SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NASSAU COUNTY: CRIMINAL TERM ------------------------------------------------------------------------X THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, : : : : : -against: : WILLIAM FLANAGAN, JOHN HUNTER : & ALAN SHARPE, : : Defendants. : ------------------------------------------------------------------------X
AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO OMNIBUS MOTIONS
Nassau County Indictment No. 338N12
STEPHEN ANTIGNANI, an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of New York, affirms the following statements to be true under the penalty of perjury: 1. I am an Assistant District Attorney, of counsel to Kathleen M. Rice, the District
Attorney of Nassau County. I am submitting this affirmation in opposition to defendants motions to release Grand Jury minutes, to inspect the Grand Jury minutes and reduce or dismiss the indictment, to sever the defendants from being tried jointly, and for Sandoval hearings. I make the statements in this affirmation upon information and belief, based on my review of the Grand Jury minutes, and the records and files of the Nassau County District Attorneys Office. 2. On or around May 19, 2009, an administrator from JFK High School in Bellmore
reported a theft of electronic equipment from the school. During that spring, there had been a number of thefts from the high school, and, with this newest theft, nearly $11,000.00 worth of equipment had been stolen. In her initial report to a uniformed officer from the Nassau County Police Department (NCPD) 7th Precinct, the school principal named a wealthy and well-connected student as the suspect in this most recent theft. This student was also an employee of the Nassau County Police Department Ambulance Unit and the son of Gary Parker,
a NCPD benefactor. The principal stated that she wanted the perpetrator of the crime arrested and also signed a statement to that effect. 3. Following the principals initial report, the matter was referred to the 7th Precinct
Detective Squad. The Commanding Officer of the 7th Precinct Detective Squad referred the matter to the NCPD Internal Affairs Unit (IAU) because the suspect was a department employee. Within a day, defendant Hunter, a NCPD chief who was not in the detective squad chain of command, called the squad commander to let her know that IAU would not be investigating the matter despite the suspects employment with the department. At the time, defendant Hunter had no supervisory authority over either the squad or IAU, but he had a long-standing friendship with the students father, and Hunters personal interest and involvement in this type of felony investigation seemed unusual. By his words and actions, defendant Hunter communicated to the Commanding Officer that he preferred that this well-connected teen not be arrested for the thefts. 4. Following defendant Hunters phone call, the squad commander assigned an
unindicted co-conspirator a detective who had previously dealt with the school principal to handle the case. To satisfy defendant Hunter, the squad commander, defendant Sharpe, and this newly assigned detective decided that it would be helpful to have the school principal agree to withdraw any criminal charges in writing. On or about May 21, 2009, the unindicted
co-conspirator interviewed the principal and, during the interview, the principal steadfastly maintained that she wanted the department to proceed with its investigation against the student. Because of the principals stated position, the unindicted co-conspirator decided not to broach the subject of withdrawing the criminal complaint against the student.
On May 22, 2009, defendant Sharpe followed defendant Hunters instruction and
invited Parker into the precinct to discuss his sons situation. During this meeting, defendant Sharpe showed Parker stolen property that had been turned in to a different precinct by the sons friend several days earlier. Defendant Sharpe also gave Parker his business card and personal cell phone number and said that Parker could use the personal cell phone number at any time. Defendant Sharpe did not record Parkers statement to him in any manner, even though the statement included an admission that his son had stolen the school equipment. 6. Following his meeting with defendant Sharpe, Parker met with the school principal.
Parker raised the prospect of the principal agreeing to withdraw the criminal complaint against Parkers son if Parker were able to get all of the stolen property returned to the school. The principal declined the proposal because she had never afforded that opportunity to any other parent. After Parker left the precinct to speak to the principal, defendant Sharpe called him several times. 7. On May 23, 2009, defendant Hunter met with Parker in a diner and discussed the
investigation. The two had been friends: Parker had taken defendant Hunter out to dinner numerous times and defendant Hunter had gotten Parkers son a position with the NCPD. Defendant Hunter had also previously assisted Parkers son in avoiding moving violations. Following the diner meeting, defendant Hunter called the 7th Precinct and had a two-minute conversation with defendant Sharpe. 8. Over the next week, defendant Hunter offered his assistance to Parker and initiated
e-mail communications, telling Parker that he was available to assist him. On May 30, 2009, Parker asked defendant Hunter by e-mail to get the 7th Squad to lay low on his sons case
because Parkers lawyer was trying to resolve the situation. Defendant Hunter assured Parker that he would make sure that the unindicted co-conspirator laid low. 9. On June 12, 2009, nearly one month after the principal filed her complaint, Parker
informed defendant Hunter that the stolen property in the custody of the NCPD 7th Squad should be returned to the school on June 16, 2009. Parker also provided defendant Hunter with other information necessary to return the stolen property. That same day, defendant Hunter directed defendant Sharpe to return the stolen property. 10. On June 16, 2009, pursuant to defendant Hunters directive, defendant Sharpe
instructed a detective, who was not the unindicted co-conspirator, to return the property to the school. On this same date, Parkers wife went to the school to return other stolen property property that the NCPD never photographed, inventoried or documented. 11. During this visit, the detective asked the school principal to sign a withdrawal of
prosecution. The principal refused. Following her refusal, at defendant Sharpes direction, the detective did not leave the stolen electronic equipment at the school, stating that he had to return the property to the precinct because it was evidence in a criminal investigation. Defendant Sharpe, however, made no effort to have the detective retrieve the stolen property returned to the school by Parkers wife. In fact, defendant Sharpe gave no direction that Parkers wife be interviewed at all. 12. After learning of what happened at the school, defendant Hunter continued to offer
his help to Parker and, despite knowing that the principal had stated that she did not wish to withdraw her criminal complaint, Parkers son was still not arrested. 13. Following the principals refusal to withdraw her criminal complaint, Parker
sought assistance from defendant Flanagan, a sergeant in the Asset Forfeiture Unit of the NCPD 4
and a close friend of then NCPD Commissioner Lawrence Mulvey. Defendant Flanagan, like defendant Hunter, had no supervisory authority over the NCPD Detective Division. Defendant Flanagan, who was later promoted to 2nd Deputy Commissioner of the NCPD, was also friends with Parker: Parker had treated him to dinners and Yankee tickets. 14. After Parker and defendant Flanagan conversed at the U.S. Open Golf Tournament,
on June 23, 2009, defendant Flanagan e-mailed Parker that he had put pieces in motion to have the stolen property returned to the school. Throughout the summer, while Parkers son remained unarrested, defendant Flanagan made numerous attempts to get the stolen property returned to the school.1 15. Four months after the schools report of the theft, on September 1, 2009, Flanagan
successfully directed the unindicted co-conspirator to return the stolen property to the school,2 leading Parker to assume that his son would not be arrested. During this return of property, the principal again refused to sign a withdrawal of the criminal charges. This time, however, the unindicted co-conspirator, following defendant Flanagans direction, left the property at the school. Still, Parkers son was not arrested. 16. On September 9, 2009, defendant Flanagan informed Parker that he had
successfully arranged for the stolen property to be returned to the school. The following day, Parker sent defendant Flanagan gift cards of at least $200 value. Defendant Flanagan did not return the cards.
In a statement to the press that the People intend to introduce at trial, defendant Flanagan admitted that he actually reached out to the principal about the Parker situation, then as a Second Deputy Police Commissioner. 2 To this day, all of the property stolen by Parkers son has not been returned to the school. In his plea agreement, Parkers son agreed to pay restitution for the electronic equipment that was never returned.
In September 2010, defendant Sharpe formally closed the case against Parkers son
by authorizing a close-out memorandum that falsely stated that the school administrator did not want to proceed with criminal charges against Parkers son. 18. In April of 2011, the Long Island Press ran a newspaper article entitled
Membership has its Privileges. In the article, the author discussed how