SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK _ CYRUS R. VANCE, JR, Affirmation in support DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF NEW YORK Of request to file an COUNTY, Amended Summons ‘And Amended Complaint Plaintiff-Claiming Authority, -against- JOHN F. HAGGERTY, Jr. SPECIAL ELECTION OPERATIONS, LLC Index No. nen Criminal Defendants. Her syy yO 1. TARA CHRISTIE MINER an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of this State, affirms under penalties of perjury that: 2. Tam an Assistant District Attomey, of counsel to CYRUS R. VANCE, JR, District Attomey in and for the County of New York, the Plaintiff-Claiming Authority (’Plaintiff") in this action. I make this affirmation in support of plaintifP’s application for to file a supplemental summons and an amended complaint in the above entitle action, pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) section 305, 1003 and 3025. 3. On June 11,2010 this court issued a Temporary Restraining Order against John Haggerty and Special Election Operations, LLC, restraining their assets in the amount of $1,100,000.00 (One Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars). That order, along with the ‘Summons and Complaint, was served Mr. Haggerty on June 14, 2010, 4, The criminal case against John Haggerty has been adjourned for decision on defendant’s motion to dismiss, No trial date has been set. 5. With regard to the forfeiture case, the Plaintiff and Criminal Defendants Haggerty and SEO have entered into an agreement wherein the Plaintiff has releasedDefendant Haggerty from the constraints of the Temporary Restraining Order in exchange for a lis pendens being placed upon the Criminal Defendant's home. The asset forfeiture case has been adjourned, on consent, to February 15, 2011. 6. The relevant facts will not be repeated here, but are contained in the accompanying request. REQUEST TO AMEND THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 7. The Plaintiff-Claiming Authority is now secking permission to amend the original pleadings filed in this case. Those original pleadings are annexed to the accompanying new request for a Temporary Restraining Order. Also attached to that accompanying request is the proposed new summons and complaint. 8. The proposed supplemental summons and complaint is different from the original pleadings in that Plaintiff is seeking to add a Non-Criminal Defendant, namely the New York State Independence Party, to the case. The proposed new caption, which is also contained on the new request for a Temporary Restraining Order, is as follows: ‘SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK OR! CYRUS R VANCE, J, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF NEW YORK COUNTY, Plaintiff. Claiming Authority, create JOHN HAGGERTY, ‘SPECIAL ELECTION OPERATIONS, LLC, Index No, 401544/10, Criminal Defendants, “THE NEW YORK STATE INDEPENDENCE PARTY, 9. Originally, the Plaintiff did not sue the Independence Party out of concer for the effect a Restraining Order might have on the scheduled election, as well as a belief that‘we would be able to voluntarily negotiate an agreement escrowing the contested funds. 10. The election is now over, and the Independence Party has refused our request. 11. CPLR 3025 governs amendments of pleadings. Subdivision (a) states that a party may amend its pleadings as of right if the period for responding to it has not expired. In addition, subdivision (b) of CPLR 3025 states that leave to amend shall be freely given in order to allow the Plaintiff-Claiming Authority to set forth additional or subsequent ‘transactions and occurrences, such as here. 12, CPLR 305 governs the filing of a Supplemental Summons. Under subdivision (©), acourt may in its discretion allow any summons to be amended, if a substantial right of aa party against whom the summons has been issued is not prejudiced. 13. CPLR 1003 governs the joinder of parties. That provision states that parties may be added at any stage of the action by leave of the court, 14, In this asset forfeiture case, govemed by Article 13A of the CPLR, this action, ‘once commenced, is stayed until the criminal case has concluded. Only then is the defendant required to interpose an answer to the Plaintiff-Claiming Authority's case. The criminal case is still pending, and none of the original Criminal Defendants have answered the Plaintiff-Claiming Authority's original complaint. In fact, for both Criminal Defendants, the return date on the order to show cause has simply been adjourned. 15, In addition, because none of the Defendants have answered the complaint, no prejudice has accrued to them, in that the only activity that has occurred on this case is the granting of an Order to Show Cause, 16. The addition of parties are of benefit to the original Criminal Defendants as that allows the monetary liability to be divided amongst a greater amount of people. Also, thegranting of a Restraining Order against the new Non-Criminal Defendant will have no immediate effect on the existing Defendants. The amount sued for remains the same. 17, Further, justice requires the addition of this new Non-Criminal Defendant so as to prevent it from reaping the economic benefits of criminal activity. EX PARTE NATURE OF THIS REQUEST 18, Since the Plaintiff-Claiming Authority is seeking a new Order to Show Cause for a Restraining Order in conjunction with this request, to file this request on notice to the existing parties would enable them to alert the proposed new Non-Criminal Defendant of the Plaintiff-Claiming Authority’s request, That would enable the proposed new Non- Criminal Defendant to secrete its assets in anticipation of the granting of a new Temporary Restraining Order. 19, No previous application has been made to this or any other court for the relief sought herein. CONCLUSION ‘Wherefore, for all the above reasons, Plaintiff-Claiming Authority requests that this, court grant permission for the filing of a supplemental and amended summons and complaint in this matter. DATED: February 9, 2011 rt su YU Heyy ‘New York, New York MM he ial Chief, Asset Forfeiture anda New York County District Attomey 1 Hogan Place, New York, New York 10013 (212)335-4114