End of Testimony of William Ruth, Chief of Security for Granite Associates

Beginning of Testimony of Darrell Supak, Chief of Staff and Vice President of Granite Associates and Vice President of Gelish Realty, LLC

Presiding is Judge Albert Fimognari

Lawyer for the defendants (Abigail Storm, Daniel Eggink, Cynthis Jewel Eggink, Joe Anderson, Jay and Joy Debberman) is Richard Newberg.

Lawyer on behalf of the plaintiffs (Alan Gerry and Gelish Realty, LLC) is Joey Drillings, assistant Sullivan County District Attorney.

Drillings- Now, there was alot of testimony in both direct and cross examination about warning each of the six individuals....Before the date of July 30th, 1997, how many times that you were present and are personally aware of,  that these people were warned by you about being on the site and camping on the site?

Ruth- Oh, at least three times.

Drillings- Okay, and there were signs posted on the property that you were aware of?

Ruth- I believe so.

Drillings- And they were given warning letters a couple of hours before being arrested?

Ruth- Yes.

Drillings- And in all these cases they were still on the property?

Ruth- Yes.

Drillings- And you're employed by Granite Associates , is that correct?

Ruth- Yes.

Drillings- And you don't know what their relationship to Gelish Realty is?

Ruth- No

Newberg- Your Honor, these are the most leading questions I've ever seen, you're not positive of this or that. He's telling him what to say.

Judge- I'm surprised you let him go on so long.

Newberg- You're right, I object.

Drillings- I'll rephrase the question.

Judge- Objection sustained.

Newberg- Thank you.

Drillings- As far as you're aware, did these individuals have authority to camp at this site?

Ruth- No.

Newberg- Objection, your honor, that calls for a legal conclusion, he's not a lawyer.

Drillings- Did they have your authority?

Judge- (to Ruth) Your personal knowledge.

Ruth- No.

Drillings- Okay, did they have Granite Associates authority to camp at the site?

Ruth- No.

Drillings- Judge, I have no further questions.

Judge- (?)

Newberg- When the defendants entered the property, they did so with your permission, correct?

Drillings- Objection Judge, please specify who's permission he's talking about. Specifically, Mr. Ruth's?

Newberg- Yours or Granite's permission?...when they entered.

Judge- (to Ruth)  Somebody's permission?

Ruth - Yes.

Newberg- So, when they entered the property, they were there, in your opinion, lawfully, correct? With your permission?

Drillings- Objection, Judge.

Newberg-  They were there....

Drillings- Objection, Judge, lawfully, is up to the court,

Judge- Pardon me?

Drillings- Lawfully, is up to the court, as Mr. Newberg so eloquently stated.

Judge- Correct.

Newberg- So.. When they entered the property, they were there with permission, correct? Your permission, correct?

Ruth- The first day.

Newberg- When each one of them entered?....regardless of the questions with regard to the signs that council asked you, you don't know when the signs were put up, whether it was before the arrest or after the arrest, isn't that so?

Ruth- I don't remember.

Newberg- Nothing further .

Drillings- One question Judge, regardless of the fact that the signs were posted, were they warned not to camp there?

Ruth- Yes.

Drillings- And that was by you, personally?

Ruth- Yes.

Drillings- And that was before their arrest?

Ruth- Yes.

Drillings- Thank you, Judge.

Newberg- And prior to you telling them that they couldn't camp there, they weren't given any notice, that they couldn't, in writing or verbally, that they couldn't camp there, correct?

Drillings- Judge, I don't understand that question.

Newberg- Were they given any notice, I'll rephrase it, were they given any notice that they couldn't camp there prior to you telling them?

Drillings- When?

Newberg- Prior to him telling them?

Judge- You mean when they first arrived there?...when they walked on the property?

Newberg- At any time prior to when he says that he told them that they couldn't camp there? Like, were they given any notice that they couldn't camp there?

Judge- Let me ask him, Mr. Ruth, were you there when these people first walked on the property or were they there after you got there?

Ruth- After I got there.

Judge- Okay.

Newberg- I want to know whether they'd gotten any notice as to what the rules were prior to Mr. Ruth telling them?

Judge- His testimony was there were signs posted on the property that were taken down, that was his testimony earlier.

Defendants- No!!!

Judge- What?

Newberg- Your honor?

Judge- (to defendants) Don't you tell me no!

Newberg- Your honor, I believe the testimony with regard to the removal of signs is someone else who was arrested for removing signs, and we don't know if it was before or after Mr. Ruth..

Judge- The testimony was, from Mr. Ruth, that there were signs posted, when they were posted or when they were taken down, he doesn't know, so he doesn't know if these people saw those signs or did not see the signs because they were there when he got there, so he doesn't know when they arrived or what they did, is that correct?

Ruth- Yes.

Newberg- I have nothing further to say.

Drillings- Regardless of whether there were signs there, putting that aside, completely aside, were each of these six individuals, prior to their arrest, not prior to their walking on the property for the first time, prior to their arrest, given warnings about camping and about leaving the property?

Ruth- In some cases two hours, and in other cases, a few days.

Newberg- And those warnings were given to them while they were on the site?..Is that correct?

Ruth- Yes.

Newberg- I have nothing further.

Judge- Thank you very much, We're going to take a ten minute break, now if there's going to be long questions...........

Judge-  People in the back, please.......

Drillings- Judge, the people would call Mr. Darrel Supak to the stand.

Judge- Raise your right hand please, do you swear to tell the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Supak- I do.

Judge- State your full name, please.

Supak- Darrel Supak.

Judge- spell your last name.

Supak-  S-u-p-a-k .

Judge- Be seated please?

Drillings- By whom are you employed?

Supak- I am the Senior Vice President, chief of staff, of Granite Associates LP,

Drillings- Okay, do you know what Gelish Realty is?

Space- Gelish Realty is a limited liability company, the members of which are, Gelish Properties Inc., and Granite Associates.

Drillings- So there is a relationship. What is the relationship in fact, in layman's terms, between Gelish Realty and Granite Associates?

Supak- Granite Associates is one of the members of the company, and Gelish Properties Inc. is the managing member, and I'm the president of Gelish Properties, Inc.

Drillings- So, in fact, they're associated with each other?
 
Supak- Yes .

Drillings- Now, are you familiar with what is commonly referred to as the Woodstock site, the site where those concerts took place in 1969, where there's a monument erected at this time?

Supak- Yes.

Drillings- Okay, are you personally aware of who the owners of that property are?

Supak- Yes.

Drillings- And who is the owner of that property?

Supak- The owner of that property is Gelish Realty, LLC.

Drillings- Okay, and as you stated of which Granite Associates is a branch of?

Supak- That's correct.

Drillings- And both of by whom you are employed?

Supak- That's correct.

Drillings- Do you know who William Ruth is?

Supak- Yes, I do.

Drillings-  And who is William Ruth?

Supak- William Ruth is the chief of corporate security.

Drillings- Okay. And who is he corporate security for?

Supak- Granite Associates, LLC and all corporate entities involved.

Drillings- One of which is Gelish Realty?

Supak- That's correct.

Drillings- And specifically at the end of July, the beginning of August, was he given any authority in reference to that land.

Supak- Yes.

Drillings- And what was he given?

Supak- He was given the discretionary authority to exercise our rights, and enforcement regarding trespass of that property, and the care and the responsibility for watching it and ensuring the safety etcetera.

Drillings- Okay, Were there certain rules that needed to be followed on that property that you are aware of?

Supak- Yes.

Drillings- And were those rules documented at any point?

Supak- Yes, they were.

Drillings- And, how were they documented?

Supak- They were documented in a variety of ways. Most notably, we issued a national press release, that indicated what the owners desires and intentions were for that weekend, specifically. And, in the concluding paragraph of the national press release, we published the verbiage of the signs that were posted on the property.

Drillings- Okay, and when were those signs posted on the property?

Supak- Preceding that anniversary weekend.

Drillings- Okay, do you recall the exact date?

Supak- I can't remember the exact date.

Drillings- Do you recall if it was prior to any arrests being made on the property?

Supak- Yes, it was.

Drillings- Okay, now do you recall when the press release was made?

Supak- Yes.

Drillings- And when was that?

Supak- It was about, I would say, ten days.

Drillings- And where was that published?

Supak- national publishing.

Drillings- So, made for everybody, the public to know?

Supak- Correct, we released it through a national release...vehicle.

Drillings- And you stated that there were signs on the property? How many signs were placed on the property?

Supak I think there were, it's hard to say, because every time we put one up they'd be removed, but our intent was to have about three signs on the property.

Drillings- And those signs, in some substance, what did they say?

Supak- Visitors would be welcome between daylight hours, but not, not camping, overnight camping, open flame, or vehicular traffic on the site.

Drillings- And that was in just, the same thing the press release said?

Supak- Yes it was.

Drillings- And was there a letter drawn up? Let me show you people's "exhibit one" for identification. Do you recognize what that letter is?

Supak- Yes, I do.

Drillings- And what is that?

Supak- This is a letter advising people regarding their rights, and also revoking, if necessary, the rights for being on that property.

Drillings- So, just back-tracking there was a press release, about a week and a half before the Woodstock Festival, or the anniversary?

Supak- I don't recall the exact dates, somewhere preceding that time .

Drillings- There were signs posted, and there was this letter of warning?

Supak- Yes, there were.

Drillings-  And William Ruth is employed by Granite, which is partners in Gelish Realty?

Supak- That's correct.

Drillings- And he has the authority to distribute this letter and in effect of all the rules that you've stated previously?

Supak- Yes.

Drillings- And that site is located in what township?

Supak-  The town of Bethel, at the intersection of Hurd and West Shore Road.

Drillings-  I'm showing you....yes, Judge. I'm also showing him people's "exhibit one" at the same time.

Newberg- I have no objections.

Drilling- I'm showing you people's "exhibit two" as evidence. Do you recognize what that document is? First of all, okay. Do you recall what that document is?

Supak- Yes.

Drillings- Is it certified anywhere?

Supak- Yes it is.

Drillings- Have you seen that document before?

Supak- Yes I have.

Drillings- Are you familiar with that document?

Supak- Yes I am.

Drillings- And what is it?

Supak- It's the deed to the property.

Drillings- And what property is that?

Supak- This is the, commonly called, Woodstock Property, at the intersection of Hurd and West Shore Road

Drillings- The same property we're referring to with all of these rules and regulations that we've discussed?

Supak- That's correct.

Drillings- And what does that deed say, state?

Supak- We own the property.

Drillings- And by, we, you mean?

Supak- Gelish Realty, LLC, the company that we formed in order to purchase this property.

Drillings- Okay, of which Granite Associates is a partner?

Supak- A member, that's correct.

Drillings- And when was that deed dated?

Supak- It was recorded by the 30th day of July of 1996.

Drillings- Okay, approximately a year before the.. ..in question came up?

Supak- That's correct.

Drillings- And has there been an action in another court about that?..about this deed?

Space- An action in court?

Drillings- Taking place at the same time?...has there been something going on at the same time in reference to the title of this..

Supak- Not that I'm aware of.

Drillings- Has anything changed about who the owner of the property is to this date from that date?

Supak- No, no.

Drillings- Same owners today, as there were on that date?

Supak- That's correct.

Drillings- And they were the same owners on July 29th through August 5th? Excuse me, July 23rd?

Newberg- Excuse me, what was his answer?

Supak- That's correct.

Newberg-  July 23rd, 1996 you said?

Supak- Yeah.

Newberg- July 23rd, 1997?

Drillings- No, the same owners that are on the deed which are the same owners that are there today.

Newberg- Okay.

Drillings- And the site you stated that's on there is the same site that you mentioned before, with the monument, that's commonly known as the Woodstock site?

Supak- That's correct.

Drillings-  Now, were you personally involved in any of the arrests that took place on that property?

Supak- Indirectly.

Drillings- You never met with the individuals that were on the site?

Supak- No.

Drillings- And what was your... I would just ask you to state your position again with ...

Supak- Granite?

Drillings- Yes.

Supak- Senior Vice President, chief of staff .

Drillings- Okay, and you're involved in the personal dealings with both Granite and Gelish Realty?

Supak- That's correct.

Drillings- And you're duly authorized by those companies to act....

Supak- Yes.

Drillings- ... on their behalf?

Supak- That's correct.

Drillings- Do you know who William Ruth is employed by?

Supak- Granite Associates.

Drillings- and on the dates, in particular, from the dates July, at least from the date of July 23rd, 1997, until at least the date of August 5th, 1997?

Supak-  Yes.

Drillings- He was employed by Granite Associates?

Supak- That's correct.

Drillings- Did he have the authority from you and Granite Associates, to act as security?

Supak- Yes he did.

Drillings- Okay, and that's being that you are an officer of both?

Supak- Correct.

Drillings-  I have no further questions your honor.

Newberg-  Mr. Supak, are you an officer of Gelish Realty?

Supak- I am an officer of the managing member of Gelish Realty, LLC, but, in point of fact, I am also a vice-president of Gelish Realty, LLC.

Newberg- So, you're a Vice President of Gelish Realty, LLC?

Supak- That's correct.... and president of the managing member, which is Gelish Properties Inc...and I'm also an officer in Granite Associates LLP, I think I got em all covered.

Newberg- Let's see, the time you were formed,...Gelish Realty is a limited liability company?

Supak- That's correct.

Newberg- What office do you hold in that company?

Supak- I'm a Vice President.

Newberg- You're a VP in that Granite Associates LLP.  Are you an officer in that company?

Supak- I am senior Vice President and chief of staff.

Newberg- And Gelish Properties, Inc. Are you an officer in that company?

Supak- I'm President of that company.

Newberg- So, in Gelish Realty you're a vice president. In Granite Associates, you're executive Vice President , senior.... And in Gelish Properties you're the president.

Supak- That's correct.

Newberg- And it's your testimony that Gelish Realty, LLC, is owned by Gelish Properties Inc. of which you're the President,......and Granite Associates of which you're the senior Vice President?

Supak- It is a limited liability company, and there are two members, Gelish Properties Inc., and Granite Associates, LP.

Newberg- They own the company?

Supak- That's correct.

Newberg- And it's your claim that Gelish Realty LLC, is the owner of the Woodstock site?

Supak- That's correct.

Newberg- By virtue of that deed that's been marked in evidence by.... That property was purchased by Gelish Realty, LLC, is that correct?

Supak- That's correct.

Newberg- And, at the time of the purchase, Gelish Properties, Inc., and Granite Associates were the owners of Gelish Realty?

Supak- They were the members.

Newberg- Members?

Supak- That's correct.

Newberg- Well, with regard to a limited liability company, if you know, the members are the owners.

Supak- That's correct.

Newberg- What did you pay for the property?

Drillings- I'm gonna object to that as to relevance of this.

Newberg- Your honor, this is cross-examination and one of the issues is who the owner of the property is.

Judge- That's irrelevant, councilor.

Newberg- Your honor, the owner of the property has to give notice, with regard to trespass, it is our intention...

Judge- What's that got to do with the price of the purchase of the property?

Newberg- Because I'm cross-examining now to establish ownership of this property.

Judge- You have a deed right here that proved ownership.

Newberg- That's right, your honor.

Judge- The cost of it, I don't see where the relevance is.

Newberg- Well, he offered it on direct, this is cross-examination, I'm gonna cross-examine him.

Drillings- Judge, I'm offering it for authority and Mr.Supak testified to his authority under the owner, he's not here to testify as to the deed itself, that's for another court, another case, this court isn't here to decide as to whether the purchase price was correct or not or anything about that case. I don't see how that's relevant to this case.

Judge- I don't either. Your objection's sustained.

Newberg- Your Honor, before you rule...

Judge- I have, but I can always take it back.

Newberg- Okay, if I can just point out a case to you.. I can give you a copy.......It's a case decided by the Honorable Justice Cook, when he was Lawrence Cook, when he was Chief Judge of the court of appeals. The case of Fred Bash vs. Bruno. I'll supply Counsel with a copy also...If I can just read, Your Honor...

Drillings- Judge, I'd just wait to have a chance to read this before he makes another comment.

Judge -I'll let you read...........................Bash vs. Bruno?

Newberg- That's correct.... Your honor, specifically, I'm referring on the bottom of page 158, on the copy of the case I just showed you.

Judge- Okay, did you have it outlined?

Newberg- If I could just read that, your honor.

Drillings- Judge, if I could read it first?

Newberg- Can I read it your honor, it says, no prosecution may be brought for trespass in violation of section 140.5 of the penal law, when the intruder enters, remains upon unimproved and, apparently, unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designated to exclude intruders. Unless the prosecution can show that notice against the trespasser was personally communicated to the intruder by the owner of such land or other authorized person.

Drillings- Exactly, Judge, and the people have shown, or believe they've shown, that this is an authorized person......What does that have to do with the purchase price, is the people's objection.

Newberg- Your Honor, it is our contention that they are not the owners of the property, if they are not....

Drillings- I'm objecting Judge, This is...

Newberg- Can I finish my statement before you object, please. I don't wanna interrupt you. because this is important. It's an element of this crime as stated by Judge Cook, of this violation, that the notice must be given by the owner, or an authorized person of the owner. If we can establish in our defense that they are not the owners of this property, then my clients cannot be found guilty of this violation.

Judge- If you can prove that, they cannot be found guilty.

Newberg- Well, I need an opportunity to be able to cross examine, your honor.

Judge- Now, here we have a deed to the property, and you do have the opportunity to cross examine.

Newberg- That's what I wanna do.

Judge- The question here is, why do you wanna know the purchase price of the property?..what has that got to do.....

Newberg- Because that deed indicates that the purchase is zero, your honor . Right on the face of it, that's why.

Drillings- Judge, that's a certified document, certified by the clerk.... certified by George L. Cook, who works for the county, who's the clerk of the county. He accepted this as a valid, certified deed. Now, Mr. Newberg is asking you to do something that this court, under the judiciary law, has no authority to do, which is to set aside a certified document without proof, basically, because, what this has to do with, anything about the amount of the purchase is, is irrelevant to this case. We've shown the authorization, Judge. He has to disprove that authorization, what that has to do with the purchase price, the people don't understand. But, Judge, this is a certified document by George L. Cook. If he's accepted it, let us accept it as proof.

Judge- The court is going to accept it as proof.
.
Newberg- Your honor, I want you to accept that deed. That deed is of record, I am not disputing it. That is not the deed to the ownership in this gentleman's company. And if you'll give me an opportunity, to ask some questions, I'll be able to show you that.

Judge- Give me an opportunity to read it.

Newberg- Yes, your honor.

Judge- Well, if I'm not mistaken, it says it right here,... that the party of the first part, in consideration of ten dollars and other valuable consideration paid by the party of the second part. So maybe he only paid ten dollars for it. But it tells you here, ten dollars.

Newberg- Your Honor, look at the transfer tax statement on the deed.

Judge- I know.

Drillings- Judge, if I may?

Newberg- It says, zero, zero...The law requires that a transfer tax of two dollars per five hundred dollars consideration be paid at the time of recording a deed.

Drillings- Judge...

Judge- And if the purchase price is less then five hundred dollars, what's the transfer tax?

Newberg- Zero.

Drillings- Judge, if I may....

Judge- So, here it tells you ten dollars, which is less then five hundred, so there would be no transfer tax.

Newberg- So, why can't I ask him how much he paid for the property?

Drillings- Judge, before you get, if I could read the law before you get into that. Under the Uniform Justice Court Act, Section 204, the court shall have jurisdiction of summary proceedings to recover possession of real property located in the whole, or in part within the municipality. To remove tenants therefrom and to render judgment for rent due without regard to the amount. That specifically states what this court has the authority to do, it does not have the authority to disprove a deed. Under the judiciary law section 190....

Newberg- Your Honor, I am not trying to disprove this deed. I've .......that this deed be used in evidence.

Judge- I know.

Drillings- Judge, the law states, is that the people must prove a possessory interest, and that that will then be disproved, if we show that, by defense counsel.

Newberg- That's what I want to do.

Drillings- This is a certified deed.

Judge- Mr. Newberg is taking, is trying to fight the fact that this certified deed is not proper title to the land. And that is not for this court to decide. And not for him to argue.

Newberg- Your Honor, I am not saying that, I am saying that that deed did not convey the property to this gentleman's entity. That's what I'm saying. Well let me.. I can prove it to you, if you'd let me ask him some questions.

Judge- (to Supak) all right, don't answer any questions until I tell you it's okay to answer.

Newberg- That's why I want to ask him what he paid for the property.

Drillings- But, Judge!

Judge- (to Supak) Okay, don't answer that question. (to Newberg) It tells you right here they paid ten dollars. Tells you right here.

Newberg- No, your honor, that's part of the form of the deed. The transfer tax says zero consideration.

Judge- Okay, if this was five thousand dollars, then you would pay the taxes.

Newberg- All right, your Honor, why can't I ask him how much he paid for the property?

Judge- Because it's none of our business. I don't see the relevance to this particular case.

Newberg- Judge, I've read from Justice Cook's opinion. It says ownership is a crucial element.

Judge-  Okay, it also says here..

Newberg- Judge, if I could just have the opportunity to show you that they are not the owners of this property. If they're not the owners, why that 's a crucial element to trespass. If they're not the owners.

Judge- Okay, try to show me that they're not the owners and that this deed is not valid.

Newberg- Okay.

Judge- Try!

Newberg- I will. Would you read the address of Gelish Realty, LLC on the document that's been admitted as people's exhibit....

Supak- 3855 Shore Parkway, Brooklyn, New York.

Newberg- Is that your offices?

Supak- No.

Newberg- Do you know who's address that was?

Supak- I'm not really sure.

Newberg- Would you read the address of the grantor, June Gelish?

Supak- 3855 Shore Parkway, Brooklyn, New York.

Newberg- Thank You, are we getting there?

Supak- Not really.

Newberg- I don't know.

Supak- You'll have to ask more questions.

Newberg- Can you tell me why the address on the deed for Gelish Realty, LLC, which is you, is listed as, was typed in as 3855 Shore Parkway, Brooklyn, New York, the same address as June Gelish, the grantor?

Drillings- Judge, I'm gonna object to that, I've stated what the state is, under the judiciary laws under the Uniform Justice Court Act, Judge, this court has not authority to set aside a certified document, I don't know what he's getting into but he's trying to do it in another court that he's not allowed to be doing it in, Judge. So, I'm gonna ask the court to stand by it's ruling already that this is irrelevant to this case. If he can prove that this certification is improper, and that this deed is improper, that's one thing, but the fact that the addresses are wrong. What he's getting into is irrelevant for the fact that this is a trespass case, that these people have a possessory interest and had a right to throw these people off their property, Judge. And that's what the people have proven, and that's what he's trying to do it through, a side way, through another court, that he's not allowed to be doing it in, and Judge, the people brought the law with them, I don't know what else I need to show, to make another objection to this.

Newberg- Your Honor, if I can be heard very briefly, because somebody's clouding the issues here and I'm gonna tell you why, and if I'm allowed to get through it, I'm gonna tell you why. Because crimes have been committed here, but they haven't been committed by my clients. Okay, Your Honor?

Judge- (?)

Newberg- Your Honor, I am not, unequivocally, not challenging the validity of this deed. This is a deed, this is of record in the County Clerk's Office. I agree with that one hundred percent. However, I want to show that this is a deed that does not give title to Mr. Supak and his companies. And I have a right to do that because an element of this violation is ownership of the property.

Drillings- And Judge, he has a right to do that, he has a right to do that in Surrogate's Court. He does not have a right to do that here. The law is specific about that, and if he...

Newberg- What law is specific?

Drillings- Judge, it's in the judiciary law.

Newberg- I'm not setting this deed aside, I'm gonna show you he's not the owner. He's not Gelish Realty, LLC, your honor. If he's not, he doesn't own it. He says he is, your honor. I have a right to cross examine that. We're using documents that are in evidence.

Judge- You can cross-examine his position with LLC.

Newberg- Well, I have to use documents....Your Honor, is it a valid question to ask him why his office isn't on the document?

Judge- Just a moment, if you wanna prove that he is not president of LLC...

Newberg- No, not that he's not president.

Judge- That he's not owner?

Newberg- I wanna prove that he is not, that he and his corporations do not own LLC, and therefore they're not the owners.

Drillings-  And that's not a question for this court, Judge.

Newberg- Of course it is. Because they're not the owners.

Judge- I'm not gonna accept it, counselor. You always have the right to appeal my decisions.  You know that.

Newberg- Your Honor...

Judge- If I do anything wrong, you can always appeal.

Newberg- Your Honor?

Judge-  I'm not perfect.

Newberg- I know......

Judge- I want you to know that.....ninety nine percent, but not a hundred.

Newberg- But, Your Honor, if somebody comes in before you and claims that, yes, I own this property, and if they can show that, that's an element that may convict somebody of a violation, don't I, as their attorney in defending them, have an obligation and a right to show that person is not the owner? Just because he says he's the owner, doesn't mean he's the owner.

Judge- I'm accepting this as ownership of the property. So, I don't know what you're gonna prove.

Newberg- That's right, I 'm gonna show you.

Drillings- Judge, maybe I can clarify this. The trespass law is a possessory interest. It doesn't specifically say an owner has a right to throw somebody off the property, if they're trespassing, so somebody with a possesory interest.. Even excluding this deed and weather they have valid title, putting that all aside, the people have proven that they have a possessory interest. Including, in which, there is a certified deed on record. The people have shown that possessory interest, regardless of the fact that there is ownership. They just have to prove possessory interest, more so then these individuals who stand before you.

Newberg- I disagree, your honor.

Drillings- Unless they show you a certified deed that is over and above this possessory interest.

Judge-  Then we've shown you more possessory interest then they have and ownership perse, for the trespass case to be upheld.

Newberg- Your honor, you have Judge Cook's decision, and he's telling you what the elements are to convict somebody of what my clients are charged with.

Drillings- And he's telling us that you have to show the monetary, that the sale of the property...

Newberg- You have to show that they're the owner of the property, you have to show they're the owner, and this is what I'm getting at.

Judge- (to Newberg) We're showing you that with this deed counselor.

Newberg- What's he showing me? That LLC, with an address, the same address as June Gelish, is the owner of the property?

Judge- So?

Newberg- So? Don't I have a right to ask him why that address is down there for his corporation? For his company?

Drillings- Judge it's a certified deed. Judge I don't see, I don't know why, what's the difference?

Newberg- And isn't it strange that zero  ..., that the consideration is listed as zero?

Judge- Yes, because it's under five hundred dollars. That's why it's zero.

Newberg- Isn't that strange?.......They bought the Woodstock site for under five hundred dollars?

Drillings- Judge, I'm gonna object to that because now he's making statements that...

Newberg- but that's relevant as to whether they're the owner, Judge. Whatever they paid for it is irrelevant to this particular matter that we're trying today.

Newberg- Who is the President of Gelish Realty, LLC?

Supak- Gelish Realty, LLC?

Newberg- Yeah.

Supak- I'm not really sure.

Newberg- Are you the Vice President?

Supak- I am the vice-president.

Newberg- But you don't know who the President is?

Supak- I'm not really sure.

Newberg- Is there a President?

Drillings- Objection, Judge, he states that he's not sure.

Newberg- It's a different question, your honor.....I asked him is there one, does the office exist?

Supak- It may not. I don't know.

Newberg- I guess we're rewriting law....

Drillings- Objection, no room for a commentary here.

Judge- Let's get on with it, Mr. Newberg.

Newberg- What if I told you that June Gelish was the president?

Drillings- Judge, if I could..

Newberg- Does that refresh your recollection?

Drillings- Judge, if I could have a break for a second?

Judge- Unfortunately, alot of our conversation before was untaped.......I told you I'm not perfect.

Reporter (from the River Reporter) - Judge, I have it here.

Judge- If I need it, I'll call you.

Drillings- Sorry about that, Judge, there's a problem at my office.

Newberg- Do you know whether June Gelish is the President of Gelish Realty, LLC?

Supak- I think I already answered that question.

Newberg- I don't, I don't recall your answer....

Drillings- Judge, I'm gonna object, because it's an answer, he did answer that question.

Newberg- I don't remember the answer.

Judge- He said he doesn't know who the President is.

Newberg- And you don't know if there's an office of President?

Supak- I'm not sure.

Newberg- Well, if there's no office of President, Vice Presidents assume the, all the responsibilities, duties, and obligations, and rights of the President, isn't that so?

Supak- Depends on what's said in the charter.

Newberg- Do you have the charter with you?

Drillings- Objection, Judge, relevance again, to this case.

Judge- Sustained.

Newberg- Your Honor, am I going to be allowed to prove an element of this violation, ownership of the property? Is the court gonna allow me to do that?

Judge- I'm going to accept this as ownership...I don't know what you wanna prove.

Newberg- I wanna prove who the owners are of the property your honor, because the owners had to give notice to my clients, that they were trespassing. And if they're not the owners, if these gentleman gave the notice and they're not the owners, we've got a limited liability company..

Judge- Then you've really got a case.

Newberg- But?

Judge -But, this deed tells you who the owners are, and both witnesses have said that they contributed or are aware of evidence number one, the notice about people not staying there until......it would be deemed trespassing, trespassing and appropriate law, and so on. You may remain on the property....

Newberg- Your Honor, I'm not getting to that now. I..they have testified, he has testified that he, in fact, is the owner of Gelish Realty, LLC.
I want an opportunity to show that he's either lying, or mistaken, in this cross-examination. And, I wanna know whether the court's gonna allow me to do it? I have documents to establish it.

Drillings- Judge, then he can introduce those documents, or try and introduce them, if they're relevant.

Newberg- Can I have that marked?.......

Drillings- Judge, what I'm looking for here, is the certification of these documents.

Newberg- Check the next page.

Drillings- Which is a letter.

Newberg- It's a certification......It's filed in the, certification by Holberk, ...director of Real Property tax services, bearing...

Drillings- Is this a certified copy? I don't know what this is?

Newberg- Yes it is..bears the certif.....

Drillings- Do you see a certification on this?

Newberg- This is the certification.....

Drilling- I don't see the seal, anything.

Newberg- You don't see the seal?...Your Honor, if you show him the seal, your honor has the original.

Drillings- That's what I was hoping for, Judge.  What this says is, the buyer is Gelish Realty, LLC and the seller is June Gelish, correct?

Newberg- It says more than that, your Honor. If I could inquire?

Judge- Tell me where it shows, says more?

Newberg- Look at, under buyer.

Judge- Buyer? June Gelish, President, so, I would assume that she's president of Gelish Realty, LLC, I would assume that.

Newberg- I would, too, your honor.........so, can I?...

Judge- Your question to the witness was, who's the President of Gelish Realty, LLC. Now we're telling you, June Gelish is president....Unfortunately, she's not here..

Newberg- Can I have that marked your Honor?................

Judge- Mark this for identification.

Newberg- Do you wanna see the original, your Honor?.........Mr. Supak, when did you buy the property, the site?

Drillings- Judge, I'm gonna object to that, as well, as to the relevance to this case. There's the deed again on your....of the court, that shows certification that there's ownership of the property. Other than what's on there, purchase date, purchase price, purchaser, it's not relevant, Judge. Again, I state the judiciary law...

Newberg- Your Honor, please note.

Judge- I agree, you're sustained....

Newberg- all right.

Judge- Let's get on a different line, Newberg, because he proved ownership with the deed.

Newberg-  Who's the owner, your Honor?

Drillings- Objection, Judge.

Newberg- Who's the owner, June Gelish? These people? Is their  address in Brooklyn, is there address up here?

Drillings- Judge, I ask that Mr. Newberg...

Judge .....Mr. Newberg, let's stop right there. If you wanna fight this deed, as Mr. Drillings said,

Newberg- I don't wanna fight this deed.

Judge .... and I know you have to go to another court.

Newberg- I don't wanna fight the deed.

Judge- So, we're only here to prove whether trespass was committed or not.

Newberg- Correct.

Judge- That's all. These people claim they own the property.

Newberg- And I disagree, and I wanna show that they don't.

Judge- And, so, you disagree, so, before you came to trial here today, you should've gone to surrogate's court to find out who owns the property.

Newberg- I know who owns the property.

Judge- You should have done that before.

Newberg- I did.

Drillings- Judge, if Mr. Newberg wants to testify then they should hire another attorney and Mr. Newberg can testify that ....owns the property.

Judge- Who owns the property?

Newberg- I know who owns the property.

Judge- Who owns the property?

Newberg- June Gelish owns the property, according to this deed.

Judge- June Gelish, LLC owns the property.

Newberg- Correct.

Judge- Okay.

Newberg- And this gentleman has testified that he owns Gelish Realty, LLC.

Judge- He doesn't own it. He's president... vice president.

Newberg- And, if I don't ask.....Vice President, and if I don't have an opportunity to cross examine him, and show that he doesn't own it, then you're not allowing me to put in my defense.

Judge- He's not saying that he owns it, he's saying he's vice-president of it.

Newberg- Correct, well, he's an officer.

Judge- Yeah, so, it isn't whether he owns it or not. Gelish Realty, LLC, owns it.

Newberg- He's told me...

Judge- That's all.

Newberg- He told me who the owners of Gelish Realty, LLC, are.

Judge- Okay, so he's an officer in LLC.

Newberg- Correct.

Judge- But he doesn't own it himself. He's only an employee, an officer.

Newberg- I don't know that, your honor.

Judge- Well, he said that.

Newberg- Well, can I ask him who the owners are...

Drillings- Why?

Newberg- of the member corporations?

Drillings- Judge, what's the relevance to that either?

Judge- Yeah.

Newberg- The relevance is to show that they don't own the property, your honor.

Judge- We're gonna stop this right now. I'm either gonna adjourn this until you get some proof to me who the owners of this property in, before we go any further.

Newberg- You're not giving me an opportunity to cross-examine this gentlemen.

Judge- You can cross-examine him all you want, but not on something that is right before us.

Newberg- Can I ask him who the owners are of the membership corporations?

Judge- What has that got to do with this case?

Drillings- Judge, what Mr. Newberg is trying to do....

Judge- I know you're trying to prove ownership, but prove ownership in another court, not this court.

Drillings- Judge, Mr. Newberg couldn't prove it in another court. That's why he's bringing it into this court, because now he's trying to get it through this court out into the public record, and that's wrong. That's against the statutes.

Newberg- Your Honor, I don't have to prove ownership....

Drillings- Thank you for interrupting.

Newberg- (to Drillings) Your welcome. (to Judge) ... I have to prove that the owners did not give notice to my clients that they were trespassing.

Drillings-  Or an authorized person.

Newberg- .....And that is a.....Or an authorized person of the owner. This gentleman sitting here is not an officer of an owner of this corporation, of this property.

Judge- Is this notice or not?

Newberg- Your honor, that's a piece of paper.

Judge- It is it notice to whoever reads it?....No?

Newberg- It's notice of what's in there to whoever reads it. It just depends on who. If it was given by an authorized agent of the owner. And, I am contending, your Honor, that they are not the owners of the property.

Judge- Okay, Why?

Newberg- They can't prove to you today they're the owners of the property, other then their words, and I wanna show you with documentation that their.....

Judge- Mr. Newberg, if we can't get onto something else, get off this about who owns the property, I'm gonna have to adjourn this matter, maybe turn it over to another court, because I certainly am not gonna fight you about ownership. Here is proof of ownership and you're saying who owns it. These people own it.

Newberg- Please note my exception to your ruling , that that document in and of itself is proof of ownership of the property.

Judge- This is proof, okay, then what are you?...

Newberg- No, I'm excepting, I'm telling you that that deed is a conveyance from June Gelish to June, to Gelish Realty, LLC, her own company, not them, and unless they can show me that they own this, Judge, this gentleman.....

Drillings- Judge, I would just note my..

Judge- This gentleman is an officer of Gelish, LLC.

Newberg- He says he is, your honor.

Drillings- Judge, I would note my objection to the fact that Mr. Newberg is testifying.

Judge- Do you want something in writing that he....

Newberg- I just wanna cross-examine him.

Judge- What questions are you gonna ask? I'll tell you whether I'll let him answer them or not.

Newberg- What questions am I gonna ask? I'm gonna ask him why June Gelish is listed, that this is the doc..., I'm gonna ask him if he's ever seen this document before?

Judge- all right, that's..., stop right there. (to Supak) Have you ever seen this document before?

Supak- I may have, I wouldn't, I'm not sure.

Newberg- I'm gonna ask him when he purchased the property?

Drillings- And I'm gonna object, again, Judge. He couldn't get it in another court, He can't get it in here. I'm gonna keep objecting to it and Mr.Newberg testifying...

Judge-  And I'm gonna keep sustaining your objections.

Drillings- all right, and he's gonna keep testifying that it's, that what he's claiming, is the truth, but he's not on the stand, he's not under oath, he's not a witness in the case, and he's not shown any sworn documents to show otherwise.

Newberg- Your honor, you're not gonna let me establish, try and establish, that this gentleman is not the owner, and his companies are not the owners of the property, which is a crucial element?

Judge- No, I'm not gonna allow you to do that.

Newberg- You're not gonna allow me to do that?

Judge- No!

Newberg- (to Judge) Okay, note my exception to that ruling...(to Supak) Did there come a time when you purchased it? Did you purchase it?

Drilling- Judge, who?...Did Mr.Supak purchase it?

Newberg- Did your companies purchase the property?

Supak- We purchased the interest in the property, that's correct.

Newberg- And I can't ask him when he did that, your honor?

Judge- I don't see what the relevance is. What's the difference when he purchased it? We know, according to this, that it was before the arrest was made... We know that.

Newberg- Well, I'd like to know when?

Judge- You what?

Newberg- I'd like to know when?..When he purchased, when he claims to have owned the property. He claims he's the owner. I wanna know when he's the owner, when he claims he's the owner, that a....Can I ask him that?

Judge- Let me see if there's any dates on here, 24th of July, nineteen hundred and ninety six and it was recorded July 3rd, ninety-six, so wouldn't you assume that they owned it at that date?

Newberg- I don't assume anything. Can I ask him if he purchased the property on July 24th, 1996? Just... Do you know when this property was purchased by Gelish, LLC, do you know the date?

Drillings- Judge, I'm gonna object to the relevancy, I don't see what this has to do...And I don't see.

Judge-  Let me ask him this question....

Drillings- Judge, if anybody has a comment back there, I'm gonna ask that they be excluded, because I can't concentrate on this case with these people constantly talking.

Judge- If there's anymore talking back there, you're gonna be removed from the courtroom, whoever's doing any talking or making any comments. We're trying to get something resolved here, and we cannot do it if there are interruptions, so please be quiet if you want to stay here.

Judge- Do you know when the property was closed on?

Supak- About that period of time.

Newberg- And, can I ask him what he paid for the property?

Judge- No!

Newberg- I can't ask him?

Judge- No. This tells you right here. They paid ten dollars.

Newberg- The document says that he's the man who bought it for his company.

Judge- He's not the man who bought it.

Newberg- Yes he did,  for his company, he said he did.

Judge- He didn't buy it.

Newberg- For his companies he did.

Judge- His company bought it.

Newberg- Can I ask him what was paid for the property?

Judge- Not relavent.

Newberg- What's the address of Gelish Realty, LLC?

Supak- I don't know what the current address is.

Newberg- What was the address of Gelish Realty, LLC, on June 24th, 1996?

Drillings- I'm gonna object.......

Judge- Where's your relevance counselor?..What's the difference?

Newberg- Here's the difference, your honor. There was a transfer by June Gelish to a company...

Drillings- Judge is this testimony now?

Newberg- The Judge is asking me a question. Can I answer?

Drillings- Judge, if he wants to take the stand , then have another lawyer hired to put him on the stand and testify to that. He's not a sworn witness at this point.

Newberg- You asked me a question your honor, can I answer it?

Judge- I asked you what the relevance is?

Continue to next page...

Back to our Home Page

 Woodstock Nation Foundation web-site is generously donated by