City of Rochester VS South Wedge, Inc.
ELEMENTS OF CORRUPTION
Malicious prosecution
Obstruction
Judicial misconduct
Perjury
Conflict of interest
Lack of impartiality
Willful deception
Throughout this report, each element listed above, will be proven with irrefutable evidence, so as to allow their facts to “speak” for themselves, etc.
This story has less to do with the meritless charges the City of Rochester brought against South Wedge, Inc., and more about documenting the ELEMENTS OF CORRUPTION and the process by which a guilty verdict was all but, guaranteed.
Synopsis:
In 2003, I purchased 435 Westfall Road which contained a one story tan ranch, which at the time was used as an adult day care center, along with a barn, which had three garage doors and was being used for storage, as it had been since 1900.
In 2016, I rehabilitated and renovated the barn, after receiving planning commission approval to convert and use the barn as a restaurant / bar, etc.
Barn before:
Barn after:
In December of 2024, I received Ticket # HC244069, pursuant to the barn at 435 Westfall Road.
Ticket HC244069.pdf (361.4 KB)
South Wedge, Inc was charged for: “Failure to Register Vacant Building” in violation of Code Section 90-21 with a fine in the amount of $250.
The Ticket was issued by Dana Miller, former Vice President of City Counsel in his current role as Commissioner of New Business Development.
- Dana Miller (below)
- City of Rochester Commissioner of New Business Developmen
- City of Rochester Commissioner of New Business Developmen
In addition to the fine, an owner of a vacant building in the City of Rochester is also subject to a yearly fee schedule, as shown in table below:
I also discovered, upon issuing FOIL request 2024-5294 (which took over four months to receive)
pertaining to 1201 Elwood Ave (abandoned psyche center) that any property deemed vacant after 9 months is subject to losing its non-conforming use rights.
Source document:
Default Letter-5292024.pdf (133.4 KB)
I first learned the Barn was not vacant, when Anthony (Tony) Duque, Code Enforcer for my area, explained that a barn which is being used for storage would not be considered a vacant structure. Furthermore, I learned the barn was built in 1900, however the City of Rochester didn’t adopt municipal codes until 1920, almost 20 years later, thus the barns permitted use as storage, was grandfathered and not subject to any municipal codes which proceeded it, then or in the future.
The barn was no more vacant then a garage, for which it was effectively being used as.
Despite receiving planning commission approval to change the use of the barn from storage to a restaurant / bar, that change had not been effectuated, as no Certificate of Occupancy to change the use had been applied for or executed, etc. Furthermore, the barn’s renovation was limited to its foundation, structural repair and reinforcement, and replacement of outside envelope and roof.
In sum, not only was the alleged violation meritless and malicious in its pursuit to prosecute, but Municipal Code 90-21 and 90-17 that governed it, was willfully misapplied, pursuant to the barn.. This was not only my opinion, but of Ida Perez, Legislative Assistant to City Counsel President, Miguel Melendez, who’s Counsel adopted Code 90-21 and 90-17 and added on May 23, 2023.
Ms. Perez, would explain Code 90-21, which addressed the Vacant Building “Crisis” was intended to address issues in the middle of the City of Rochester and not Westfall Road.
In reviewing 90-21a, the Barn at 435 Westfall Road can’t be rehabilitated, because it’s not “sick” and was already renovated from “head to toe” in 2016. As a result of the renovation, the barn is secure, does not pose a risk from fire, illegal occupancy (including but not limited to sex trafficking and drug sales), poses no public safety concerns and has never imposed a disproportionate cost to the City of Rochester and the surrounding neighborhood. The barn also resides a few hundred feet from Brighton, NY - one of the most affluent areas in Monroe County, and as such, there is no vacant building or property crisis in the area in which it resides.
In fact, 435 Westfall Road is surrounded by over 100 million in commercial development!
In reviewing 90-21b:
a). Re “Any, building commercial or residential.”
The barn at 435 Westfall road is neither commercial or residential as it is an ancillary structure, used for storage since 1900.
b). Re “In which no occupant lawfully resides.”
The barn at 435 Westfall has no occupants that reside, as it only used for storage.
c). Re “Or tenant in lawful possession.”
The barn at 435 Westfall is owed 100% by South Wedge, Inc., and has no tenants.
d). Re “Any building otherwise not being used for any lawful occupancy.”
The barn at 435 Westfall road has permitted occupancy as storage, but not for, e.g., people, resedentially or commercially.
The City of Rochester contends the barn at 435 Westfall Road has no permitted legal use, however since the barn was created in 1900, which is 20 years prior to the adoption of Municipal Codes, its use for storage is grandfathered and would not be subject to municipal codes that proceeded it.
Thus, the barn would not be subject to the City of Rochester’s definition of a VACANT BUILDING as defined in 90-21 / 90-17.
Although I attempted to receive clarification from City officials as to why the barn at 435 Westfall Road was considered vacant, there responses were either obtuse, incomplete or non-existent and as such, I requested a hearing, (case 615970) which was scheduled for May 24 @ 10:30AM.
THE HEARING
On the day of the hearing, I was required to bring a notarized Affidavit and business documents demonstrating my relationship to South Wedge, Inc. As, such I brought my Articles of Incorporation, which they listed as an example on the Affidavit.
When I scheduled the hearing, I was told it would be the last week to do so, however unbeknownst to me, was a red stamp that would appear on my hearing notice, which stated: “THIS HEARING WILL BE NOT DELAYED OR RESCHEDULED.”
Prior to my hearing, I contemplated the possibility that my Affidavit and Articles of Incorporation would be refused, resulting in a forfeiture of the hearing and a default verdict of guilty, as no delay or adjournment were permitted.
On the day of the hearing, as I approached Clerk III to provide my Affidavit and Articles of Incorporation, he refused to accept them and without cause. Eventually, after a heated argument, which at one point he threaten not to allow the hearing to occur, I prevailed.
I went on to ask him why he didn’t initially accept them and he indicated the rules are always changing, at which point, I asked how many years he had been working in his current capacity, in which he indicated, 10.
After an hour delay, I enter the hearing chamber, whereby the City had assembled:
- Michael Furlano (below)
- City of Rochester Municipal Housing Attorney
- City of Rochester Municipal Housing Attorney
- Anthony (Tony) Duque
- City of Rochester Code Enforcer
- Dan Arena
- Code Compliance Coordinator
- Maurice Carter
- Senior Code Enforcement Officer.
As well as:
- Paul A Marasco (below)
- Hearing Examiner
- Hearing Examiner
PAUSE:
Before continuing on with the hearing, I thought it would be prudent to address concerns regarding impartiality and conflict of interest pursuant the role of the Administrative Hearing Examiner.
After reviewing a 2023 job posting, I learned in part, that Administrative Hearing Examiners:
. Are sub contractors for the City of Rochester.
. Receive a compensation rate of $50 per hour.
. Are appointed/hired by the Director of Parking.
Source Document:
2023 Job Posting
My first concern was how a Hearing Examiner could impartially represent me, if the City of Rochester, the “Plaintiff”, who was bringing a legal action against South Wedge, Inc., the “Defendant” also happens to be their client and was paying them, e.g., $50 per hour.
I also questioned why a Hearing Examiner, especially one, who is an Attorney, would accept a rate of pay less then what most Paralegals earn.
Setting aside money and charity as motivators, could they be receiving something beyond an hourly compensation, e.g., additional work/referrals and if so, how might this impact impartiality?
I also attempted to vet Mr. Marasco and check for conflicts of interest, since he is also an Attorney who operates his own private practice. Unfortunately, City officials refused to provide me his name prior to the hearing. I felt it was reasonable to determine, if Mr. Marasco in his capacity as an Attorney, also provided legal services to the City of Rochester beyond his scope as a Hearing Examiner for the Parking and Municipal Code and Violation Bureau and if so, how that might impact his impartiality or represent a conflict of interest pursuant to my hearing.
On May 8th 2025 I issued FOIL request 2025-2590 for disclosure (including, but not limited to contract agreements) of all legal services provided between Paul A. Marasco, both in his capacity as a sub contractor for the City of Rochester and is his capacity as owner of The Marasco Law Firm, located at 649 Park Avenue Rochester, New York 14607 with the City of Rochester from 2007 to May of 2025 and will post the results if they become available.
HEARING CONTINUED:
After I was sworn in, I asked Mr. Marasco at what point I could request an adjournment, at which point, he falsely states, “If you wanted an adjournment you NEEDED to do it before it BEGAN.”
However, the policy on written on the back of the hearing notice requires an adjournment to be requested AFTER the hearing beings, whereby it states:
Source Document:
Notice of Hearing.pdf (852.0 KB)
Eventually, I was allowed to request an adjournment, the basis of which was due to obstruction of the discovery process by City officials.
Although I initially, made no reference to what specific discovery requests were obstructed, I found it curious, Michael Furlano - City of Rochester Municipal Housing Attorney, in his reply, specifically and preemptively addressed a FOIL request, whereby he states, it had been complied with and a response was given.
However, at the time of the hearing, I had not received a reply to FOIL 2025-1065, which was submitted on February 22, 2025, requesting a list of all the property addresses with barns in the City of Rochester.
In addition to FOIL 2025-1065, at the time of the hearing, I had not received a completed answer from Matthew Simonis - Director of Zoning, regarding the following:
“(8th attempt):
Based on your previous answer that the General Purpose Barn located at 435 Westfall Road, PRIOR to receiving Planning Commission approval to use the Barn as a bar / restaurant, did not have a legal permitted use, can you please explain why it didn’t have a permitted legal use and at what point prior, did it have a legal permitted use (if any) and what that use was – appreciate.”
The request for adjournment was predictably denied, initially without explanation, however when pressed, Mr. Murasco stated there was no sufficient cause and when asked to explain, he refused.
Later in the hearing, Mr. Murasco in response to my comment as to his refusal to explain his reason for an adjournment, does a one-eighty, deciding that he is now ready to provide me with further clarification, etc.
1). He begins by manufacturing a woefully defective supposition, had I made my information requests earlier, I would have received my answers by now? This seemingly ignores the basis of the adjournment requests, so as to address obstruction of information requests by City officials.
2). He indicates there is no formal discovery process, however this doesn’t dismiss the right to receive my information requests which I deemed necessary to argue my case.
3). He then concludes there is no relevancy, despite having not yet received documented evidence or testimony from South Wedge, Inc. as to the merits of the case.
Mr. Murasco concludes the hearing by falsely stating he will take about a week to come to a decision:
However, Mr. Marasco rendered a guilty verdict the same day as the case, March 24, 2025 as evidence of the verdict I received in the mail with an envelope postmarked March 25, 2025.
Source document:
hearing verdict.pdf
In addition, when I received the verdict in the mail, as shown above, there were no other documents present, e.g., findings of fact and / or legal conclusion, which incorporated my arguments which explained how Mr. Murasco determined South Wedge, Inc. was guilty. There were also no instructions on how to appeal the decision.
Finally, the verdict notice does not reveal the name of the hearing examiner, only ID# 278 and an indecipherable signature. In fact, Mr. Marasco’s DBA for his law firm, shows a completely different signature then the one which he signed on the verdict notice?
Source document:
certificate of individual doing business under assumed name.pdf (35.8 KB)
After the hearing ended, later that day at 4:17PM I received an email from Marissa Bailey, Paralegal for the City of Rochester in response to FOIL 2025-1065, contrary to Mr. Furlano’s earlier statement I had received my FOIL request during the hearing.
Ms. Bailey’s email falsely stated no responsive records were found, pursuant to my request for property addresses in the City of Rochester which contain a barn.
Source document:
City of Rochester, NY. Records Request FOIL-2025-1065 No Responsive Records.pdf (67.4 KB)
Before continuing, I felt it would be prudent to address the City of Rochester, FOIA system, which is web based and hosted by justfoia.com.
As previously stated and shown above, the email notification I received from Ms. Bailey, indicated no responsive records were found. Her email, which effectively closed out my FOIL request, was only made available to me privately. If fact, none of the information contained in her email was added to my FOIL record publicly at justfoia.com and if you had viewed the FOIL record at justfoia.com, it would have stated, “Status Completed” without explanation?
In this way, City officials can keep the reasons for FOIL denials and appeals private, rather than make them public on justfoia.com. This practice is designed to break the document chain, so as to mitigate transparency and liability.
On March 26, 2025 I appealed the results of FOIL 2025-1065.
It should be noted, my FOIL appeal was not added to the City of Rochester FOIL system, via justfoia.com, so I included the email below:
Source document:
FW_ Public Records Appeal pursuant to FOIL-2025-1065, (03_26_2025).pdf (129.9 KB)
On March 31, 2025 I received the results of my appeal pursuant to FOIL 2025-1065 from Carla Williams-Pauley, another paralegal who works for the City of Rochester, via email.
It should be noted, her email was not added to the City of Rochester FOIL system, via justfoia.com, so I included the email below:
Source document:
In the email I received from Ms. Williams-Pauley above, it contained a letter written by Corporate Counsel Patrick Beath of the City of Rochester.
- Patrick Beath (below)
- City of Rochester Corporate Counsel
- City of Rochester Corporate Counsel
It should be noted, this letter was not added to the City of Rochester FOIL system, via justfoia.com, so I included the letter below:
Source document:
FINAL_Appeal Letter_FOIL 2025-1065.pdf (103.3 KB)
The letter was also copied to Kristein O’Neill who is the Director of Open Source Government for the State of New York which is authorized to provide advisory opinions pursuant to FOIL, etc.
In his letter, Mr. Beath falsely states that only “one” responsive record was found when it was 62.
The results of the appeal of FOIL 2025-1065 resulted in an increase from 0 to 62 records of properties in the City of Rochester which contain a barn, as shown in the excel file below which was uploaded to justfoia and added to my FOIL record.
Source document:
Barns 3.28.2028.xlsx (10.6 KB)
Below are the City of Rochester Structural codes for barns. Since, I have a 2 story barn, the code would be designated as FB6, etc.
In the the pivot table below FB6 yields exactly 24 properties in the City with a barn.
In sum, FOIL 2025-1065 was intentionally delayed until after the hearing concluded, whereby the results were manipulated to show no responsive records only later to reveal 62 responsive records and concluded with a cover-up, whereby Corporate Counsel, Patrick Beath, lied about the results stating there was only 1 responsive record, when there were 62, of which 24 matched exactly.
If you were to click on FOIL 2025-1065, all you would see is are two uploaded files, one containing the excel spreadsheet of property addresses containing a barn and the list of the corresponding structural codes.
However, missing is history of how of how got here?
There are no dates, emails from Marissa Bailey and most notably absent, is the initial determination, my appeal letter and of course, Mr. Beath’s letter, whereby he makes a false statement as to the number of responsive records which resulted from the appeal.
THE APPEAL
Although, at the prior hearing I was informed of my right to appeal, no documentation was ever provided as to how I might go about filing for one.
One of the challenges in putting together an appeal was not having any findings of fact or legal conclusion as to how South Wedge was found guilty, which incorporated my hearing argument.
To appeal the merits of the case, I have to know how the guilty verdict was determined.
To compel receipt of this information I reached out to Sarah L. Nowak - Director of Parking and Municipal Code Violations Bureau 3 times, via email and voicemail requesting the findings of fact and unfortunately, she refused to respond to me?
Source Documents:
RE_ (Archive Copy) RE_ UPDATED_ 04_14_2025 RE_ Request for Appeal pursuant to Case 615970, Ticket HC244069.pdf (150.7 KB)
- Sarah L. Nowak (below)
- Director of Parking and Municipal Code Violations Bureau
- Director of Parking and Municipal Code Violations Bureau
On April 22, 2025 I dropped off my appeal documents in person, as Ms. Novwak refused to allow the documents to be submitted electronically.
Having experienced obstruction of the receipt of my hearing documents previously, as well as concerns about tracking their delivery, I created a receipt document, to be completed by the clerk, so as to have proof that my appeal documents were received and also recorded delivery of the appeal documents, shown in the videos below:
-
TAKE 1: First encounter with clerk #1.
-
TAKE 2: First encounter with clerk #2.
-
TAKE 3: Clerk begins to accept my appeal documents, then stops and then continues, etc.
-
TAKE 4: A security guard attempts to violate my 1st Amendment rights by telling me I will have to leave the building if I continue recording. Subsequently, I contacted the Rochester City Police Department to intervene.
-
TAKE 5: The clerk hands back my partially submitted appeal documents, while we wait for the police to come make a decision as to my right to video tape in a public place.
-
TAKE 6: The police never show and after several minutes the clerk comes back and completes the process of accepting my appeal documents.
-
TAKE 7: Instructing the clerk to sign off on the appeals document to make it official!
-
TAKE 8: On my document receipt form, the clerk only writes the number, “4” in the date field?
The appeal was scheduled for May 1, 2025 which only provided me with 7 days to prepare and as such, I requested an extension but was informed that my attendance was optional and the appeal will not be rescheduled and will proceed with or without me - the makings of a secret tribunal!
Source document:
appeal notice.pdf (375.1 KB)
As previously discussed, the examiners are subcontractors for the City of Rochester and as such, I wanted to vet them to check for conflict of interest, especially if they are an attorney and / or work for a law firm that provide other services to the City.
To this end, I requested the names of the three examiners and was told this information would only be available on the day the appeal was scheduled.
1st call to request name of Hearing Examiners
(May 01, 2025)
On the day of the appeal, I was told the names of the three hearing examiners could not be provided, despite calling 1 hour prior to the appeal?
2nd call to request name of Hearing Examiners:
(May 05, 2025)
Refused to provide names of the three hearing examiners after the appeal, indicating that I had to file a FOIL request unmask their identify?
I also left several voicemails to the City of Rochester Law Department, headed up by Corporate Counsel Patrick Beath, however despite the voicemail indicating I would receive a resonse in 24 hours, not once did I ever receive a response?
May 05, 2025
May 13, 2025
May 15, 2025
The concealment and obstruction by the City of Rochester Law Department, headed by Corporate Counsel Patrick Beath, to release the names of the three hearing examiners would take 30 days and an appeal of FOIL 2025-2483 to effectuate?
I plan to circle back to appeal of 2025-2483 after discussing the hearing process and verdict.
After an hour delay, I enter the hearing chamber, whereby the City had assembled:
- Mark Blum (below)
- Hearing Examiner
- Hearing Examiner
- Monique Marchioni
- Hearing Examiner
- Hearing Examiner
- Mary Connor
- Hearing Examiner
Of the three hearing examiners, Mark Blum lead the appeal and Monique Marchioni and Mary Connors sat quietly and took notes time to time.
The appeal began by requesting water, as the hearing was delayed for an hour and I wasn’t permitted to bring water into the hearing chamber. Upon making the request, Mr. Blum glared at me, said nothing and eventually acquiesced.
PENDING
On May 02, 2025 I issued FOIL 2025-2483 to the audio transcript of the appeal as well as the names of the 3 hearing examiners that presided over the appeal.
The concealment and obstruction of the release of the names of the three hearing examiners would take another 30 days and an appeal of FOIL 2025-2483.
to receive the names of the three hearing examiners, this information of which, was willfully concealed and obstructed.
I will circle back to after presenting the come back to after the Hearing Examiners, there identities, which were
On May 29, 2025 at 5:14PM I received an email from Alexander Carioty, another paralegal for the City of Rochester, whereby I’m notified FOIL 2025- 2483.
has completed despite no having not received the names of the 3 hearing examiners that presided over the appeal:
Source Document:
City of Rochester, NY. Records Request FOIL-2025-2483 - Completed.pdf (68.4 KB)
Mayor - Malik D. Evans
Corporate Counsel - Patrick Beath
Sarah Nowak - Director of Parking and Municipal Code Violations
Director of Zoning - Matthew Simonis
Danna Miller - Commissioner of New Business Development.
Paul A. Marasco - Hearing Examiner who presided: 03/24/2025
Timothy Weir - Director of “Public Integrity”
![Mayor_Evans_Portrait_General_Use (1)_0|370x500]
(upload://2cYLLywHhUhbFIybMdoAIgab8dg.jpeg)
Refusal to provide names of Hearing Examiners after the Appeal:
Hearing March 24, 2025
Appeal May 01, 2025
Rochester.pdf (161.3 KB)|Column 1 | Column 2 | Column 3 | Column 4|
City of Rochester NY. Records Request Confirmation FOIL-2025-2590.msg (54 KB)