for the sentencing of Jaime Wolert, who got behind the wheel of her car after drinking all afternoon with her husband and his Army buddy, lost control and slammed into a telephone pole, killing the Army buddy and getting herself a state prison sentence. 

For 45 minutes I wait, as Zambellli clears her entire calendar. Finally, they call Wolert! The prosecutor looks back at the victim’s tearful parents in the front row and says she will read a statement from the victim’s father. She takes the pages in her hand and is about to speak, when ….

WHAH! WHAH! WHAH! WHAH! WHAH!

Fire alarm. Evacuation drill. Everybody outside.

The entire courthouse empties out. When they call everyone back in, I get caught in the long, long security line. By the time I rush back to Zambelli’s second floor courtroom, it’s all over. I missed it.

Fortunately, I was able to get a copy of the father’s statement and talk with Wolert’s attorney to fill in the gaps. But there’s nothing like being there to see it for yourself.

Click here to read the story.

The Zalman SIlber- Andrew Dale case just went before a state Appellate Division panel in Brooklyn,

But the subject matter centered on Judge Catherine Bartlett, not the sexual abuse charges accusing Dale, the fired Ramapo police officer, and Silber, the Monsey businessman,  of doing medical exams on the former Mrs. Silber.

The appellate case focuses on the Rockland District Attorney’s Office’s  appeal of Bartlett’s decision to continue overseeing the trial, which remains in the pre-trial hearing stage.

The issue focuses on Bartlett revealing in February that during a luncheon a woman started telling her the ugly details of a divorce case and, as it turned out, it was Silber’s divorce case.

Rockland District Attorney Thomas Zugibe, citing court transcript, argue Bartlett recused herself when she said in court, ” But … I feel at this time that it would be improper for me to continue sitting on this case. So as far as this court is concerned, to avoid the appearance of improper communications and to avoid the appearance of impropriety, I am going to be recusing myself from this case.”

Bartlett wrote in a decision staying on the case that the prosecution was mistaken in its interpretation that she recused herself.

“The people are mistaken,” Bartlett wrote. “The record is clear that at no time in the proceedings did the court state that it had disqualified itself.”

Dale’s lawyer, David Goldstein, said he had urged her to stay on the case. Silber’s lawyer, William Aronwald, later agreed. They argued she did the right thing by informing the lawyers of the conversation and they believe she can try the case without any bias.

Goldstein today called the DA’s appeal ridiculous and predicted the Appellate Division would reject the prosecution’s argument. He noted that an advisory panel for the courts recommended that Bartlett stay with the case.

The panel is likely to rule on  April 17, so the DA’s request for a stay of the evidentiary hearing scheduled for April 20 was not necessary.

“All this is a ploy to get get off the case,” Goldstein said. “This is all going in one direction and that’s to retain her on the case.”

The scheduled April 20 hearing before Bartlett will center on information obtained against Dale, and if it came from his disciplinary hearing that led to Ramapo firing him. He was fire the day after the DA’s office announced his indictment in August. The defense contention is that Dale’s testimony was given under threat of dismissal.

Prosecutors contend their detectives obtained the information  – including recorded conversations – long before the disciplinary hearing. They contend they did nothing improper.

Dale and Silber each face four felony counts of unauthorized practice of a profession and fourth-degree aggravated sexual abuse.

Bartlett previously dismissed 24 misdemeanor sexual abuse charges and two counts of official misconduct against Dale. She ruled that anyone could commit sexual abuse and the fact that Dale was a public official does not make it misconduct in office. Without the misconduct count, the sexual abuse counts failed to meet the statute of limitations.

Bartlett and Rockland prosecutor Thomas Zugibe and his successor have had a contentious relationship on legal issues and her decisions. Bartlett has been critical of several prosecutors in court and before grand juries.

The whole Chris Brown/Rihanna case has become a famous example of an all-too-common fact that prosecutors deal with regularly: victims of domestic abuse are reluctant to help convict their romantic partners.

The situation reminded me of a domestic case in Westchester County between former Harrison Police Officer Ralph Tancredi and his ex-girlfriend, Sonja Saenz. Saenz was never assaulted like Rihanna, but she was subjected to abusive behavior that led Harrison police to charge Tancredi with harassment, menacing and contempt.

Saenz refused to cooperate with the DA’s office, and the Westchester County prosecutors had no choice but to drop all charges because they had no case without her testimony. When Tancredi walked out of the courtroom on the day the case was dismissed, he kissed Saenz on the cheek. Click here to read my May 21 story about the dismissal of Tancredi’s case.

Saenz filed a civil rights lawsuit (still pending) claiming the DA’s office and police pressured her into seeking an order of protection against Tancredi.

So in many ways I understand why prosecutors in the Chris Brown case are trying to work out a plea bargain. Without one, he may not be convicted of anything at all. Click here to read more about the Brown/Rihanna case.

Photo courtesy of USA Today

Mumia Abu-Jamal, convicted in 1982 of killing a Philadelphia cop, won’t get a new trial. Click here to read the story from the Associated Press.

Growing up in Pennsylvania, I know how heated the arguments can get over Mumia Abu-Jamal. He is a martyr to some; a demon to others. I remember the “Free Mumia” rally in Harrisburg during then-Gov. Tom Ridge’s inaugural in January 1995 (I was a news intern at the time). I’m not sure if he’ll ever be executed, but I am sure his case will generate controversy for years to come.

Photo courtesy of Reuters

Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore wrote a column in our paper today recommending that the state increase funding to the public defense system. It’s an atypical position for someone whose job is prosecuting the people who public defenders reprensent, but she agreed with those who say a good defense makes good justice.
Read her full column here.