By: Philip Marcelo

New York’s first-in-the-nation plan to levy a hefty toll on drivers entering much of traffic-choked Manhattan was the focus of a legal battle that played out in federal court Friday.

A Manhattan judge heard arguments in lawsuits brought by unionized public school teachers and other New Yorkers seeking to put the brakes on the plan set to launch June 30.

But U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Liman didn’t issue any decisions following the daylong hearing, where the central question was whether transportation officials have sufficiently thoroughly studied — and come up sufficient plans to address — the negative health and environmental effects of the toll.

Most drivers in private cars, locals and tourists alike, heading into Manhattan south of Central Park should expect to pay about $15 during the daytime, with higher tolls for larger vehicles and lower rates for motorcycles and late-night entries into the city, according to the proposal finalized in March. Those who aren’t enrolled in a regional toll collection program will pay $22.50.

Alan Klinger, a lawyer representing lower Manhattan residents, said the toll amounts to a “cash grab” by transit officials looking to pump billions of dollars into the region’s creaky subway, trains and buses.

“There’s a desperate need to put funds into mass transit, and that is their overriding issue,” he said.

Lawyers for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the agency overseeing the congestion fee plan, didn’t dispute that the toll will provide a critical cash infusion of around $1 billion annually for the system, which carries about 4 million riders daily.

But they also argued that the toll will help reduce traffic and improve regional air quality by discouraging driving into Manhattan. The MTA also maintains it conducted extensive environmental reviews that found no significant effects to local communities that could not be addressed by focused mitigation efforts.

Klinger and other lawyers representing Manhattan residents argued Friday that the tolling scheme was given the green light by federal transportation officials without proper scrutiny.

Among other things, they noted that the Federal Highway Administration’s review was complete even before New York officials approved the toll’s final structure.

Toll opponents want the court to order transit officials to conduct a more comprehensive environmental study before rolling out the plan.

“This is supposed to be an all-encompassing process, and it has been anything but,” Klinger said.

Lawyers for the highway administration countered that New York transit officials had thoroughly analyzed the plan’s consequences and presented sufficient details for how they would address any harmful effects.

“None of these challenges have any merit,” said Zachary Bannon, a highway administration lawyer.

While the toll is expected to lead to an overall decline in traffic across greater New York City, some areas will see a “small degree” of increased congestion, acknowledged Elizabeth Knauer, an MTA lawyer.

The agency, she said, has committed to investing about $155 million over five years to offset those effects, including installing more roadside plants, parks, school air-filtration systems and more electric vehicle charging stations.

Other lawsuits argued Friday contend that low-income and minority communities already dealing with poor air quality will be particularly hard hit by the health effects of increased traffic through their streets.

They also argue drivers from other city boroughs and suburbs that lack adequate mass transit will take a disproportionate financial hit. Additionally, they claim, small businesses in the congestion zone will face higher operating costs.

(AP)

By: Serach Nissim

On Monday afternoon, the Manhattan district attorney’s office rested its case against former President Donald J. Trump. As reported by the NY Times, the prosecution’s case came to a close after 15 days of testimony from 20 witnesses. Next, the defense began on Monday afternoon to briefly make its case, after which the jury will take up the task of making a decision in the criminal trial. The judge, Justice Juan M. Merchan, announced Monday that closing arguments will be delayed until after the holiday weekend, on May 28.

Former President Trump faces felony charges in relation to the alleged reimbursement of a $130,000 hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, a porn star who says she had relations with Mr. Trump in Lake Tahoe, Nev., in 2006. He is charged, in the NYC case, with falsifying 34 business records in connection to that alleged hush money. It is the first time in history that a former US president is tried on criminal charges. Mr. Trump, 77, has denied the charges and has said he did not have an encounter with Ms. Daniels. If convicted, Trump could potentially face prison or probation.

The last three days of the prosecution’s case included a heated cross-examination of star witness, Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former fixer and personal lawyer. The defense then began its case on Monday, continuing to do its best to sully Mr. Cohen’s testimony, making his words less credible for the jurors.

Per the Times, on Monday afternoon the defense called up their first witness —Robert Costello, a former legal adviser to Mr. Cohen, who said that in 2018 Mr. Cohen told him that Mr. Trump “knew nothing” about payments to Ms. Daniels. After a handful of objections by the prosecution lawyers, however, Mr. Costello said “jeez,” awaking the ire of the judge.

Justice Merchan sent the jury out of the courtroom and admonished Mr. Costello for not displaying “proper decorum” and for giving him “side-eye.” He then cleared the entire courtroom of onlookers, and according to a transcript, told Mr. Costello that his conduct was “contemptuous” and said, “If you try to stare me down one more time I will remove you from the stand.” He also warned the defense lawyers, “I will strike his testimony, do you hear me?”

On Tuesday, the defense called up Costello again, per AP News. After brief testimony, the defense rested its case on Tuesday, without the Republican Presidential candidate taking the stand. Mr. Trump had formerly indicated that he would like to take the witness stand, but he was not required to do so and it would have been an unexpected move. The defense’s strategy throughout the case was to attack the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, rather than to establish Mr. Trump’s innocence. This is because the burden of proof in a criminal case lies with the prosecution. “They have no case,” Trump said Tuesday morning. “There’s no crime.”

On Tuesday, the jurors were sent home for a week, and will be expected back after Memorial weekend for closing statements. Also, on Tuesday afternoon, the attorneys and the judge met in the courtroom to discuss how the judge will instruct jurors to make their deliberations.