64.9 F
Rye
Wednesday, December 7, 2022
Home Government Kristen Wilson Gets Nod as Rye Corporation Counsel

Kristen Wilson Gets Nod as Rye Corporation Counsel

WilsonK copy Rye's new corporation counsel is Kristen Wilson. She had previously had acted as a deputy to Kevin Plunkett before he left to work with county exec Astorino. Wilson is senior counsel at the Harris Beach firm in White Plains. Twenty plus attorneys were interviewed for the position.

Here is Wilson's bio from the Harris Wilson firm web site:

"Ms. Wilson is senior counsel to the firm practicing with the Business & Commercial Litigation Practice Group, Municipalities & Quasi-Governmental Agencies Industry Team, and the Construction & Surety Law Practice Group. Ms. Wilson represents municipal clients in state and federal litigation focusing on Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, land use, environmental, and civil rights matters. She also represents corporate clients on contractual, property, and business litigation matters. Ms. Wilson serves as municipal counsel to the City of Rye and the Village of Dobbs Ferry and as special counsel to the City Yonkers, the Yorktown Central School District, the Village of Airmont, and the Village of Upper Nyack."

9 COMMENTS

  1. This is beginning to shape up to look like the Otis Administration all over again!

    Now we hire the assistant to the biggest crook and corrupt Lawyer in Westchester! I hope she gets what she deserves when the Schubert case blows up in her face!!!

    Wilson & Pickup….has a nice ring to it!

  2. “Kristen is really a dynamite corporation counsel,” Mayor Douglas French (R) said.

    Many of us couldn’t agree more.

    And we’re looking forward to a very big blast.

  3. tedc

    Webster’s Dictionary

    Dynamite:

    Something that has great potential to cause trouble or conflict. An issue regarded as political dynamite.

    Was Kevin Plunkett’s protege Really?!? the best person for this job?

    Wilson and her law firm Harris Beach seem to me to be on the same scorched taxpayer path as Plunkett.

  4. Journal News

    NJ town pays $17,000 to defend $5 fee

    BRIDGEWATER, N.J. (AP) — A New Jersey town spent more than $17,000 defending a $5 fee it charged a resident for a compact disc of a council meeting.

    Tom Coulter filed a complaint with the New Jersey Government Record Council in October 2008, saying he should pay the actual cost of the CD to get the recording.

    The state council this year sided with Coulter and found he should have paid about 96 cents.

    Bridgewater paid more than $14,000 in legal fees defending the case. It had to pay $3,500 to Coulter for his legal fees and give him a $4.04 refund.

    Coulter says the case shows a lack of common sense.

    Township Attorney Alan Grant tells The Courier News of Bridgewater the legal fees would have been substantially lower had Coulter settled, as the township had offered.

    The City of Rye constantly violates similar laws and tries to justify their stupidity with their lawyer$. The major difference is I believe the City of Rye potentially would have paid as much as $51,000 in legal fees to defend this “Frivolous” lawsuit.

    $17,000 for Plunkett?

    $17,000 for Toomey?
    .
    $17,000 for Wilson?

    And let’s not forget the appeal that they probably all would have advised the City Council to do and then so graciously do the appeal themselves for maybe another $51,000.

    That is how Rye works. They pay their Corporation Counsel lots of money for legal advice and then the Corporation Counsel and whatever law firm they happen to work for at the moment get to do the “Outside” legal work that the Corporation Counsel advised them to undertake. When the Corporation Counsel gets enough “Outside” work for their firm, the firm makes them a partner.

    So it appears to me that there is still an ongoing conflict of interest and motivation to promote outside legal work to line the pockets of lawyers and to help along ones career. All on the back of taxpayers.

  5. The Journal News refuses to forget about Mamaroneck taxpayers getting fleeced a few years back in legal fees. Naughty press, shame on them. So why did our own so called search committee waive away a history like this? No other candidates ‘qualified?’ And yes – it was THAT law firm in 2005 and 2006.

    “In 2008, the year (Janet) Insardi began her job, the village spent around $329,000 in legal fees — almost half of what it spent in 2007. In comparison, in 2005 and 2006, the village had no staff attorney and spent more than $1.4 million in each of those years.

    In recent years, the village has paid hefty settlements after findings that officials unfairly blocked expansion plans of both a yacht club and a private school, and that police harassed day laborers.”

    See the whole article here –

    http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=201012270316

  6. tedc

    Good points tedc. How is it that the same people are allowed to continue to rape Rye taxpayers using different law firms using the same tactics?

    Do finder fees come into play?

    Did Rye REALLY?!? pick the best lawyer as corporation counsel?

    Is French lobbying for a job with Plunkett or one of Plunketts stooges and is using Rye as a audition?

    I am tired of the same $h!t. French sucks.

  7. TheLegalFeesAreTooDamnHigh –

    Don’t know if you’re a lawyer or a judge? – but it sounds like someone who is both has some pretty “Damn-ing” concerns (soundly based in law) about the new so called law department.

    The legal discussion continues

    http://www.myryesoundshore.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1341:the-legal-discussion-continues&catid=36:columns&Itemid=55

    Unfortunately – the honorable author of the above misses the point. The “law” in Rye has left the building. Our local legal decisions are directed by outsiders and concerned mostly with protecting and enriching themselves at the expense of resident taxpayers. What a great monopoly.

  8. tedc:

    After reading the Bassett trial transcript I am left bewildered as to why Detective Kenny did not testify at the trial. He was the lead investigator and the arresting officer. Kenny would also be able to testify as to Shew’s involvement in the investigation on the very first day.

    Ohhhhhh maybe that’s why the City of Rye fought so hard with taxpayer money to keep Kenny off the witness stand at the trial.

    Ohhhhhh and maybe protecting Shew and other higher ups is the same reason the City of Rye is fighting so hard with taxpayer money to keep two other City of Rye employees from testifying in the Schubert lawsuit.

    By the way did you read Verille’s testimony in the transcript where he talks about two sets of notes that were supposedly kept by Detective Kenny?

Leave a Reply to Hill v. Jovanovich McGraw-Hill Cancel reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here