By Leslie Gonzalez
Decision in Lynbrook case expected soon
Attorneys for the Village of Lynbrook and Electrical Inspectors, Inc., a privately-owned electrical inspection company, eagerly await a Nassau County Supreme Court decision regarding the Village's policies for appointing electrical inspection companies. All court papers and responses have now been submitted and a decision is expected to be handed down within the next several weeks.
Although Electrical Inspectors, Inc. of East Meadow claims it provides inspection services and certifications in full accordance with state and federal regulations, the company is currently barred from providing its services to Lynbrook residents. In it's lawsuit, the company charged that, under village statutes, only one firm was permitted to perform electrical inspections in the Village, a violation of federal and local anti-trust laws.
Motions have been made by the Village Board to revise the wording of the 1967 statues, which initially called for only one firm to perform electrical inspections within the Village, and listed the New York Board of Fire Underwriters Electrical Bureau (NYBFU) as that firm. Lynbrook officials claim that the NYBFU was originally designated by the statutes because only one inspection company existed at the time, and that actions to correct the statutes began as far back as 1998. However, even with the change in the statute, Lynbrook officials continue to support the idea of authorizing only one electrical inspection company at a given time, despite arguments on behalf of Electrical Inspectors that residents should have the right to choose the firm they wish.
Subsequent court papers filed during the past several weeks include responses from Mayor Eugene Scarpato and Buildings Superintendent Louis Bello, who firmly believe that using several inspection companies at one time would promote the allegiance of inspectors to the electrician rather than to property owners or the Village, because the initial electrician would decide which inspector would certify his work. Both feel that a two-year, single company arrangement would provide the village with the ability to oversee the quality of work, providing residents with better service and loyalty.
Electrical Inspectors, Inc. not only disagrees with that theory but they also question the Village's nomination process, whose selection team had included an even number of members: three master electricians and Superintendent Bello. Mr. Bello claims that, after a reportedly indecisive poll in 1999 and a tie vote in March of 2000, the panel never appointed a company, requesting further information instead. Electrical Inspectors charges that during this interim period, Lynbrook continued to utilize the of the New York Board of Fire Underwriters (NYBFU). Lynbrook further amended it's electrical code last month to increase the number of voting members from four to five, to eliminate further deadlocks. According to the Village, a new panel member has yet to be added and motions are still in the preliminary process regarding selection, causing village officials to label the lawsuit as premature.
Recent court papers on behalf of Electrical Inspectors cite date inconsistencies in Village court admissions, as well as shortcomings on behalf of NYBFU inspectors. Electrical Inspectors further criticizes Lynbrook's failure to impose its own minimum standard for qualifications on the Board of Underwriters.
In discussing NYBFU qualifications, Attorney Ronald Burke calls the Village's actions "grossly hypocritical", claiming Lynbrook violates its own policy, and pointing to personality issues with Superintendent Bello.
In response, Village Attorney Peter Ledwith calls the allegations "Purely an attack against the NYBFU...", claiming that because the questionable wording of Lynbrook's electrical code had been changed, the basis of initial charges no longer exists, and that the case should be dismissed.
