105- "Drayton Goes on Vacation"

I filed the petition at the County Clerk's office July 28.  Respondents were served July 29 and July 30.  I gave respondents about a week more than I was required to give them by law, to respond.  August 17, phone rings. Drayton Grant, Woodstock's land use attorney, calling to ask me to grant her an extension to respond. 


For what reason? (I asked her that question.)


Her two reasons: a planned vacation, and she needed to put "the record" in order.  I said something about the planning board not having approved minutes from their meetings in over a year, and I understood.  She said nothing. She asked if I would like to consult an attorney before answering. I said yes.


I called an attorney who said yeah, sure, give her the extension, it's normal, and then she will not have to go to the judge for the extension, and that would make the judge dislike me, which is bad. 


So I wrote her an email that night, and what follows here is my and Drayton Grant's emails about the extension that I did grant her:

Later that night (early AM August 18):

Hello Drayton, thank you for your call today, in which you requested an extension to respond to my Article 78 Petition, index no. 10-3890, against Woodstock Planning Board, Town Board, Jeff Moran and Paul Shultis, Jr. You represented that you will be leaving on vacation this Friday, which is two days from now.  My petition was served nineteen days prior to your call.  You also told me that “the record” was not yet ready. 

I was not obligated to give respondents a month to respond, but I did, thinking it was more than fair.  I know that the planning board has not approved meeting minutes going back a year or so, since I personally brought this to the town’s attention five months ago, for the very reason that in the case of legal action, which was fully expected, the task of catching up will necessitate this very extension.

Still, I am happy to grant an extension of two weeks, moving the response day to the fourteenth of September.  This extension results in a response time of over six weeks, which should be ample.

Please let me know if I have to file any papers with the court or notify anybody.  If I do, please prepare the papers and I will sign them.

Thanks.

Robin Segal 

Drayton responds to me August 18, 9:39 AM:

Robin -

 

Thank you for this courtesy.  Do you have a fax or a number where a fax to you may be directed?  I will fax the judge's chambers that on consent, my response date is now September 14, and the return date is now September 22. 

 

Drayton

I reveal my inexperience in the legal world:

Drayton, it looks like I miscalculated.  I meant to give you an extension of two weeks, not three weeks, which would have put the return date, not the response date, at September 15, not Sept. 14, and certainly not Sept. 22.  I never specified a response date in my petition, and confused the two terms after you introduced response date and did not mention return date.  However, my intended extension of two weeks seems to be still not sufficient to accommodate your vacationing through Labor Day.  So, let us leave the return date at Sept. 22.

Here is a fax number for me: [edited out]. If you could email me the letter as well, that would be most helpful.

Thanks.

Robin

Drayton clarifies:

Robin -

 

Thank you again.  I appreciate your continuing courtesy here.  I did not mean to confuse you, but I certainly will need that week, and I had asked for it. 

 

I will send you the letter to the court clerk both ways. 

 

Drayton

There were a couple more after that, nothing of substance except a copy of the letter to the clerk saying Drayton and I agreed on the extension. 

So, what do you think happened next?  Do you think Drayton went on vacation AND used her extension to prepare the record?  I don't know, I kind of did, since that is what she said she was going to do....