- See more at: http://blogtimenow.com/blogging/automatically-redirect-blogger-blog-another-blog-website/#sthash.Q6qPkwFC.dpuf Pinstripe Politics June 3 | Bronx News Networkbronx

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Pinstripe Politics June 3

Brodsky v. Yankees, Round 2

Richard Brodsky and the Yankees faced off in court on Monday in the latest battle of their ongoing war. When the two parties last met in court, the Yankees sought to nullify a subpoena filed by Assemblyman Brodsky which seeks documents detailing the construction of the new Yankee Stadium. State Supreme Court Justice John Egan Jr. gave the Yankees and Brodsky three weeks to attempt to settle their dispute, but as expected, no settlement was achieved.

What George F. Carpinello, a lawyer for the Yankees argued yesterday (from the New York Times):

“I’m going to show through 47 exhibits that he’s a hypocrite,” Carpinello said, as he tried to prove how Brodsky supported stadium financing before he turned against it; how he had used his stated goal of investigating abuses in the way that local agencies issue tax-exempt bonds, like those the Yankees employed, to initiate a pinstriped witch hunt; and how he lacked the legislative authority to go after the Yankees....

The Yankees are so big that they claim their employees have stored 1.39 million e-mail messages and attachments, totaling an estimated 5.5 million pages, on the subjects of Brodsky’s subpoena. The cost of a search, the Yankees said, would be $5.5 million, which they said the state would have to pay.

An Unfair Target? The Yankees Say So

Brodsky's argument (from the Albany Times-Union):
Mr. Brodsky, a Westchester County Democrat, wants to know more about that arrangement and whether the public -- which includes the 83 percent of New York baseball fans in a Marist College poll who say tickets cost too much -- was properly served....

If you're keeping score at home, you might well wonder why compliance with Mr. Brodsky's subpoena would require the review of 1.39 million e-mails and attachments, not to mention all the documents that could be inside 1,800 boxes of archives.

What's to Hide?
Also from the Times:
The Yankees offered a settlement last week that Brodsky appears loath to accept: access to paper and electronic correspondence between five Yankee staffers (among them Levine and Trost), and six city offices, about five discrete subjects.
Egan has yet to render a decision.

MY QUESTION: Did the Yankees really send 1.39 million emails that have to do with the new Yankee Stadium?

If they are telling the truth about that, then for the last 10 years (even though the new Stadium was officially announced eight years ago) the Yankees would have needed to send 380.51 emails on the subject everyday - that's seven days a week, 365 days a year (plus three extra leap year days thrown in).

I'm not sure I buy that figure, at all.

Also check out.....

The growing movement to save the old Gate 2, and keep it as a monumental entrance to the new replacement park. Any thoughts on this idea, BNN readers? Full coverage here.

It's getting more and more difficult for regular fans to get autographs from (or even catch a glimpse of) the players.

Notre Dame coming to Yankee Stadium?

The Daily News' contest to nickname the new Stadium.


  1. What a shame that none of the Bronx elected officials have seen fit to challenge the theft of parkland, and theft of millions of dollars of public money, to build the Yankees a new stadium. Thank you, Westchester voters, for giving us Richard Brodsky!

  2. margaret, you are 100% right. for all the talk about bronx development, community-centered advocacy, a new borough president, and god knows what else, not one bronx elcted official, repeat, not ONE, has the guts to stand up to the city and the yankees and support the people of the bronx. what a total disgrace and clear indictment of our elected leadership.


Bronx News Network reserves the right to remove comments that include personal attacks, name calling, foul language, commercial advertisements, spam, or any language that might be considered threatening, libelous or inciting hate.

User comments are reviewed by BxNN staff and may be included or excluded at our discretion.

If what you have to say is unrelated to this particular post, please visit our readers' forum.