Hudson supreme court libel and defamation complaint

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ORANGE -------------x

?0r

4

006 4gA

Index No.

VERIFIBD COMPLAINT

KEVIN M. HUDSON, Plaintiff.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

-against-

TIMES HERALD-RECORD ("THR"), ESTATE OF JOHN SULLIVAN, DOMINICK FIOzuLLE, MICHAEL LEVENSOHN, DEREK OSENENKO, DOW JONES LOCAL MEDIA GROUP, INC., GATEHOUSE MEDIA, INC., NEWCASTLE INVESTMENT CORP, an affiliate of FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, ANd JOHN DOE "1" THROUGH "20" inclusive, the names of the last 20 defendants being fictitious and currently unknown to plaintiff,

Nn eb

o

> c.') cG? frt n-l t\t o= -l Errl

!

c) =c3 r

(Jr @#n

Defendants.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffi Pro Se, KEVIN M. HUDSON, as and for his complaint in this action against the above identified defendant individuals

in their professional and

personal

capacities and defendant business entities (collectively. the "defendants"). hereby alleges as follows:

NATUTE, OF THE CLAIMS 1. This action is for declaratory relief, actuaVcompensatory damages, assumed damages and punitive damages to redress defendants' acts

of defamation, slander and

libel committed by the defendants as and against plaintiff.

2. Defendants' unlawful conduct was knowing, deliberate, malicious, willful and wonton, and demonstrated a reckless disregard for plaintiffs rights, which has caused and continues to cause the plaintiff, humiliation, shame and disgrace locally. nationally

and in certain instances, internationally, causing plaintiff to suffer permanent harm to his personal, professional and public service reputation(s), causing plaintiff and his family to

suffer severe mental anguish and emotional distress and causing plaintiff Hudson to receive "death threats".

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 3. This action is about the honendous acts of defamation and libel committed by the newspaper, defendant Times Herald Record (hereinafter "THR") by and through THR

reporter, defendant John Sullivan (deceased), THR photographer defendant Dominick Fiorille, THR business and regional editor defendant Michael Levensohn, THR executive

editor defendant Derek Osenenko, and THR current and former operators and owners

Dow Jones Local Media Group, Inc., GateHouse Media, Inc., Newcastle Investment Corp, an affiliate of Fortress Investment Group, LLC. 4. By this action, plaintiff Hudson seeks to recover damages for the false, libelous

and defamatory written statements contained in two stories appearing in the Sunday, August 25th, 2013 edition of the newspaper defendant "THR". One story advertised

as

a"Special Report" entitled: "Fiery Death, Lingering Questions" commences on the front page of said paper and continues thgrein at pages six, seven, eight, nine. ten. twelve and

thirteen. The other accompanying story entitled: "Hudson, Orange Family At Odds Over Another Fire", appears at pages eleven and twelve of said edition.

5. Both above identified "stories" are written by THR reporter defendant, John Sullivan, (deceased), including one falsified, "photo shopped" photograph credited to

THR photographer defendant, Dominick Fiorille, as appears in the second of the two above identified stories.

6. Both above identified "stories" together total nine full pages of false narrative,

unfounded allegations, and outright unabashed smear character, professional business dealings, and record

of plaintiff Hudson's

personal

of public service as the former

Mayor of the Village of Washingtonville, New York.

7. These two above identified stories were each approved for publishing by THR regional/business editor defendant, Michael Leversohn and

THR executive editor

defendant, Derek Osenenko, which written statements concerning plaintiff Hudson made

specifically for publication in newsprint and transmission through electronic media, were false, libelous and defamatory, and were made even though said defendants knew or had reason

to know the

statements contained

in these stories were false and rnade with

reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of said statements.

8. Each false statement was intentionally

injurious

to plaintiff

Hudson,

maliciously written and published for the express purpose to blacken plaintiff Hudson's personal, professional and public service reputation, expose him

to public

hatred,

contempt, ridicule and to degrade him in the estimation of the community.

JURISDICATION AND VENUE 9. This Court has jurisdictio4 over defendants: THR reporter JOHN SULLIVAN,

THR regionaVbusiness editor, MICHAEL LEVERSOHN. THR executive editor DEREK OSENENKO, pursuant to CPLR 301 in that each are now or were employees of the defendant newspaper Times Herald Record ("THR") and currently work and/or reside in the State of New York.

10. This Court has jurisdiction over defendants: TIMES HERALD-RECORD.

DOW JONES LOCAL MEDIA GROUP, INC., GATEHOUSE MEDIA.

INC..

NEWCASTLE INVESTMENT CORP, AN AffiIiAtC Of FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC pursuant to CPLR 302[a][1] in that each of the foregoing domestic and/or foreign (Maryland, Delaware) corporations continually transacts business within the state and/or each has its principal place of business located within the state.

1

1. Venue is proper pursuant to CPLR 503 as

plaintiff resides in Orange County.

THE PARTIES

Plaintiff 12.

Plaintifl Kevin M. Hudson, is a natural person who at all tirnes relevant to

these proceedings resides at: 434 North Main Street. Monroe, New

York

10950 in

Orange County.

Newspaper Defendant 13. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant Times Herald Record was

a

unit of Dow Jones Local Media Group with its principal place of business is located at: 40 Mulberry Street, Middletown, New York 10940-6357 in Orange County.

Reporter Defendant 14. Upon information and belief, defendant (the estate of) THR repoder, John

Sullivan, was a resident

of Pearl River in Rockland County who died on Thursday,

January 76th, 2074 whose conduct as complained of herein would not have been possible

if not for the cooperation, collaboration

and assistance

of all the other defendants named

herein for which plaintiff holds all said defendants jointly and severally liable.

Photographer Defendant

15. Upon information and belief; defendant THR photographer, Dominick Fiorille, is a natural person who at all times relevant to these proceedings resides at: 99 Wood Lake Drive, Middletown, New York 10940 in the County of Orange.

Editor Defendants

16. Upon information and beliel defendant THR regional/business editor, Michael Levensohn, is a natural person who at all times relevant to these proceedings resides at: 9 Kasch Court, Monroe, New

York 10950 in the County of Orange.

17. Upon information and beliel defendant THR executive editor. Derek Osenenko, is a natural person who at all times relevant to these proceedings resides

at

17

Delisio Lane, Woodstock, New York 12498 in the County of Ulster.

Newsnaper Onerator Defendants 18. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant GateHouse Media, Inc. was

and still is a foreign corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the

laws of the State of Delaware, maintaining its principal place of business located at: 350

Willowbrook Office Park, Fairport, New York 14450-4222 Newsnaper Owner Defendants 19. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, "Dow Jones Local Media

Group, Inc.", was and still is a foreign corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, maintaining its principal place of business located at:. I2ll Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036.

20. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, "Newcastle

Investment

Corp." was and still is a foreign corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Maryland, maintaining its principal place of business located at:1345 Avenue of the Americas,46th Floor, New York, New York 10105.

21. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant, "Fortress Investment Group, LLC" was and still is a foreign limited liability company duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware and is an "affiliate" of defendant "Newcastle Investment Corp.", maintaining its principal place

of

business

located at:1345 Avenue of the Americas, 46th Floor, New York, New York 10105.

RE,LATIONSHIP OF THE DEFENDANT PARTIES 22. Defendant, Times Herald Record (THR), often referred to as: "The Record" or

"Middletown Record"

in its coverage

area,

is a daily

newspaper published in

Middletown, New York, covering the northwest suburbs encompassing Orange, Sullivan and Ulster counties Pennsylvania, and Sussex and Bergen Counties

of New York

City,

in New York, Pike County in

in New Jersey. It is published in

a

"tabloid" format. The THR is also available through its website entitled: "The Record Online" which permits its published.stories to be transmitted through electronic media on a national and international basis.

23. Defendant, John Sullivan, was the THR reporter and author of both libelous and defamatory stories entitled: "Fiery Death. Lingering Questions" and "Hudson.

Orange Family

At

Odds Over Another Fire" as published in the Sunday edition of

defendant newspaper THR on August 25tt',2013 that are the subject of this complaint.

24. Defendant, Dominick Fiorille, was the THR photographer who conceived, themed, staged, created, took and altered the photograph appearing in the second of the

two above identified "stories" which photograph was added to and enhanced...a process referred to as being: "photo shopped"... to create maximum (but completely false) visual

context an impact, which in fact, did not exist at the time or at the place that said photograph was taken.

25. Defendant, Michael Levensohn, was the THR RegionaVBusiness Editor at the

time the two above entitled libelous and defamatory "stories" were published on August 25th, 2013. Said defendant

is identified in an obituary published by the THR

dated

January lgth,2014 entitled: "John Sullivan, Former Times Herald-Record Reporter Dies

At 43" as follows: resignation

in

2013.

"Levensohn was Sullivan's editor

"

from 2010 ril/ (Sullivan's)

Therefore, defendant Levensohn was directly responsible for

exercising his editorial authority over the final form, content, including photograph(s) and publication on August 25'h, 2013 of the two above identified "stories" authored by defendant Sullivan that are the subject of this complaint.

26. Defendant, Derek Osenenko, was the THR Executive Editor at the time the

two above entitled libelous

and. defamatory "stories" were published. Therefore,

defendant Osenenko was directly responsible for exercising his supervisory editorial

authority over the subordinate editor Levensohn, reporter Sullivan and photographer Fiorille, the final form, content, including photograph(s) and publication on August

25th,

2013 of the two above identified "stories" authored by defendant Sullivan that are the subject of this complaint.

27. Defendant, "Dow Jones Local Media Group, Inc.", was the owner of newspaper defendant THR at the time the two above entitled libelous and defamatory stories were published on August 25n',2013.

28. On September 4th, 2013, "News Corp." announced it was selling defendant

"Dow Jones Local Media Group", a group of thirty-three local newspapers including newspaper defendant

TH& to "Newcastle Investment Corp.", an affrliate of

"Fortress

Investment Group" with the newspapers (including defendant THR) to be operated by GateHouse Media, Inc. following the foregoing referenced sale.

PLAINTIFF'S PUBLIC SERVICE BACKGROUND Events Precipitatine Publication Of The Libelous And Defamatorv Stories Complained Of 29. From April I't, 2011 to April 1't, 2013 plaintiff Hudson was the Mayor of the

Village of Washingtonville, New York (hereinafter the "Village"). During his tenure he discovered and continued

to uncover ongoing graft and criminal conduct within

the

governmental body of said Village which included connections to organized crime.

30. The more criminal wrongdoing Mayor Hudson discovered during his conduct

of Village

business, the more opposition the Mayor received and experienced from

certain well entrenched memb.r, of the Village government body, each of whom sought

to protect their particular interests.

31. When Village matters got to the point wherein Mayor Hudson could not obtain the lawful cooperation of these particular members of the Village government body and determined the conduct of said members to be unlawful, Mayor Hudson went to the (former) Orange County District Attorney, Francis (Frank) Phillips, for assistance.

32. However, these certain well entrenched and well connected members of the Village government body had already made their phone calls, called in their favors, and encouraged (former) Orange County District Attorney, Frank Phillips, to commence an

"investigation" of Mayor Hudson and certain key members of his staff which included,

but was not limited to, the Village Deputy Mayor, Treasurer, Deputy Clerk, Building Inspector and D.P.W. Superintendents. This so-called "investigation" found no evidence

of any wrongdoing whatsoever by Mayor Hudson and his other aforementioned key staff members.

33. This alleged investigation did however serve to create "conffoversy" around

Mayor Hudson's administration, distracting and deflecting, as intended. attention away from the well entrenched and well connected members of the Village government body

who persisted in their ongoing criminal conduct that Mayor Hudson continued to discover and openly complain

of since taking office. While (former) Orange

County

District Attorney, Frank Phillips, for reasons still unknown, failed to investigate Mayor Hudson's complaints, despite D.A. Phillips being provided with documentary evidence

of

the illegal conduct Mayor Hudson complained of.

34. As the well entrenchpd and well connected members of the Village government body continued to rally their forces to destroy the creditability

of Mayor

Hudson's allegations and his repeated public calls for D.A. Phillips to "do his job" and

investigate the criminal conduct and scams

for financial gain endemic to

Village

government, the defendant newspaper THR was called upon to assist and participate in

the complete character assassination of Mayor Hudson, subjecting Hudson to unprecedented and withering but unfounded criticism throughout Hudson's mayoral term.

35. The onslaught of the triad comprised of the well entrenched and well connected members of the Village government body, the apparent inaction

of (former)

Orange County D.A. Phillips, who Mayor Hudson openly and publicly challenged to do the job he was elected to do, and the defamatory and libelous stories repeatedly published

by newspaper defendant THR provided the results sought as enthusiastically reported by newspaper defendant THR in the "Timeline: A Tumultuous Decade" part of the "stories"

complained of herein which stated: "March Ig'h, 2013; Kevin Hudson loses his bid.for re-election in a landslide. " 36. But the defamatory and libelous assaults against Mayor Hudson did not end when plaintiff Hudson was not reelected in April 2013. While it is a documented fact set

forth in a State Comptroller's audit that former Mayor Hudson brought the Village out of insolvency and placed the Village back on a sound financial footing with a cash surplus, the incoming administration favored by the well entrenched and well connected members

of the Village government body continued their misconduct and again ran the Village furances into the ground and well back into the red.

Snecific Purpose Of Publishine Libelous And Defamatorv Stories Complained Of 37

. To cover their mismanagement of Village finances (that financially benefited

the few and the expense of the many), more specifically, to cover the diversion of Village

cash, services and other resources so that the well entrenched and well connected members of the Village government body could continue pilfering and profiting to the

detriment of the Village residents, a post 2013 Village mayoral election campaign was pursued in the newspaper defendant THR to sully, discredit, defame and libel former

Mayor Hudson as a scapegoat upon which to blame the renewed financial and other problems the new/incoming Village Mayor's administration had agatn placed itself in.

38. The two supposed "newso' stories which form the basis of this complaint published by newspaper defendant THR about four months after Hudson left office as

Mayor in the Sunday, August 25th,2013 edition touted as a "special Report" defaming and libeling plaintiff Hudson's personal and business character and his tenure as a public servant was the last straw. Plaintiff Hudson now seeks his redress and remedies at law against the defendants named herein.

39. As and for the well entrenched and well connected members of the Village government body, the apparent failure

of former

Orange County District Attorney,

Francis (Frank) Phillips, to investigate criminal wrongdoing ongoing in the Village as brought directly to his attention, and others with "special interests" to protect working to cover-up and shield those criminal interests within the Village of Washingtonville and Orange County, these special interests born of the criminal conduct alleged by Hudson as

Mayor and after his mayoral tenure will be the subject of a separate complaint.

SPECIFIC LIBELOUS AND DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS vt.q.nn gy lnrnNuA,Nts colvIpLA.INnU Or gy pLA,INUrn "STORY ONE,: "FIERY DEATH" LINGERING OUESTIONS' True Purpose Behind Defendants' Published But Phonv "special Report" Designation

40. The above entitled libelous and defamatory article attached hereto in its

,.A" (both in tabloid and online format) forms the basis of plaintiff entirety as exhibit complaint allegations as published newspaper defendant

in the

Sunday August 25th, 2013 edition

TH& marketed and publicized as a "SPECIAL REPORT"'

of

s

the

41. When in reality, there was nothing "Special" about this fictitious narrative published on August 25th,2013 other than the outrageously and unabashedly libelous and defamatory nature and purpose that this smear piece was created to serve.

It was not

a

"Report" as it did not contain any new or even recent news; the events upon which this malicious yarn is loosely premised took place in October 2008; hence. there was no discernable news value i.e. no newsworthiness and no news reporting.

42. This so-called "Special Report" was only comprised of rumor mongering, unsupported suppositions, unproven and outright false allegations and uncorroborated conclusions by THR reporter defendant, John Sullivan several years after the events referenced took place. Premised upon statements

by named but indirectly involved

individuals who, at the time the events transpired. had all rights and remedies at law available to them but either did not avail themselves of the same or did not prevail in any

litigation undertaken at the time.

43. With no actual "Special" or o'Report(ing)" or 'News" or "Newsworthiness" value attributable the story in question; with no uncomrpted factual content, no supported

suppositions,

no proven allegations and/or no corroborated

conclusions; without

statements by individuals, entities or investigative authorities directly involved with the

events defendant Sullivan's poisonous narrative are premised upon

to support or give

credibility to the story in question; and with only investigative reports exculpatory of the individuals directly involved concluding, on the off,rcial record, that the events of October 3'd, 2008 was nothing more than a terrible tragedy; the Court

is led to the

obvious

conclusion that the ulterior purpose of this purported "Special Report" was to destroy the

credibility of plaintiff Hudson by causing plaintiff to suffer irreparable harm and to

tarnish, compromise, diminish and degrade plaintiff Hudson's credibility, so that his allegations of criminal wrongdoing discovered while he was Village Mayor are given no weight and are ignored.

Defendants' Ulterior Purpose Behind the Published But False Title of "Ston One"

44. The title of this smear piece takes up ninety percent of the newspaper defendant THR's Sunday paper's cover page. One quarter of the front page was occupied

with the following title in bold block letters:

FIREY DEATH, LINGERING QUESTIONS 45. When in fact, there were no "Lingering Questions" as misleadingly suggested

in the above title. All matters misstated, implied, inferred, alluded to, hinted at. and/or mis-framed to the point of outright falsity in this "story" published on August 25tt'. 2013 happened aboutfiyg-lggt;prior to the date of publication on October 3'd, 2008.

46. The events of October 3rd, 2008 were fully investigated by municipal, county

and state authorities using the ferensic training and other forms

of

professional

competency and expertise each such investigative body is possessed of. which did not

draw any

of the sensationalistic

"conclusions" that THR reporter defendant, John

Sullivan, contrived almost five years after the fact in this libelous and defamatory narrative. Wherein Sullivan implies plaintiff Hudson was a setial "atsonist" was involved in "murder" and "insurance fraud".

47. Conversely, it is a matter of public record that the investigating authorities issued exculpatory findings regarding all persons directly involved in this tragedy and

found the cause of the fire to be faulty electrical wiring.

48. All directly and indirectly involved parties and entitles that believed they were possessed

of a cause of action related to the events of October

3'd, 2008, had access to

counsel and had available to them the full compliment of state and/or federal, civil and/or

criminal rights and remedies at law following the events of October 3'd, 2008. Any causes

of action litigated were conclusively adjudicated, settled or abandoned and all questions of fact andior of law were laid to rest and therefore there are no "lingering questions" as the defendants herein falsely suggest.

The Published False Narrative Desiened Bv Defendants to Libel and Defame Plaintiffin "Storv Oneo' 49. Along with the phony "Special Report" designation and the suggestive but false large font title, the text of this narrative commenced on and occupied another

quarter page

of the defendant

newspaper

THR front cover to emphasize

the

sensationalistic (but utterly untrue) nature of this tale to create the attention it generated and received, presented to give the appearance of an "expos6". But this so-called "Special

Report" failed to objectively report records

or to interview

persons

all the facts available in the public

and/or Court

with unbiased knowledge of the facts and

events

supposedly being reported on almost five years after said events took place.

50. Instead, THR reporter defendant Sullivan falsely embellished upon events to create his so-called "Special Report", which was not a report at all and was instead a smear deliberately designed to injure the reputation of plaintiff Hudson.

52. THR reporter defendant Sullivan exclusively interviewed self interested and biased individuals and knitted together an obviously one sided narrative, comprised

of

rumor, half truths, misinformation, innuendo and gross misuse of existing facts to the

total exclusion of other available facts to deliberately and knowingly construct falsely stated conclusions concerning matters that were already long ago resolved. Creating

(including the accompanying second story complained of herein) a nine page "hit piece"

on plaintiff Hudson, complete with a staged and photo-shopped picture used in

the

accompanying story, deliberately designed to present plaintiff Hudson in the worst light possible i.e. consistent with the theme of defendants false narrative as published.

53. The destructive purpose of and ulterior motive behind this faux "Special Report" is made clear by the unprecedented amount of newspaper space, nine full pages devoid of advertising, devoted to the effort. No President, Congressman, Senator, foreign

dignitary, celebrity, or other persons of notoriety have received such monumental and extensive coverage as the nine page spread complained

of in the August

25tt', 2013

Sunday edition of the newspaper defendant THR.

54. THR reporter defendant Sullivan, his immediate THR editor defendant Levenshon and THR executive editpr defendant Osenenko, each allowed and caused this story to be published without checking facts, source accuracy or the veracity or reliability

of the individuals interviewed. This "hit piece" against plaintiff Hudson was based upon

innuendo alone, without evidence statements made

to

support the false, libelous and defamatory

or conclusions reached, which pre-existing public and Court records

andlor astute article analysis demonstrates this story is false.

55. As a direct result of the foregoing, defendant newspaper THR, and THR reporter defendant Sullivan, his immediate THR editors Levensohn and executive editor Osenenko are jointly and severally liable for plaintiff Hudson's claims herein along with the newspaper defendant THR's operators and owners.

Specilic Libelous and Defamatory Falsehoods Published Bv Defendants in Newsprint and Transmitted bv Electronic Media Appearing in "Story One" 56. In order to create a misimpression of impropriety or wrongdoing, this "article" commences by making the unsupported written allegation that: "Anthony Rhein was an

unlikely candidate

for lfe

insurance. The 39-year-old was overweight with high blood

pressure. A laborer and a taxi driver, he earned just 525,000 a year qccording to his insurance application and he had no dependents. " When in fact, being thirty-nine, being

overweight, having high blood pressure, being

a laborer and a taxi driver,

earning

$25,000 per annum and not having dependents does not make such a person an unlikely candidate for life insurance at all. Such circumstances are not disqualifiers and persons

like situated are both insurable and are routinely insured.

57.It can equally be said that an overweight individual with high blood

pressure

in early mid-life would seek life insurance under such circumstances, especially if they considered themselves or were professionally informed that they are of a higher mortality

group, or as in this case, the individual (Anthony Rhein) had non-dependent friends and

family members that he wished to consider if he passed away.

58. It is in this way THR defendant Sullivan employs his writing to deliberately

set the falsified tone for his narrative by creating an air

of

collusion

to

commit

wrongdoing and implied impropriety to stir up controversy where none actually exists.

59. THR reporter defendant John Sullivan continues his "special Report" by making the unsupported written allegation that: " He (the deceased, Anthony Rhein) could barely read or write,

life insurance policy.

"

a

formidable liability when navigating the complex terms of a

When in fact, the decease's insurance application and handwritten

will clearly indicates the ability to read, to write

and to comprehend matters associated

with life insurance, i.e. specific coverage with a premium he could afford ($209.30)

and

the concepts associated with the making of a will.

60. All of which foregoing factors indicate the deceased suffered from no such deficits onerously and ominously suggested by THR reporter defendant Sullivan as'. " ...a

formidable liability..." or "...despite these obstacles...

"

which are nothing more than

fabricated suppositions made at the outset of defendant Sullivan's false narrative to take his "article" in a direction where the facts do not lead but where Sullivan and his editors

wanted this "story'' to go for the express purpose

of libeling and defaming plaintiff

Hudson.

61. Obviously, Anthony Rhein's policy was underwritten and a $250,000.00 policy issued by a reputable insurance company that paid on the policy upon Rhein's death. But THR reporter defendant Sullivan deliberately mischaracterizes the issuance

the policy being something sinister, as " ...despite these obstacles...

if

of

issued despite "...a.formidable liabilit1,..." sy

" that a cursory review of the facts demonstrates that, in fact,

no such 'formidable liabilities" or "obstacles" actually existed exceft in the mind of defendant Sullivan and his editors for the purpose of defaming plaintiff Hudson.

62. The article complained of herein begins with dramatic, outlandish, but completely unsupported claims. Signaling

to the reader at the

outset the article's

pervasive themes denigrating plaintiff Hudson, implying wrongdoing and setting the

theme parameters with the foregoing quoted but unsupported and unsubstantiated statements which intensified as follows:

63. Continuing from the front page of the newspaper defendant THR in Sunday, August 25th, 2013 edition and onto page

the

six where the "special Report"

appearing on the front page is continued, the reader is confronted with yet an additional story title/headline in bold block letters:

THE EX-MAYOR, A FIRE VICTIM AND AN NSURANCE POLICY 64. The unsupported association implied by defendant Sullivan in the title is clear.

the ex-mayor is dirty, look at what he is involved in, therefore the ex-mayor is not credible and any of the allegations the ex-mayor has made are not credible.

65. For those readers who do not get the message imbedded and implied in the second headline appearing in this story, defendant Sullivan continues to set the desired

tone of his narrative on page six by writing: "Hudson's term ended in March after huo controversial years in

ffice, during which critics accused him of nepotism, improper

use

of authority and misuse of public funds, all of which Hudson has denied. " While defendant Sullivan deliberately omits mentioning who these "critics" are, when the above

listed allegations were made, who made any such allegations, what,

if

any, proof was

offered to support any of the alleged allegations made or the fact that no finding has ever

been made afFrrming these un-sourced and anonymous allegations allegedly made against

plaintiff Hudson when he was Village Mayor.

66. Defendant Sullivan continues to write on page six that: "The Orange County

District Attorney's Office has initiated an investigation into the running of the village during ftis (Hudson's) administration, and the state Comptroller's Office has begun looking into Village finances at the request of the nev, village administration.

"

While

defendant Sullivan deliberately omits mentioning that when this story was written there had been no investigative finding by the Orange County District Attorney's Office or by the State Comptroller's Office finding Mayor Hudson acted improperly in any way.

67. In fact, former Orange County District Attorney Francis (Frank) Phillips allegedly "closed" his investigation(s) before leaving office on January

1",

2014

regarding allegations both by and against the Hudson administration finding that neither Hudson as Mayor nor others within the governing body of the Village had engaged in

illegal conduct. The incoming Orange County District Attorney has so far declined

plaintiff Hudson's request to reopen the investigation into the conduct of Village business.

68. Further, the State Qomptroller's Office report entitled: "Village of Washingtonville Financial Condition" dated April4th, 2014 (the "Report of Examination"

covered the period

of March 1't, 2011 to

Hudson's administration indicating

February 29tt',2012) was exculpatory of

in summary that, among other things, Hudson's

administration placed the Village fiscally back

in the black and the

administration placed Village finances fiscally back in the red.

new/incoming

69. The page one story text and the fust paragraphs of page six is the brush used

by defendant THR reporter Sullivan and defendant editors Levensohn and Osenenko to "tar and feather" plaintiff Hudson. Implying, as a means to set the biased tone for this socalled "Special Report", that Rhein's life insurance policy was somehow irnproperly obtained, that former Mayor Hudson was corrupt and spent two controversial years in

office while engaged in nepotism, improper use of authority and misuse of public funds, resulting in investigations by the local D.A. and State Comptroller's Office.

70. The

tilt

and inclination of this article is clearly written to harm plaintiff

Hudson while defendant Sullivan, his defendant editors Levensohn and Osenenko and the

defendant newspaper THR completely disregarded the facts, public and Court records available at the time, so the defendants working collectively and collaboratively could obtain the desired false narrative that is the "story one" complained of herein.

71. At page six defendant Sullivan goes on to write that'. "Back in 2008, Hudson was a builder who flipped houses as a pretext

for a living with his business partner, Chris Martino. "

for connecting plaintiff Hudson with the 286 Lake Road property in Salisbury

Mills where a fire took place that claimed Anthony Rhein's life to fallaciously support the malicious underlying theme ofdefendants false narrative; that Hudson had been the owner of two properties involved with: (a) a fire and (b) insurance proceeds.

72. However, public land records ignored by defendants clearly demonstrate that

plaintiff Hudson was not the owner of record for the 286 Lake Road property in Salisbury Mills, and plaintiff Hudson not involved in the renovation of the 286 Lake Road property

in Salisbury Mills. This was, in fact, a property renovation undertaken by Mr. Martino himself, without plaintiff Hudson's ownership or financial participation.

Chris

73. Each of the defendants disregarded these facts that completely undermine the main underlying premise of defendants' malicious and disgraceful false narrative allowed to be published by THR editors without any fact, record or source checking whatsoever.

74. Defendant Sullivan's written assertions of plaintiff Hudson's involvement with two properties that had fues and produced insurance claims is a complete and total of the defendant's herein endorsed, facilitated, condoned and allowed to "fraud which all be published and widely disseminated with callous disregard for the truth and for

plaintiff

Hudson's personal and business reputation which, as can be seen from the fust several paragraphs

of this tripe, defendants go out of their way to tie in and skew plaintiff

Hudson's record as a public servant all before the end of page six.

75. As example, one would never know from reading the defendants' hit piece that the "renovations" to the 286 Lake Road, Salisbury Mills property were completed in

2006 two years pript to Anthony Rhein's death in 2008. Or that said renovations only added a second floor to the structure and made no improvements or modifications to the

frst floor of the structure. Or that plaintiff Hudson,

his wife and children rented the house

from Mr. Martino commencing in 2006 while plaintiff Hudson built a house for his family in Washingtonville.

76. One would never know from reading the defendants' smear that the electrical

wiring that failed, causing a fue that took the life of Anthony Rhein, was located on the

first floor of the property and was not a part of the renovations that were limited to addition of a second floor to the 286 Lake Road, Salisbury Mills property.

an

77. One would never know from reading the defendants' false narrative that the fire claiming Rhein's life could have claimed the life of plaintiff Hudson's son who slept in the same bedroom as Rhein did if the electrical wiring had failed a year earlier when

plaintiff Hudson and his family occupied the 286 Lake Road property in Salisbury Mills.

78. Pages seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve and thirteen of defendants' alleged "Special Report" is likewise skewed, misstated and misrepresented, with all regard for the facts, records, source checking and professional mid-level or executive level editorial oversight going "right out the window".

79. At page six of this so-called "Special Report" THR reporter defendant John

Sullivan writes: "According to Rhein's friends and family, he was a light sleeper u,ho wolce up early every

day." But THR reporter defendant Sullivan fails to identifu

the

"...friends andfamily... " attributed to this statement or when allegedly made.

80. At page six continuing onto page seven THR reporter defendant John Sullivan continues and writes: "But he didn't wake up when the.fire started. An autopsy revealed the presence of

it

prescription sleep medicine in his system. Four months after Rhein died,

was Hudson who collected 5253,000 on his life insurance. "

The libelous

and

defamatory implied meaning attributed by THR reporter defendant Sullivan and approved

for publication by THR editors Levensohn and Osenenko was that Rhein was drugged

so

he would sleep through and die in a planned fire that plaintiff Hudson had something to

do with because Hudson was named as beneficiary on his friend's life insurance policy.

This meaning was communicated by the literal words of defendant Sullivan's "article" and also by implication, by what defendant Sullivan intentionally suggested and implied between the lines of arson, murder and insurance fraud, but with no proof whatsoever.

81. Such defamation is unfounded, outrageous and despicable. Again, it was the

job and professionaVethical obligation of THR reporter defendant Sullivan's editors, defendants Levensohn and Osenenko, to edit and remove such faulty content for lack

of

any factual basis other than defendant Sullivan's pure unsupported and misguided conjecture. But THR editor defendants Levensohn and Osenenko failed to do so.

82.

It was the job

and responsibility of former THR owner/operator Dow Jones

Local Media Group, Inc. to insure that it employed professionally competent and ethical

reporters, photographers, and editors

at newspaper

defendant THR,

but

said

owner/operator failed to do so.

83. It was the job and responsibility of current THR operator GateHouse Media,

Inc. to insure that it employed professionally competent and ethical

reporters,

photographerso and editors at newspaper defendant THR, but said operator failed to do so.

84. It was the job and responsibility of THR owners Newcastle Investment Corp

and Fortress Investment Group LLC

to

insure that

it

employed

a

professionally

competent and ethical newspaper operator to be in charge of operations at newspaper defendant THR" but said owners failed to do so, making all said defendants herein jointly and severally liable for plaintiff Hu{son's claims herein.

85.

Continuing on page seven THR reporter defendant John Sullivan continues

and writes: "Estate attorneys and insurance experts told the Times Herald-Record they

believe enough evidence exists

Anthony Rhein's death.

"

for a further

But THR reporter defendant Sullivan fails to identify

Estate attorneys and insurance experts... attributed.

review of the circumstances surrounding

" to whom the above quoted statements

the: are

86. THR reporter defendant Sullivan also fails to indicate when and to whom these above cited statements were made, or identify what specific evidence exists to

warrant

a:

"...further review... "

" ...circumstances...

of

Rhein's death

or to identify the specific

" defendant Sullivan is referring to.

87. Defendant Sullivan alleges these unidentified "experts": " ...point to several unusual aspects of Rhein's will and his life insurance policy.

" But defendant Sullivan

fails to specifically identiff any of the alleged "...several unusual aspects..." of Rhein's

will that Sullivan is alluding

to.

88. Defendant Sullivan also fails to identify any of the alleged " ...several unusual

aspects..."

of

Rhein's

life insurance policy that Sullivan is alluding to. With the

exception of allegedly quoting unidentified attorneys and experts that allegedly stated: "

...is the designation of Hudson, who was not related to Rhein and had a loosely defined

business relationship with him, as the primary bene.ficiary

of Rhein's life insurance

to

characterize the business

policy." But

defendant Sullivan offers no evidence

relationship between plaintiff Hudson and Rhein as "loose" or as anlthing else. It is a fact

Rhein planned to work with Hudson on future real estate projects which did not materializs prior to Rhein's death.

89. It is also a fact that the owner of the 286 Lake Road, Salisbury Mills property,

Mr. Chris Martino, preferred to have his property occupied

as opposed

to sitting vacant

while not rented and unsold. It is a fact property owner Mr. Martino permitted Rhein to occupy and live at the premises on a rent free basis while keeping a constant eye on the property.

90. Defendant Sullivan chose deliberately overlook that the foregoing living arrangements were between the deceased and owner

of the 286 Lake Road. Salisbury

Mills property, Mr. Martino, and had nothing whatsoever to do with plaintiff Hudson. If the truth was acknowledged, then defendants' phony narrative underlying the two stories

complained of herein would not serve defendants' purposes of defaming and of libeling

plaintiff Hudson and would not be workable.

91. Again, the meaning of defendant Sullivan's statements communicated by the

literal words of defendant Sullivan's "article" and also by implication, by what defendant

Sullivan intentionally suggested and implied between the lines of wrongdoing or of insurance fraud (but made with no proof whatsoever), is a repetitive theme throughout

this so-called "special Report" which reports nothing other than to selve as a platform used by defendants to injure plaintiff Hudson's reputation, by again and again drawing unfounded conclusions lacking any factual source, corroboration, basis or evidence.

92. Continuing on page seven THR reporter defendant John Sullivan contiuues and

writes: "Rhein's mother claims.Hudson lied to her about the amount of

the proceeds

andwithhetdfrom her and herfamily thefull extent ol'his involvement in her,son's life insurance application and will.

" But

events did not take place in a vacuun-r. Defendant

Sullivan fails mention the fact that the authorities fully disclosed the value and amount

of

Rhein's life insurance policy to Rhein's mother and family during the investigation of Rhein's death.

93. It should further be noted that Rhein himself choose to make plaintiff Hudson

the beneficiary of his life insurance policy with discretion to distribute certain of the insurance proceeds

to certain family

members (and not

to others). It was

Rhein's

prerogative to name Hudson as his beneficiary since Rhein viewed Hudson as a part

of

his extended family who did more to look out after him than his actual family did.

94. Continuing on page seven defendant Sullivan takes great pains to

create

controversy from long ago concluded state court actions where no such controversy exists

claiming improprieties regarding the deceased Anthony Rhein's

will writing: "For

example, Hudson didn't produce the will until two years after Rhein's death. " Defendant

Sullivan goes on to falsely accuse: "That typed document (the will) is purported to be a copy of a hand written will Hudson never provided to the court.

"

Defendant Sullivan

deliberately makes this statement knowing it to be false. Only to admit on page nine that

plaintiff Hudson had filed an affidavit with the Court explaining: " ...that the typed will was q copy of an original will handwritten by Rhein, and that he (plainlrff Hudson) had

shown the original

to Van Court (Rhein's mother).

She had requested

it not be .filed,

because there was no value in Rhein's estate and because the negative contents o.f the document (written in the will by Rhgin about his family) might upset her.family. " 95. Thus. defendant Sullivan is demonstrated to have manipulated the facts in the

article complained of by accusing plaintiff Hudson of withholding the decease's

will for

two years, when in fact, plaintiff Hudson presented the original handwritten will to the decease's mother shortly after time of death, a fact acknowledged by Rhein's mother in the story complained of.

96. Rhein's mother, Van Court acknowledges reading the handwritten will in full and then asking

value

plaintiff Hudson not to file the handwritten will because (a) there was no

in the decease's estate and (b) the mother found the contents of the will

objectionable.

97. Defendant Sullivan goes on to write in the following paragraph at page nine:

"That account is corroborated by Van Court...

Hudson never withheld the decease's

"

will for two

which also corroborates plaintiff

years as defendant Sullivan falsely

alleged earlier in this same "story" at page seven.

98. Defendant Sullivan goes on to write in completing the above cited sentence that Van Court: "...recalled Hudson briefly shov,ing her a piece of notebook paper v,ith

writing that might have been her son's. ". when this is just another of defendant Sullivan's overt manipulation of the facts. Rhein's mother already admitted in this "article" to reading the handwritten will in full and with sufficient comprehension of the handwritten

will asking plaintiff Hudson that the will not be filed for the reasons Van

Court stated above. Proof again that defendant Sullivan had reason to know

the

statements he wrote were false at the time each such statement was written but Sullivan

wrote them anyway, the defendant THR editors approved the story fbr publication anyway, all said defendants demonstrating a reckless disregard for the truth.

99.

It is an admitted fact that Rhein's mother, Van Court, was provided a copy of

Rhein's handwritten will at her request of plaintiff Hudson at the time the handwritten

will was shown to her.

100. On page seven defendant Sullivan again claims improprieties regarding the

will writing: "...a handwriting

decease's determined

Rhein's."

expert hired by the Times Herald-Record

it is "virtually certain" the signature on the document (the typed will) is not However,

this "handwriting expert" admits on page ten of the story

complained of that: " ...25 (examples of a person's signature)...would be ideal

for ruling

out anomalies." Defendant Sullivan represents in the story complained of that the THR

allegedly found nine examples

of the

decease's oosignature"

for evaluation by the

"handwriting expert ". Notwithstanding, with less than half of the 25 signature examples necessary

to make a determination this "handwriling

expert

"

was willing to state his

"virtual certainty" regarding the decease's signature. Nor was there any control built in to

verify that the alleged signatures allegedly collected by the THR and used in this

so-

called "analysis" were actually the decease's signature.

101. The false claim made by defendant Sullivan in his'ostory" that the signature on the typewritten

will is not the decease's

a comparison of Rhein's handwritten

will

is made all the more ridiculous by the fact that

and the typewritten

will formalized in a legal

format nearly identically reflects the decease's wishes. This fact negates any motive or reason for the typewritten

will

signed by Rhein to have been falsified, except for the

express purpose of defendant Sullivan to stir up controversy where none exists.

102. Further, and as acknowledged by Rhein's mother in the article complained

of, there was no value to Rhein's estate and therefore, there was nothing of value to contest.

103. Further still, neither

will

changes the fact that Anthony Rhein choose

plaintiff Hudson over Rhein's own mother or other family members (for the

reasons

Rhein choose to state in his will) to be his beneficiary which designation was set forth in the insurance policy.

104. As sole beneficiary, plaintiff Hudson was under no obligation to Rhein's mother or sister to make any disclosures beyond what the deceased expressed to plaintilT Hudson as his wishes.

105. More importantly, the events

of October 3'd, 2008, Rhein's will(s)

ancl

Rhein's life insurance policy, all of which defendant Sullivan attempts to slackly premise

the "story" complained of herein dated August 25't', 2013 were

all

queried,. examined.

and investigated by local, county and state authorities. Those investigations were concluded years ago and the findings made available. just as any litigation arising frorn the same was adjudicated and concluded years ago.

106. Notwithstanding, defendant Sullivan backhandedly accuses

at

page twelve

plaintiff Hudson

of the article complained of that: "...insurance investigators looking into

Rhein's death had no reoson to suspect Kevin Hudson of manipulating the life insurance

application or playing a role in thg fire that killed Rhein.

"

These are horrendous and

atrocious allegations to make without one shred of evidence to support the same and are

the very definition

of a defamatory

and libelous statement. Again, defendants'

defamatory meaning is communicated through the literal words of the story and also by

implication, by what is intentionally suggested and implied "between the lines".

107. That the defamatory meanings as alleged in this complaint are, in fact, the

meanings communicated in the story complained of, is evidenced by the ordinary and everyday meanings, expressed and implied, of the specific words and pluases employed in the article, which is how the story was. in fact. received and understood b), readers.

108. The reaction of readers, the general public. to the "article" complained of

was so severe that plaintiff Hudson received "death threats". Plaintiff Hudson was continually verbally abused and humiliated in public wherever he went and compelled to defend himself against defendants' scurrilous but baseless allegations. Plaintiff Hudson

was scorned on social media sites, his personal, professional and public service reputation(s) was put in ruins by defendants.

109. Plaintiff Hudson's wife was accosted in public when shopping or about town. Plaintiff kids were yelled at in front of the family home by passing motorists.

110. The public reaction fromthe story complained of was and remains dangerous and potentially violent proportion that

of

such

plaintiff Hudson left his family home in

Washingtonville, New York and has publicly established and announced permanent residency in Monroe, New York to protect his family from further infliction of emotional distress and a very real risk of harm.from possible property damage or personal injury by assault.

I I 1. This

"article" was written to create the impression that defendant Sullivan

has "uncovered" sensational information but which alleged information is not supported

by any new or old facts or findings, just defendants' collective malicious and unsupported conclusions.

112. In sum, taken as a whole, the nine page spread published in the THR on

August 25'h,2073 was widely and almost without exception understood by the average reader as having communicated the libelous and defamatory meanings intended by defendants, that plaintiff Hudson engaged in the criminal conduct of arson. murder (by

drugging the deceased and burning down the house the deceased was sleeping in) and insurance fraud. This is an outrageous allegation by any standard and is totally false.

113. In fact, after a fair reading of the story complained of as attached hereto in its

entirety, it is hard to come away with any other impression of what the defendants are attempting to communicate other than the above libelous and defamatory meanings.

1

14. The meanings alleged herein were not and could not have been accidental,

unintended, or mere happenstance. THR reporter Sullivan. THR editors Levensohn and Osenenko utilized the specific formatting and structuring

including the careful phrasing

of

of the story complained oi

sentences and sequencing

of

thernes,

in a

very

deliberate, intentional, concerted and calculated predetermined manner, designed exactly

for the purpose of conveying the above defamatory and libelous meaning that plaintiff Hudson is a criminal having engaged in multiple types of ghastly criminalconduct.

115. One has but to poll the 4verage reader. or take the pulse of the community" or

experience the sentiment expressed towards plaintiff Hudson

in the aftermath of

publication of the "story" complained of, to understand that the libelous and defamatory meanings complained of were exactly the meanings immediately ascribed to this story by average readers and other media outlets.

It therefore automatically follows that for

the

purposes of this lawsuit, this is how the article complained of was reasonably understood by the local community in particular and by the public in general.

6'STORY TWO": '6HUDSON. ORANGE FAMILY OVER ANOTHER FIRE" AT ODDS

Ulterior Purpose Behind Defendants' Published But False Title of "Storry Twoo' I 16. The

title of this accompanying story has its own headline at the top of

page

eleven stating in bold block letters:

FAMILY AT ODDS OVERANOTHERFIRE

HUDSONO ORANGE 117. When

in fact, there was no "other fire" involving plaintiff

Hudson

as

misleadingly suggested in the above title.

The Published False Narrative Desiened Bv Defendants to Libel and Defame Plaintiff in "Storv Two"

118. As defendant Sullivan wrote commences series

in story one complained of, story two

with Sullivan making, and editors Levensohn and Osenenko approving,

a

of false written statements at the outset of "story two" complained of, to set the

tone for where defendants want to take this story, but where the facts do not lead.

119. Again, all matters misstated, implied, inferred, alluded to, hinted at, and/or mis-framed to the point of outright falsity in this second accompanying "story" published on August 25't',2013 happened on March 2"d,2004, about nine years prior the date that "story two" complained of was published.

120. Just as in "story one", the events of March znd,2004 upon which "story

two"

complained of was loosely premised, were fully investigated by municipal, county and state authorities using the forensic training and other forms of professional competency and expertise each such investigative body is possessed

ol which did not draw any of the

sensationalistic "conclusions" that defendants contrived almost nine years after the fact in

this libelous and defamatory narrative. Wherein defendants' imply plaintiff Hudson was involved in "arson" and "insurance fraud".

it is again a matter of public record that tl-re investigating

121. Conversely,

authorities issued exculpatory findings regarding all persons directly involved in this event and found the cause of the fire to be the very aged electrical wiring in the seventy-

two year old dilapidated barn from which Farmer Browne's Feeds ran its "feed business".

122 Once again, all directly and indirectly involved parties and entities that believed they were possessed of a cause of action related to the events of March 2"d, 2004,had access to counsel and had available to them the full compliment of state and/or federal, civil and/or criminal rights and remedies at law following the events of March

2"d" 2004. Any causes

of action litigated were conclusively

abandoned and all questions

adjudicated, settled or

of fact and/or of law were laid to rest. Therefore plaintiff

Hudson is not "at odds" with anyone over this matter as the defendants herein falsely assert.

Specific Libelous and Defamatorv Falsehoods Published By Defendants in Newsprint and Transmitted by Electronic Media Appearing in 6'Storry Two" 123. At the second paragraphat page eleven, defendant Sullivan falsely sets the

premise for the second story complained

of by writing: "ln March 2004,.four

years

before Anthony Rhein died in afire at a Salisbury Mills house Hudson and Martino were

renovating,

a

fire claimed the Hamptonburgh barn

Martino had acquired just months Sullivan had access

to

before.

"

housing a .feed business Hudson and

Public and Court records that defendant

and which Sullivan claimed he reviewed prior

to

writing

defendants' libelous and defamatory second story complained of herein, prove the above quoted statement is not true.

124. As public land records clearly indicated at the tirne,

plaintiff Hudson did not

own and had no ownership interest in the house Ml. Chris Martino had owned and renovated at 286 Lake Road, Salisbury Mills. Plaintiff Hudson was not involved in the

renovation of that property; said renovations were completed

in 2006 and were

not

ongoing in 2008 as defendant Sullivan misleadingly suggests when Anthony Rhein lost his life in a building fue at that property. These are all important provable facts not to be

overlooked as they demonstrate as false defendant Sullivan's above quoted written statement. The actual and known facts undermine the underlying and primary premise

of

the defendants' nine page libel and defamation of plaintiff Hudson.

125. Public land records also clearly indicated at the time that the Browne's continued to have complete ownership of the building/barn that housed tl're feed business

plaintiff Hudson and Mr. Chris Martino purchased from the Browne's. Therefore, if the building/barn housing the business burned to the ground, the Browne's would benefit and be made whole by insurance on the building while plaintiff Hudson and Martino would be left holding the bag.

126. This Court is asked to take

case entitled: Hudson and Martino 3397104. Court records

will

judicial notice of Orange County Supreme Court

v. Farmer Browne

Feeds. Inc..

et al, Index No.

o'sold" their feed reveal that at the time the Browne's

business to plaintiff Hudson and Mr. Martino, the Browne's failed to disclose that they

were contractually restricted by Purina Mills from transferring their Purina

Feed

dealership to plaintiff Hudson and Mr. Martino. Both Hudson and Martino were led by the Brownes to believe they had purchased a Purina dealership from the Brownes.

127. The Brownes' subterfuge was revealed to plaintiff Hudson directly by the Purina Mills Distribution Specialist for the Northeast Region, Bruce Stewart, in the days

arter the fre as set forth in lvlr. Stewart's affidavit dated August l2tt',2004 hereto as exhibit

"8"

(see Hudson

states in pertinent part at paragraph

& Martino v. Farmer Browne

Feeds. Inc.. et al) which

"8"; "That in early March, 2004 I

the dealership had experienced a devastating.fire.

"

attached

becante aware thal

And continues at parcgraph "9":

"That sometime thereafter Kevin Hudson called me to inquire about what was happening

to his Purina dealership and that he and Chris Martino were still interested in caruying Purina products in the future. " And continues at paragraph "10": That

I responded

by

telling Kevin Hudson that the Farmer Browne's Feeds, Inc. dealership u,as with the Browne's, and was not transferable by the Browne's to a new owner. " 128. In other words, plaintiff Hudson and Mr. Martino paid for the prestige and business traffic associated with the Purina Brand, but in reality they were swindled by the

Browne's and received little or no value for the money Hudson and Martino paid to the Browne's to purchase the so-called "Feed Business"'

129. The forgoing affidavit

of

Purina Mills Distribution Specialist for the

Northeast Region, Bruce Stewart, w.as in the Court file that defendants alleged to have examined

in

support

of the two stories complained of. But defendants ignored

evidence exculpatory

of

clear

defendants' written allegations against plaintiff. Instead

defendants chose to publicly defame and libel plaintiff Hudson.

130. In the false narrative that is "story two" complained of, defendant Sullivan fictitiously writes: "That summer, the Browne's both nearing 80 years old, were thinking about retiring. Their son, Tom Browne...had no interest in taking over, and the Brownes

did not want to hand the keys over

to

just onyone. " However, if defendants had done their

homework, they would have known the above statement was untrue and that the Brownes had tried before to unload their "feed business" (see United States Bankruptcy Couft, Southern District, New York In re: Scott and Kelly Wesniewski Case No. 96-31983, Chapter 7, Poughkeepsie, New York, 96-ADV-7124 Robert and Madelyn Brown v. Scott

and Kelly Wesniewski). The Wesniewski's attempted to purchase the Browne's "feed business" The subject matter of the cited adversarial proceeding speaks for itself.

131.

At page eleven, ftrst column, fifth

paragraph

of "story two", under the

fallaciously titled theme: "Old Acquaintance Renewed" defendant Sullivan goes on to falsely write: "They (Robert and Madelyn Browne) mentioned their dilentma.from tinte to time to customers, but didn't advertise the business's availability to the public. " But in

reality, the Browne's failure to "advertise" or openly disclose the availability of their "feed business" for sale was to conceal the same from the Purina and other distributors

of

the feeds and other products carried by Farmer Browne's Feeds.

I32. It is a fact confirmed in affidavit provided by the above referenced Purina

Mills Distribution Specialist for the Northeast Region. Bruce Stewarl, that Purina oorumor" Farmer Browne's Feeds repeatedly queried Bob and Madelyn Browne on the

was for sale, or had already been sold. And that the Browne's denied to Purina their business was for sale even after selhng the business to plaintiff Hudson and

identiffing Hudson and Martino to Purina as newly hired help.

Mr. Marlino.

133.

With further reference to the affidavit of Purina Mills Distribution Specialist

for the Northeast Region, Bruce Stewart, attached hereto as exhibit "B", Mr. Stewart states at paragraph "5'o: "That sometime around August or September of 2003

I had heard

rumors that the Brownes had sold their business. " And continues at paragraph "6": "That around this same time I asked Maddie and Bob Browne directly u,hether they had sold or were in the process of selling their business and both denied that they vtere

selling their business.

"

And continues at paragraph '07": That

I

asked Purina Mills

financial services department to inquire with the Brov,ne's us well and later was told that when they inquired they were also told there was no sale of the Browne's business. "

134. Again, the paragraph excerpts from the forgoing affidavit of Purina Mills

Distribution Specialist for the Northeast Region, Bruce Stewaft, was in the Court file that defendants alleged

to have examined in support of the two stories complained of. But

defendants ignored clear evidence exculpatory of defendants' written allegations against

plaintiff. Instead defendants chose to publicly defame and libel plaintiff Hudson.

135.

At

page eleven, second column, second paragraph, defendant Sullivan

writes: "The contract stipulated that Hudson and Martino take out a one ntillion dollar

fire

insurance policy on the propertyr on which the Brownes had a morfgage as v,ell as

liability insurance for the business. " Flowever. defendant Sullivan and his editors left out the facts available in the Court record that: (a) Bob Browne did not attend the closing on

the business purchase, (b) only Madelyn Browne reptesented by John Burke.

Esq.

attended the closing. (c) Plaintiff Fludson and Martino were represented at the closing by

attorney Alan Joseph, Esq. (not attorney Joseph E. Ruyack, Esq.) and (d) that at the

closing Madelyn Browne waiveo the one million dql!41- fire insurance requirement in

favor of continuation of the three hundred thousand dollar fire insurance and liabilit), oolicv the Browne's had in place at the time. A fact to which there are witnesses as the closing did not take place in a vacuum.

136. The above well documented facts are a matter of Court record and prove that

everything written by Sullivan starting at page eleven, column four, first paragraph under

the falsely asserted title: "Million Dollar Mistake" is a concocted and false narrative which is not supported by the known facts.

137. To

wit: attached hereto

as

exhibit "Co'from the file of Hudson & Martino

v.

Browne. et al, is the affidavit of Alan L. Joseph, Esq., dated August 4't',2004. Mr. Joseph was the attorney that represented plaintiff Hudson and Chris Martino at closing which states atparugraph"9" of said affidavit that: "With regard to that part of the property

closing proceedings dealing with Fire Insurance and Liability Insurance. requirements

The

of the Installment Contract of Sale as set .forth in Fire Insurance al

Paragraph 12 and Liability Insurance at Paragraph 13 u,ere waived by Secretary

-

" Treasurer Madelyn C. Browne of property holding company Lincolndale Ltd.

138. The affrdavit of Alan L. Joseph, Esq. continues at paragraph "10" stating

that; " In replacement of the above irydicated waived insurance requirements Secretary

*

Treasurer Madelyn C. Browne of property holding company Lincolndale Ltd. authorized the continuation and pro-ration of seller's existingfire and liability insurance already in effect and paid to the end of its ternt. "

139. This affidavit was in the Court file that defendants alleged to have examined

in support of the two

stories complained of. But defendants ignored clear evidence

exculpatory of defendants' written allegations against plaintiff. Instead defendants chose to publicly defame and libel plaintiff Hudson.

140. When Sullivan wrote that plaintiff Hudson allegedly stated:

"l

gaess (we)

didn't have enough insurance to cover the mortgage " Any such statement if made would have been an obvious acknowledgement of the facts. As the insurance in place was knowingly continued by Madelyn Browne's at closing, the Browne's knew exactly the amount

of that policy and that Madelyn Browne, represented by counsel at the time

waived the one million dollar fre insurance policy requirement stated in the contract.

141. The defendants' nonsensical assertion as written by defendant Sullivan that:

"After asking Hudson repeatedly about the status of the insurance in the v,eeks after the

-fire, Madelyn Browne called Callicoon Co-op, which insured the business. She discovered Hudson had collected 8300,000.00 in

liabilitf insurance on the business' but

had not taken out the one million dollar -fire insurance policy required in the sales contract. " is a complete fabrication.

142. First

of all, elemental.to a real estate or business closing is proof of

insurance. The contract

to

purchase Farmer Browne's Feeds would not have closed

unless an agreement was reached with regard to the insurance requiremettt.

At the closing

Madelyn Browne waived the million dollar fire insurance policy requirement in favor of continuation of the Browne's 300k policy, a fact witnessed by all those present at closing.

143. Second, the seventy-two year old dilapidated and run down barn structure which housed Farmer Browne's Feeds could not support a one million dollar replacement value and could not have been underwritten for such an amount.

144. To wit: in an excerpt of a taped face to face conversation between plaintiff Hudson herein and the Brownes' insurance broker, Lee Titus, of "Lee Titus Associates"

on February 22"d,2005, at page "2" ofthe transcript ofthat conversation attached hereto as

exhibit "D" (see Hudson & Martino v. Brownes. et al, plaintiff Husdon and Martino's

Notice of Cross Motion filed April l5tr', 2005) plaintiff Hudson asks: "Wfth the building, the structure itself that was insuredfor $195,000? I just need to lcnow, there's no way

that building could've been insuredfor $1,000,000?" To which broker Titus responds:

"Oh my God, no. " To which plaintiff Hudson responds: "Absolutely not, right?" To which insurance broker Titus responds: "No. " 145. Third, Madelyn Browne did not call Callicoon Co-op through which the business was insured, she called her insurance Broker, Lee Titus, who placed the

Browne's insurance through Callicoon Co-op to see check

jointly

if

issued to Farmer Browne's Feeds and Robert

the $300k insurance proceeds

& Madelyn Browne

as sent by

the insurance company to plaintiff Fudson who, with Mr. Martino now owned Farmer

Browne's Feeds, could be re-issued just in the Browne's name which the insurance company refused to do, due to plaintiff Hudson and Mr. Martino's provable interest in the

"feed business".

146. Hence, there was no "Million Dollar N{istake", the Browne's knowingly closed on the sale

of their

business by continuation

of their existing 300k insurance

policy and there was no failure by plaintiff Hudson to obtain a one million dollar policy

as falsely stated in "story two" complained of. Again, defendants "cherry picked" information from the Court record to create a false narrative that is unsupportable once

all

the facts are known for the singular purpose of defaming and libeling

plaintiff Hudson

in the eyes of the general public through publication of this second false narrative in newsprint and through transmission by and through newspaper defendant THR website: "The Record Online" to the continuing detriment and harm of plaintiff Hudson.

The Falsified Photosraph Appearins in Story Two 147 Onpage eleven in the upper right hand coffrer is a photograph that takes up

roughly between one sixth but slightly less than one quarter of the page which picture is disgracefully staged, shamelessly contrived, overtly falsified and photo-shopped.

148.

It depicts Tom Browne (son) and the widowed Madelyn Browne huddling

together dejectedly with Tom Browne's arm consolingly around Madelyn Browne who is

clutching an encased American Flag appearing displaced and crestfallen in front of

a

collapsed structure or other form of architectural debris that appears to be a collapsed

farm "out building". Along the angle in the photograph of what appears to be a soffit beam

of this collapsed structure the defendant newspaper THR has, using a

process

commonly referred to as being "photo shopped", inserted and superimposed in large fbnt script:

" frAlUnen

tj\alltnt'

in a blatant and obvious attempt to replicate signage

for the old "feed Business" visually suggesting and implying a faked image of

the

widowed Madelyn Browne and her son standing outside of the burned down fbrmer Farmer Browne's Feed establishment.

149. When in fact, the debris of the feed store

fre

was cleaned up years ago,

nothing remains of the same except for a concrete slab in the ground and that this phony photo was staged and exclusively created and augmented to support defendants equally falsified nine page smear of plaintiff Hudson.

150. The defendants attempt

to legitimize this photograph credited to THR

photographer defendant: "Dominick Fiorille/Times Herald-Record"

by placing the

written caption underneath said photo: "Madelyn Brou,ne, holding aflag that belonged to her dead husband, Bob Browne, stands with their son, Tont Browne, near their barn in the Town of Hamptonburgh that was destroyed

b1t

fire in 2004. " This overtly

suggestive

photo and accompanying caption, deliberately staged and altered by defendants. is

a

disgraceful attempt to replicate an image of what the defendants want the reader to associate with going back nine years to a moment in tirne of what defendants want the readers to correlate things must have looked like on the morning of March 2nd, 2004

with

son Tom Browne standing in for the deceased Robert (Bob) Browne, complete with agricultural architectural building rvreckage and debris in the background with writing put on top of the photo and overlaid by defendants along the angle of a beam to replicate and suggest former "feed business" lignage as if the reader was looking at a photo of the burned down former Farmer Browne's Feed establishment151. The implied meaning of the photograph is clear. The is no other explanation

for this staged, phony and altered image but to visually, however untruly, support

the

false narrative contrived and published by defendants for the sole objective of destroying

plaintiff Hudson's credibility and his personal and business reputation(s).

152. In fact, defendant Sullivan concludes "story two" complained of with the absolutely unsupported written statement in contravention of the Court record that: The

Brownes lost their business because Hudson and Martino hadn't taken out .fire insurance...

"

This is a false allegation on its face which the defendants knew or had

reason to know was false when made demonstrating defendants' individual and collective

disregard for the truth or falsity

of said statement, making the defendants jointly

and

severally liable as and for plaintiff Hudson's claims for defamation and libel.

153. The soppy and mawkish closing defendant wrote with the approval of his

editors Levensohn and Osenenko as published, presents an unabashedly self-pitying Madelyn Browne stating: "That's what Kevin Hudson did, he destroyed

ers.

" When in

fact, it is the well documented attempts by Bob Browne to swindle people in business. efforts to which Madelyn Browne was a knowing part and accomplice. which destroyed the Browne's in the end, not plarntiff Hudson.

154. The defendants' use of ninety-plus year old Madelyn Browne as a prop in the

false narrative which is the second story complained of herein, with the apparent consent

of the widow Browne's own son, Tom Browne, amounts to elder abuse' 155.

It is only because plalrtiff

Hudson is a humanist who takes pity upon

Madelyn Browne due to her age and infirmities that she is not included as a defendant and held accountable for the defamatory and libelous remarks appearing in "story

two" in

contravention of the Court record which, had the defendants properly researched, would have known such statements to be false. But the defendants knowingly and deliberately

published these false statements anyvvay, again demonstrating their individual and collective reckless disregard for the truth.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Defamation and Libel Per,Se 156. Plaintiff Hudson hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs

"1" th.rough "155"

as above stated as

if fully

set forth again herein below.

157. On August 25'h,2013, defendants published or caused to be published in

newsprint, and as generated

by and tluough electronic media, defamatory written

statements about plaintiff Hudson.

158. These defamatory statements also included false assertions that plaintiff Hudson had engaged in criminal activity including arson, murder and insurance fraud.

by

defendants were untrue and

in that they falsely "reported" plaintiffs

character and actions while

159. The defamatory statements published defamatory

defendants knew, or should have known, that such statements were false.

160. Defendants published these false and defamatory statements with malice.

161. Defendants published these false and defamatory statements with knowledge

of their falsity and/or with a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of these statements.

162. These statements constitute defamation and/or llbel per se as they falsely porlray plaintiff as an arsonist, a murderer and as having committed insurance fraud.

163. These false statements constitute defamation and/or hbel per se because they

falsely impugn plaintiff s honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, competency, moral values, dependability, professional fitness and public service, by defendants falsely alleging

plaintiff engaged in the most ghastly forms criminal conduct and/or other forrns of conduct that have injured plaintiffpersonally, professionally and as a public servant.

164. These false and defamatory statements have caused and continue to cause

plaintiff to experience embarrassment, humiliation and emotional injury.

165.

All defendants named herein

are liable to plaintiff for defamation.

166. Upon information and belief, defendants have made and continued to rnake

after publication of "story one" and "story two" complained of herein, the enumerated and similarly false and defamatory statements about plaintiff to third parties.

167. As a direct result of said defamation,

plaintiff Hudson

(as

well as his family)

suffers and continues to suffer humiliation, loss of standing in the community. public disgrace and extreme emotional distress.

168. The defamatory and libelous acts committed by defendants as and against

plaintiff Hudson were deliberate, intentional, malicious, wonton, willful and oppressive motivated, in part, by local politics, defendants' political leanings, and a desire to create a sensationalistic, however false, alleged "Special Report"

to sell newspapers without

regard for the truth or for plaintiff Hudson's well being' 169. More specifically, defendants' defamatory and libelous acts were premised

upon a complete lack of concern and profound

ill will towards plaintiff Hudson andlor

reckless disregard for Hudson's rights, for '*,hich plaintiff is entitled

a

to an award of

punitive damages.

170. Plaintiff Hudson (and his family) has suffered harm as a result of defendants

overtly false and misleading statements including, but not limited to, harm to Hudson's personal, professional and political reputation, emotional distress and mental anguish as defendants statements were defamatory per se.

171. As a result of defendants

libelper se, plarntiff Hudson is entitled to monetary

and punitive damages and demands judgment in the amount of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00).

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Libel Per Se - Iniury to Personal. Professional and Public Seruice Reputation 172. Plaintiff Hudson hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs

"l" through*l7l"

as above stated as

if fully

set forth again herein below.

173. Defendants'defamatory and libelous statements concerning plaintiff Hudson were false.

174. Defendants' defamatory and libelous statements were widely published in newsprint and through electronic media and not privileged in any manner.

175. Defendants' defamatory and libelous statements were made with

reckless

disregard for their truth or falsity and were deliberately made with malice.

176 Defendants' statements were libelous per se because they injured plaintiff Hudson's personal, professional and public service reputation(s).

177. Defendants' defamatory and libelous statements forever taints permanently damages plaintiff Hudqon in the eyes

of friends,

and

associates, the business

community, the general public and the electorate as a criminal. Plaintiff has devoted his

life to his family, developing his business interests and to becoming an effective public servant. Defendants' defamatory and libelous statements have caused permanent damage

to plaintiff Hudson's reputation(s) in the tri-state (l'Jew York, New Jersey. Pennsylvania) area and beyond as defendants' publication by electronic media have both national and

international reach. Defendants' goal has been to destroy plaintiff Hudson's viability as a

public servant and businessman. As a result of the two stories complained of herein,

plaintiff Hudson was fired from the realty company he worked for and will now

face

difficulties in obtaining other employment, entering into new business ventures,

and

continuing his goal to be an effective public servant.

178. As a result of defendants injury to plaintiff Hudson's personal. professional

and public service reputation(s), plaintiff Hudson is entitled to monetary and punitive damages and demands judgment in the amount of Five

Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00).

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Libel Per Se - Defendants' Accusations of Plaintiff

s

Criminal Conduct

179. Plaintiff Hudson hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs

"l"

through

"l78"

as above stated as

if fully

set forth again herein below.

180. Defendants' defamatory and libelous statements concerning plaintiff Hudson were false.

181. Defendants' defamatory and libelous statements were widely published in newsprint and through electronic media and not privileged in any manner.

I82.

Defendants' defamatory and libelous statements were made with reckless

disregard for their truth or falsity an{were deliberately made with malice.

183 Defendants' statements were libelous per se because they alleged plaintiff Hudson was engaged in honendous and ghastly acts of criminal conduct.

184. Defendants accused plaintiff Hudson insurance fraud

of

engaging

in arson, murder

and

for financial profit. Defendants' defamatory and libelous statements

forever taint and permanently damage plaintiff Hudson in the eyes of friends, associates, the business community, the general public and the electorate as a criminal.

185. As a result of defendants unfounded and baseless accusations of plaintiff Hudson's engagement in multiple criminal acts, plaintiff Hudson is entitled to monetary and punitive damages and demands judgment in the amount

of Five Million Dollars

($5,000,000.00).

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Libel Bv Implication 186. Plaintiff Hudson hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs

"l" through "l85"

as above stated as

if fully

set forth again herein below.

187. Defendants' defamatory and libelous statements concerned plaintiff Hudson and alleged the existence of other "facts" which are defamatory.

188.

Defendants' defamatory and libelous statements concerning plaintiff

Hudson were false.

189. Defendants' defamatory and libelous statements were widely published in newsprint and through electronic media and not privileged in any manner.

190. Defendants' defamatory and libelous statements were made with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity and were deliberately made with malice.

191. Defendants had no reasonable grounds for believing as true the false narrative they created and concocted between themselves. Defendants deliberately "cherry picked" events, while ignoring pertinent facts in public and Court records, all of which were available to defendants. Instead, defendants crafted their smear comprised of rumor mongering, unsupported suppositions, unproven and outright false allegations and uncorroborated conclusions several years after the events referenced took place. Premised

upon statements by named but indirectly involved individuals who, at the time the events

transpired, had all rights and remedies at law available to them but either did not avail themselves of the same or did not prevail in any litigation undertaken at the time.

192. As a result of defendants contrived and concocted implication(s), plaintiff

Hudson is entitled to monetary and punitive damages and demands judgment in the amount of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00).

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Libel

-

Reckless Disreeard and Malice

193. PlaintiffHudson hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs

"1" through"lgz"

as above stated as

if fully

set fbrth again herein below.

194. Defendants' defamatory and libelous statements concerned plaintiff Hudson and alleged the existence of other "facts" which are defamatory.

195.

Defendants' defamatory and libelous statements concerning plaintiff

Hudson were false.

196. Defendants' defamatory and libelous statements were widely published in newsprint and through electronic media and not privileged in any manner.

197. Defendants' defamatory and libelous statements were made with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity and.were deliberately rnade with malice.

198. Defendants' defamatory and libelous statements were knowingly rnade by defendants

in

contravention

of and without regard for preexisting public and Court

records which defendants claimed to have reviewed. but instead, "cherry picked" what defendants needed to fabricate their false narrative about plaintiff Hudson.

199. When compared to the preexisting public and Court records, defendants' statements are demonstrated to be abject lies about plaintiff Hudson.

200. As a result of defendants' reckless disregard and malice, plaintiff Hudson is entitled to monetary and punitive damages and demands judgment in the arnount of Five

Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00).

AS AND F'OR A

SXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 201. Plaintiff Hudson hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs

"1" through"2}}"

as above stated as

if fully set forth again herein below.

202. Defendants' conduct was outrageous and extreme and exceeds the bounds

of

decency in a civilized society.

203. Defendants' defamatory and libelous statements caused and continue to cause

plaintiff Hudson (and his family) to suffer severe emotional distress.

204. Defendants knew and were acutely aware that plaintiff Hudson (and his

family) would suffer severe emotional distress, but simply did not care about

the

extremely negative impact defendants' individual and collective defamation and libel

would have on, or the potential danger it would create for. plaintiff Hudson (and his

family) or how long the ill effects of the same would last. These were defendants' multiple purposes

of the stories pomplained of which resulted from defendants'

individual and collective attempts to destroy plaintiff Hudson's personal and professional

life and his life as a public servant. The politics of personal, professional

ar-rd

public

service destruction of plaintiff Hudson on each of these levels was the intended purpose and goal ofdefendants.

205. Defendants' specious, scurrilous and defamatory statements as published by defendants on August 25tt',2013 were known, or should have been known by defendants to be false.

206. As a result

of

defendants' intentional infliction

of

emotional distress.

plaintiff Hudson is entitled to monetary and punitive damages and demands judgrnent in the amount of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Hudson prays that this Court enter judgment in his favor as and against defendants for the following relief:

a) A

declaratory judgment that the conduct, practices and actions of

defendants individually and collectively as complained

of herein

were

libelous and defamatory and were intentionally andlor recklessly inflicted upon plaintiff by defendants;

b)

Upon plaintiffs first cause of action for defamation and Lrbel Per

Se.

plaintiff demands judgment in the amount of $5,000,000.00;

c)

Upon plaintiffs second cause of action for Libel Per Se

-

Injury to

Personal, Professiona! and Public Service Reputation. plaintiff demands

judgment in the amount of $5,000,000.00;

d) Upon plaintifls third cause of action for Libel Per Se -

Defendants'

Accusations of Plaintifls Criminal Conduct, plaintiff demands judgment in the amount of $5,000,000.00;

e)

Upon plaintiff s fourth cause of action for Libel By Implication, plaintiff demands judgment in the amount of $5,000,000.00;

0 Upon plaintiff s fifth

cause

of action for Libel

-

Reckless Disregard and

Malice, plaintiff demands judgment in the amount of $5,000,000.00;

s) Upon

plaintifls sixth cause of action for Intentional Infliction of

Emotional Distress, plaintiff demands judgment

in the amount of

$5,000,000.00; h) All of the above causes of action to be awarded with pre-judgment interest

to compensate plaintiff for all monetary and/or economic harm;

i)

An award of punitive damages;

i) An award of all costs that plaintiff has

and

will yet incur in this action as

well as plaintiffs reasonable attorney's fees to the fullest extent permitted by law;

k) Together with such other, further and different relief as this Court shall deem just and proper.

JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues of fact and damages as stated herein.

Dated: Monroe, New York

August lg'h,2014

Respectfu

lly Submitted,

VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK)

cor-rNTY oF ORANGE)

)

SS:.

KEVIN M. HUDSON, the plaintiff herein affirms the following under the penalty of perjury; I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

Dated: Monroe, New York August /? ,zOt+

KEVIN M. HUDSON, Plaintiff 'l

Sworn to before me this

commission:

-fittau,

of August, 2014

**'S:hti,$t#S'ff

t*

*'*#$l;'"1,$,,ltlisffi o5

EXHIBIT $A))

FIND LOCAL BREAKING NEWS AT RECORDONLINE.COM RECORDONLINE.COM

I SUNDAY SUNI}AY I

AUGUST

March on Washr..gton's SOth anniversary

25,2OL3

I

$2.00

pss.22-24

Iffiffi

Pho

@iE/

d th. ffioiI frmlv

E sy'lgry',ry9v9]i:L?913,.,

Ild.$ l$,rp,FFslp,

and an insurance policy

BY JOHI{

SUttlVAt{

I

Times Herald-Record

Continued from

PAGE 1

Hudson's term ended in March after two controversial years in ofiice, during which critics accused him of nepotism, improper use of authority and misuse of public.fund5; all ofwhich Hudson has denied. The Orange County District Attorney's Office has initiated an investigation

into the running of the village during his administration, and the state Comptroller's Office has begun looking into village finances at the request ofthe new village administration. Hudson has maintained

that the investigations focus on other Washingtonville officials or employees.

Back in 2008, Hudson was a builder who flipped houses f<ir a living with his business partner, Chrid Martino. Hudson and Martino allowed Rhein to live reirtfree in a house they were renovating it

I I

:

286 Lake.Road in SalisburyMills.

Just before sunrise on Oct. 3,2008, the house was engulfed in flames. Hours later, fuefighters pulled Rhein's burned body

i

R@d photo lllffiud/phob

coudBy of th6

Rh6tn famity

out ofthat house.

According to Rheint friends and family, he was a light sleeper who woke up early wery day. But he didnt wake up

s,Llti,.v,

al;rsr

zS,

bOb ;l'rirures'"'ein:D'Riibco'f

' 1i

l

l.

1l

'He didnt deserve what happened to him.' :when

one over on."

Noriega grew concerneo

tle fire started. An au'

topsy râ&#x201A;Źvealed the Presence of prescription sleeP medrcDe ln his system.

about Rhein's new friendshiP with Hudson, she said. Rhein

told her the builder carried a concealed handgun, bragged of coinections to Police and the FBI. and claimed be had a lawyer who could sue People for him if he wanted, Noriega

Four Eontbs after Rhein died. it was Hudson wbo collect;d $253,000 on bis life in' 8Urgnoe.

New Windsor fire investigators ruled the fire accidental' the result, theY said, of faulty wiring beneath the floor of the

said.

I

ance Dolicy. Chief among them, the experts said, is tIe designation of Hudson, who was not re lated to Rhein and had a loosely

a handwriting erQert

hired

bv the Times Herald-Record d;termined it is'\rirtuallY cen

mce oolicy.

son lied to her about tlre amount

found in Rhein's bodY, Hudson

Rh;in's'mother claims Hud-

'

md

tain" the signature on the document is not Rbein's' Hudson Pmvided the Record with only a brief interview recardinq some of tbe matters ielated-to Rhein's deatb. Asked

tlefined business relationship with him, as tbe Primary benefici,ary of Rbein's life insur-

about the sleeping medicine

guzde abotof the Proceeds 8nd withheld saitt he saw Rhein gofrom lier and ber family tbe tle of cold medicine Priol to he before night tbe bed to full extent of his involvement ing in her sou's life lnsurance aP- died.

Asked sbout tbe cause of nlication srd will. on tle The exDerts also Point to tbe fire, Hudson mused wiring Dmr what tbeY see as Peculiarities 'tre choice of electrical had inclaimed a neighbor in Hudson's handling of AnThe neighthonv Rhein's will, as well as stalled in the home.of dmied doits content. For emPle, Hud- bor Hudson spoke the tbe will until ing any electrical work on son didn't Pmduce

two yearJafter Rhein's death' He ditl so in resPonse to a Lawsuit brought bY Rhein's mother, Louise Van Court, and ber old-

est daugbter, Barbara Rhein, accusins HudEon and Martino of negliience in the house fire' iUat-tvp"d document is Pur' ported to be a coPY of a handffiitten will Hudson never Provided to the @urt' Rhein's relatives claimed in a Surrogate's Court Proceeding that the will was a forgerY,

6tate

about getting life insurance' It was Hudson who came uP with the idea, Noriega recalled

The New Windsor Police

Department, whicb conducted the initial investigatlon into the death, found no signs of foul PlaY, and has since closed the case. The department bas decliDed requests for an itrterview about the investigation.

Estate attorneys and rnsurance experts told the Times Herald-Record theY believe enough evidence exists for a further review of the circumstancea surrounding Anthonv Rhein's death. TheY Point to several unusual aspects of Rhein's will and his life insur-

modest

One daY, Rbein begm talking

bedroom where Rhein slept.

bouse.

Asked about the insurance clairn. Hudson said he gave the proceeds to Rheir's nother and sister. Tbld tbe women claimad he lied to them about

the full value of the Policy and only gave them a fraction of the proceeds, he ended the con-

versation.

The former mayor of Washinstonville declined all sub-

efforts, including re' quests sent bY certified mail,

se-ouent

to interview him about Rhein's death. as well as requests to ralk to him about another fite

in Hamptonburgh in which he wm involvedin abattle over insurance Droceeds (See related stbry, page 11.)' Several other Deople mentioned in court or insurance records in connection with one br both of the fires also decUned or did not respond to interview requests' A

fri,erd's lears

Paula Noriega had known Antbonv Rhein longer than most. tier late husband, Or-

lando Noriega, owned a Pav' bg company and often calletl Rhein for helP on a job when he needed an extra hand - 8nd just as often when he didn't' she said.

Noriega had been fond of the bearish man she affectionately celled "Tbne lbne," but she also woried about him. Rhein had a large circle of friends he'd visit throughout Orange county some of tbem, Noriega knew' took advantage of his naivete md lack of education.

"He sot sucked in easy with

neoplJwho Preyed on him," i.loriesa said. "TheY would

see

him aJa kid that they could get

Hudson said he saw Rhein guzzle a bottle of cold medicine Prior to going to bed the night before he died.

Rhein saying. The builder knew Rhein worried about his mother and sister upstate. Hudson suSgested Rhein take out a Policv and leave the money to hrm in a will, according to Noriega That wiv, Hudson could take me of hG mother md sister if Rhein died, Noriega said Rhein told her.

"But vou're not going to die?" she had'asked her friend "WeU if I do, I do, and mY mother and sister will get the money," Rhein responded.

Noriega Pleaded with Rhein to thinklt over' Then, he asked her if she would be the executor of the witl. Noriega declined "I thought if it (the life insurance) was going to his mother and sister, well, let them be on it. that's just common sense," she said.'iBut lbnY didn't think

like tltat."

Rhein told Noriega that he had no choice but to go with Hudson, Noriega recalled.

"You haven't even known that guy so long, You sure he's

going to do what he says?" she asked.

"Yeah, Paula,

I iusi seem to

trust him," he told her.

Convinced her friend had made uD his mind, Noriega

;ff. She was surPrised Several months Iater to receive a ohone call from Rhein saying

bscked

that he'd reconsidered Hudson's role in the will. The call

came on Oct. 2, 2008, the day before the fire thal killed him, Noriega said.

Rhein had just returned

from a long trip down South to helo friends move. He called to iell Noriega that he had a Continued on nextPage

U

suNDAy AUGUsr2s, 2013

.

riilEs HEMTIR€CoRD

FnTj:=ilngpage

ily. He took the women out to dinner, drove them around and paid for the cremation and funeral. Hudson told the

cold, but he'd still come over the next morning to work with Noriega's husband. Rhein then told Noriega that he planned

to remove Hudson from his

will, making his mother and sister the executors instead.

He would tell Hudson the next time he saw him, Noriega said he told her.

According to a statement

Hudson gave police, Hudson dropped by to see Rhein at the Salisbury Mills house at 10:30 that night. Hudson found an oil heater plugged into an outlet in the room where Rhein

slept and unplugged it, he

told police. The plug, Hudson said, felt hot. Hudson said he

moved the heater to the kitchen and left, according to the police report dated the dav of the fire When her friend didn,t show up for work the next momincNoriega grew anjrious. Rheii

Rlictn a rl3tor Intfrlo glp thom

!-{uds!

thom about

th.

a

tult anoutrt ol flr€ pollcy.

had never broken a promise to work with her husband. Orlando Noriega called Rhein's mother in Rome, N.Y. Vancourt told the couple that she had re. ceived a phone call from Hudson earlier that morning. Tbny was dead, she told them, killed in a fire at the home where he

did not believe the information wonld have influenced the wav he and other

amined the scene, he said.

said-

Schermerhorn referred additional questions about the investigation to the town at-

were filled with soot, and his body was bmed so badlv that family members had to find medical records to helD con-

torney Michael Blythe, who

declined to comment.

New Windsor police provided the Ti.mes Herald-Record m official mitten relbase euly this

the identiry.

year stating that the depart-

lncmrplete inf ormation

ment had reviewed additional information provided by the Rhein family but found noth-

According to New Windsor fire inspectors, the fire

was started by the failure of electrical wires that ran under the floor of the bedroom

where Rhein was sleeping.

One of the wires powered the

outlet in Rhein's room. The

two next to it provided electricity to the garage. Insulation on those two wires melted off, leaving them exposed

and sparking- It is unclear from the report what caused the wires to fail, resulting in a fire rhat burned throughthe floor of the roomNew Windsor's chief fire inspector, Ken Schermerhorn, said he had not heard of Hudson's involvenent in Rhein's lifb insurance and will at the time of his investigation. He

fire insDectors ei-

"The fire investigation was based on a thorough review of the physical evidence," he

was staying.

When r€scuers pulled Rhein,s body out of the house, his lugs

fim

c,"#ff*'fl1fl Iriiri.iirn",;hl6i,iili;

s.nrtra Rictn, toft, and norhor, Loob€ van courq,

mar ftacuon oi.rh.'S2so,ooo 6l"v ."

ing tbat would warrant rsDening the case.

then, Barbara Rhein had called the life insurance company and learned that Hudson had actually collected 5250,000 on Rhein's policy.

By

The Times Herald-Record then filed a Freedom of Information Law request for a coDy

of all of Rhein's closed invesli'gation records.

The department responded that police CNef Michael Biasotti - at the time on sick leave - wanted to make one final review of the files before determining the case to be closed.

Three months later, the department closed the case but

would provide no additional documents from the case fi-le. claiming that all other records in the investigation were exempt under the state,s open records law. Asked to identify

t

those exempt records, Blythe, the attorney for the town. declined.

grhf At first, Van Court trusted

A motherb

Hudson as much as her son did.

While her son was alive, Hudson regularly stuck up for him,

especially in disagreements with Martino, who, according to Vm Court, disliked the fact that Hudson allowed Rhein to stay at the Salisbury Mills

house rent-free.

"I'd call Kevin, and he'd it over," Van Court

smooth said.

Martino bas declined or failed.to respond to multiple mtewrew requests.

Convinced of Hudson's gen-

erosity toward her son, Van

Court said she didn't question her son's plan to have Hudgon take care of her and his sister if he died. The mother said she did not know enough about insurmce policies to ask about details, euch as who would be named the beneficiary.

"I just assuEed it would be me and Sandra, because Tony said he wanted us to have the money," she recalled.

Van Court's faith in Hudson grew even stronger after her

son's death. The builder invited the grieving mother and daughter to stay in Washingtonville with him and his fam-

women that if they ever needed money, all they had to do was ca.ll.

Thinking that the offer wa$ part of the plan to have Hudson take care of them in the event of her son's death, Van Court took him up on his offer. Hudson began sending checks, The women estimate they received a total of $40,000 over six to eight months to pay the mortgage, buy a used car and repair a septic tank. The money was part of the rotal of $75,000 Hud_ son told them he had collected from Mein's life insurance Dolicy, Van Court said Then, without warning, Hudson stopped sending payments to Van Court and her daughter

and stopped returning their

calls, the women said.

Van Court tracked Hudson down and asked him for an explanation- Hudson told her he had invested the remainder of the money in stocks, the mother said. Alarmed, she spoke by phone to her daughter, Barbara Rhein, who had worried about

her mother's unquestioning

trust in Hudson. By then, Btrbara Rhein had called the life insurance company and learned that Hudson had actuallv collectdd more rhan g250,0b0 on Rhein's policy.

When Vm Court bege to teU her daughter about Hudsonis reason for not giving her the rest of the $75,000, the daughter stopped her in disbelief.

"I told her right from the beginning that he was no good,,' Barbara Rhein said, recallins the shock in her mother's voici when she was told the true policy amount. "But by then, it was already done; Kevin had gotten the insurance money.',

Van Court now believes

Hudson only gave her md her daughter some money to placate them. Her other children all had doubts about Hudson from the start, she said.

"Like Tbny, I trust people too easily. Thar's my problem,,'she saidIhe life insurancs application According.to Van Court, her son did poorly in school, in part because he was bullied from a young age. By the time he reached sixth grade, he had

SUNOAY At GuST

the document, and has since passed away. Muryhy did not respond to requests for m ilterview.

his own.

In the typed will, Hudson was designated the executor

"If

you handed him a contract, if atrything, he wouldn't Inow what he was signing," the

of Rhein's estate. The will

or "insurance money" asso-

ciated with Rhein's death. It left Hudson's brotheq Albert Hudson, all of Rhein's motorcycles and vehicles, Rhein's only possessions of any sig-

According to Rhein's insur-

ance papers, that person wag Kevin Hudson.

nificant value.

dated

The document suggests a rift befween Rhein and his brothers and sisters. One of Rheitr's brothers is accused of having

March 25, 2008, Rhein lists as

his emplbyer, with income of $25,000 a year. The comPany' which chanjed owners since 2008, could not confirm Rhein's emploiment, as it discarded old employee records with the

-\iqr:

the check on his own bank account.

Underwriters for the pol-

iqy from West Coast Life in San Frecisco, a subsidiary of Protective Life and Annuity, . becarne alarmed by the thirdparty payment. The Accuquote agent in Illinois explained in an email tbat neither the pol! cy holder (Rhein) nor the beneficiary (Hudson) had a bank account, so they had asked Albert Hudson to write a check on their behslf.

"He is the only person avail-

able that Antlony knows with

"!ri'-'

'

':

wltgwrylt|rE|ffii

chrb M.r0nq.bG and IGvln Hs&on ridt! iloovallng thc houso whst Arthony Rh.ln dlcd ln . 2dra frt!. Hud.on pllth3d through Mardno'r hlrlng ln 2qtl a3 s sup.rvl.or ln Wa.hlngtonvllL't lr.p.rtmcnt ot ttrbllc Wo*rL

The document describes

When underwriters determined Rhein's weight of 305 pounds to be a risk factor, Hudson signed as a witness to thâ&#x201A;Ź amended policy. And when it came tine to pay the initial premium of $209.30 to put the policy into effect, Hudson's brother, Albert Eudson, wrote

affair with a family friend.

That woman is assailed as "a back8tabbing (expletive)." To Rhein's sister, Barbara Rhein, the will says, "'Bloop' my (sister) Barbara - I hope the an

chmge in ownership.

Rhein's relationship with Hudson as business Partner. Hudson is listed as the primary beneficiary of the policy. His wife, Jean Hudson, is the secondary beneficiary.

The lO-year, $250,000 policy was brokered through Accutiuote, an online insurance broker based io Illinois. Policy applicants can complete thepaperwork by mail or online without ever meeting en agent ln persoD. Accuquote found an insurer, Protective Life and Annuity of Alabma, willing to underwrite the policy.

left

Hudson all "lawsuit money"

mother said. "Somebody would have had to have been behind him; somebody would've had to know what to do."

lbxi in Middletowri

9-

Van Houten declined to answer additional questions about

her son could never have taken out a life insurance policy on

Robin's

TIMES HERAT-DRECOR0

as witnesses.

fallen so far behind that even remedial courses were too much for him, so he dropped out. That's why she believes

In the application,

.

25, 2013

a cbecking accouDt ... Please advise if you can make an ex-

ceptiou to this initial Premium ...," the Accuquote agent wrote.

The underwriteii' rejected the request, noting tbat thirdparty checks are "considered to be a 'red flag' according to

the govertrment'8 .'Ahd-MoneY Laundering Guidelines,"' according to a letter West Coast

Life sent to Anthony Rhein.

"And they have also been

a

source of higher claim ocperience than found in the rest of our inforce business."

In. the following four days, Rhein opened his own checking account, filled out a bank check for tho $209.30 premium and sent it to the insurer, wbicb approved it this time.

The date of the check, May 20, 2008, marked the official stait of the policy.

son's who also acted as a wittres8. The four men sat on Van Houten's deck as Rhein wrote out a last will and testament, while also speaking at length about his strained relationship with some of his brothers and sisters, Vatr Houten said' Rhein's complaints about his relatives appaiently ended uP in the handivritten will, which Hudson kept. .1'!ro years later, as Rhein's

relaHves fought Hudson for contrbl of his estate, Hridson produced what he'claimed was a typed copy of Rhein's handwritten will. Rhein's relatives objected, claiming tbe document was a forgery.

After winDing control of

Paul van Houten, a fliend of Kovin Hudson's who signed as a witness to that will, sqid that llhein csme to his house in

Iong to produce the

will. In the

document, he explained that the typed wiu was a copy of atr original will handwritten by Rhein, and that he had shown

the original to Van Court. She bad requested it not be filed, because there was no value in Rbein's estate, and because

the negative contents of the

document might upset her family.

said. The document included controversial statements

Greenville with Hudson andJoe Murphy, another frlend of Hud-

According to court papers, on the very same day Rhein signedthst check, he also wmte

Court - Rhein's used clothes and $150 in casb to repay a personal debt Rhein owed to his older brother, Danny.

Hudson.filed an affidavit explaining why lt had taken so

Hudson then petitioned to revoke Van Court and Rhein's letters of administration. He produced the typed will signed and dated by Rhein, which Vatr Houten and Murphy had signed

turelciou!'will

electrical wiring and no smoke alarm.

be empty, according to Van

That account is corroborated by Van Court, who re-

awill.

days later.

A

with faulty

fit." left to family

members included a bank account - which turned out to

Rhein's estate through courtapproved letters of administration itr September 2010, Van

Court and Barbara Rhein filed a.wrongf,ul death lawsuit to go after the Ufe insurance money collected by Hudson. The lawsuit accused.Hudson and Martino of negligence for allowing Rhein to live in a house with faulty alectrical witing and no smoke alarm. Hudson and Martino denied those allegations.

Rhein died in the Salisbury Mills fire four months 3nd 13

The lawsuit accused Hudson and Martino of negligence for allowing Rhein to live in a house

clothes you get Other assets

called Hudson briefly showing ber a piece of notebook paper with writing that migbt have been her son's. The exchange occurred a week after her son's death, while she and her daughter were staying at Hudson's house. Van Court had never seen her son write more than his name, so she could not be certain of the document's authenticity, she about her family, so she asked Hudson to hold onto it, she said. Van Court said that was Condnued on nert Psgd

r1

l' L1

d':

-'

"

L'10, g.rNot,nrcUSr'?6'26.:i

.lflMei

HER

^{E@RD

affected Hudson financially.

FmTjrecsdlng pags

Rhein had no known business management experience. He worked for Hudson, but mostly

the last time she ever saw the handwritten document.

Handwritten, or "holo graphic" rrills, as they are known in estate planning, are typically used for emergencies, such as when a mortally wounded soldier settles his sffairs while be ing treated on the battlefield, said Steve Hartnett, associate

at oddjobs he'd do in

Because Rhein died within the life-insurance policy's two-year contestabiuty Period,

Protective Life and Annuity automatically looked into his

director of education for the trade group American Acad-

death,

The company hired Nation-

emy of Estate Planning Attorneys. Submittlng such a will in itself is legal, but claiming that a typed will is a copy of a holographic document is an invitation to a legal challeirge, Hartnett said.

"It doesn't take a lawyer to tell you that that's suspicious,"

wide CIaims Investigations, a subcontractor in New Mexico. The ilvestigation, which began on Oct. 21, 2008,lasted more than three months, dur-

ing which time investigators for the firm collected medical, fire and police investigation

records by miiil and conducted

he said.

Hudson did not submit the handwritten will with hi8 Petition.

Ard Anthony Rhein's sig-

nature on the typed docu-

ment appears not to be genuine, according to Bob Baier, a forensic handwriting exgert in Warwick whom the

Times HeraId-Record hired to analyze the writing on both Rhein's insurance application

and the typed

will

Hudson filed in Orange County Surrogate's Court. According to Baier, a person's handwriting usually falls within a margin

of variability every time he

or she signs something. Baier compared Rhein's signature on the will with his signatures on other documents, The Times Herald-Record's wide-ranging search f or Rhein signatures located nine exam-

ples, fewer than the 25 Baier said would be ideal for ruling out anomalies. After ana' lyzing those documents, Baier determined it is "virtually

certain' that Rhein did not sicn the will.

"There were drastic dif-

ferences in the

wfi from

known writing,"

tho Baier said.

"The evidence was overwhelming in this case."

while Baier determined

that Rhein's signature on the will probably is not genuine,

he found that Rhein likelY did sign the IUe insurance aPPIi-

cation.

Van Court md Barbara Rhein went forwed with their wmngful death lawsuit against Hudson and Martino, but began

retm for

being allowed to live rent-free in the Salisbury Mills home, according to his family.

phone interuiews.

Ilow wlndtor fr?r lmpectoB and pouc. both dotorrnlnod thc houtc flra at 288 Lako Road ln S.llsbury MlllA wheri Anthony Rheln dlod; *8 an accldent An autopsy found p.Bcdptlon 3loop mcdlclnr ln hl3 systom.

"There were drastic differences in the

willfrom the known writingi Baier said of Anthony Rhein's signature on the will. "The evidence was overwhelming in this casei'

running out of money. Then Hudson and Martino filed for bankruptoy in 2011, detailing

their own financial difficulties.

Mutino's banlauptcy petition which was dated April 1, three days before Hudson, newlY industed as mayor, woul.d hire him for a village public works supervisor position - lists no wages for 2009, 2010 or edrlY 2011.

Hudson's bankruptcy Peti-

tion, filed in August 2011, lists $60,000 in credit card debt about $5,000 a month in income, most of it froE a rental ProPerty. His only wages were the nearly $1,000 per month he was paid as mayor.

After learning of Hudson and

ild

Martinol financibl difficulties, Van Court and her daughter

fieured their cbancec of recovering any Doney were slight.

Neirly broke themselveE and exhausted frcB figltting the almost two-year-long court bat. tle, the women dropped their Iawsuit, as well as their questions about the authenticity of tbe will and other matters related to the fire.

"Our lawyer said there's

nothing left we can do," Van Court said.

The two women had asked to interview both Hudson and Martino about electrical work performed on the house during a 2006 renovation of the sec-

ond floor. The building permit papers for that work included an inspection for work on 22 receptacles, eight fixtures and

nine switches. Hudson and Mar-

tino claimed in their response tothe lawsuit that the work had no connection to the Problematic wires that caused the fire that burned down the house and killed Anthony Rhein.

Umited scrutlny

Insuance and fraud experts

asked about Rhein's life insurance policy and claims invesdgatio! said that more scrutiny should have been focused on

Hudson's involvement in the policy.

By law, a non-family beneficiary of a life insuranco policY must have an "insurable interest," or financlally dependent

stake in the

life of a Policy-

holder, explAined Steven Webbart, senior vice president and

chief economist with the Insurance f nformation Institute in Manhattan. Business part-

ners are considered insurable if ttre d*th of the policyholder would somehow place the Partner at financial risk, weisbart explained.

That might explain why Hudson was listed as a business partner of Rhein's on the insume application, he said.

However, it's difficult to see how Rhein's death would have

Such "desktop" investigations are inherently shallow compared to on-the-gromd in-

terviews where investigators

sift through physical evi dence and get a feel for the people involved, said Jim Whitaker, an Ohio-based fraud examiner and former Police detective who specializes in can

insurance and arson investiga' tions.

"That's where you conduct a thorough investigation," Whitaker said. "People will tell You very little oo the phone."

In one instilce, Vm Court rs ceived a packet of bJormation from the investigation firm including a seven-page Fanscript of an interview. Written in the first person, the document aIF pears to be a verbatin record of Van Court's responsâ&#x201A;Źs tonumerous questiom about her son ftllu the investigator.

Vatr Court, howeve! never spoke to an insurance investii gator, nor does she knowwho' provided Nationwide Claims Investigations with the de!

tailed responses to the

tions about her son, she

ques'

said.:

The information seemed to be laraely accurate, so she: signed the documents 8nd put them in a prepaid env* lope that came with the transcripts.

"I just signbd it md rnailed it in, 'cause that's what it said to do," Van Court said. "I wasn't: suspicious about it, because it came from the insurance coltr: pmy-" Condnued on Page12

srjNoAylAtJGUsrr2€;aols

.

nd€sHeRALoheCdnJ. 11

Hudsonr Orange famrlyr atodds over another fire BYrot{tt sut!vAt{ Times HeEl+Rsord

The legal battle with An-

thony Rhein's relatives

wasn't Kevin Hudson's first clash with an Orange County family over in5urance proceeds related to a

fire.

InMarch2004, four ytrs before Antbony Rhein died in a fire at a Sslisbury MiUs

hous Hudson and Chris Mar. tino were renovating,

a

fire

claimed the Hamptonbugh

bam housing a.feed business Hudsdn and Martino had acquired just months before.

The owner of the barn, Bob Browne, was a Navy veteran who survived World War ll,with a leg injury. He started what would grow trto a lucrative fe€d bus! ness with just $1,250 in

birdseed. He and his wile, Madelyn Browne, agreed to seu Farmer Browne Feeds Inc. to Hudson and Mutino in December 2003.

Oldacquahtance rune*€d That sumner, the Brownes, both nearing 80 years ol4 were tlinking about Fetiring.

Theii son; Ibm Bmwne, who

.helped at the store and loew tbe buine.ss, had no inteF est in taking oveE and the Biwnes did not want to hand the keys oier to jst anyone.

They mentioned their dilemma.ftom tim€ to time to customerg; but didn't advertise tbe businessb availability to the plbllc It seemed like fate, they said, wben Kev-

in Hudson walked through

their door.

Hudson had worked at Browne'g farh when he was md as the old acquaintances got to talking, .

Hudson seemed eager to hear about ttre business. Ttre couple asked if he would be interested in acquiring it.

Hudson said he'd discuss it with his business partner, Martino, who later agreed to a trial run.

The couple taught Hudson and Martino about the business during a founmonth

a teen,

period in which the two men ran the store on a Dart-time bagis. Then, tiey struck

adealAicordiirgtotheir

.

purchaie agreemedt, dsted.

Dec;5,2003,Hudsonand

l

Martiiro would pay the cou: ple $75,000 down and $2,600 a month to run the busin$s

for five yurs. At the end of that period, the remainder '

.

of the $575,000 sale pric€ l would be due.

The contract stipulated that HudsorraDd Martino take out a $1 4illion fiie insurance policy on the prop erty, on whichtbe Brownes had a mortgage, as wsll aa liability insurance for the business..

The couple lived next to the barn md frequently ;

showed up at the business.

The Brownes said they were never tm far away to help out with the work or give advice when Hudson and lvlar-

Madolyn Erowno, holdlng a fiag that bolonged to h6? doad husband' Bob Brownq standr wlth thelr son, Tom Brownq nsa. tholr batn ln thc Tom of Hamptonbutgh thet wa! d€troyod by flro ln 2(X!l'

out a gun from under his tino neded it.

Hudson and Martino cl,aim belt to brag about his concesled{arry permit. in court paper8 that the .Well, you're not going to' Brownes' constant presence need that in here," she rehlndered tlreir management called telling hitrr, of the business, and that the Hu4rOrt andMartino couple confused customers compl'itied about the hard and veirdoN bJ tellinglthem work ,and failedto regulap' that they still owned the ly rdstock inventory, make business, and that Hudson orders and ring up sales, and lvlartino wera: merely the BmwDes iraid. Hudson, hired to help run it.

Hudson, Martlno and their' ln particularr complained of back piin when it was time attorney, Jpe Ruyackr did to do heaw lifting, the counot respond to interview re ple recalled. quests" The Brownes said they reLmking back on the eightEinded Hudson and Martino morith relationship with Hu& so! sndltra-rtino, the Brownes to place orders in preparation for the spring rush, but recalled bebavbr that rats€d questiors about their chaF the men didn't follow their ect€trmdmmihmttotbe. advicb, After hounding Hudson hard work required to nm for weeks about:the need to the business..lbey said they plant overlooked tbooe warning $3,000 worth of geranium cuttinds Robert Browne signs iD their eagemess to dragged,him into the greenselltle busineee. house to do the work. Tb Hudson hada penchmt himself, gether they planted thouabout for talking often bragging, for exanple, sands of cuttings, ach of which could seII for $3 to $4 about the people he knew in when grown. Hudson failed law enforcement and mo to water the plairts aftertorcycle gangs, the couqle ward, resulting in the loss of recalled. One day, Madelyn pulled the whole bunch, acording Browne said, Hudson

to the Brownes.

Millloirdolhr nbta*e On March 2, 2004, less

ths tbre

months after the sale agreement was reached a fire broke out, tG taling the barn and destroying tho business, The Brownes, who live next door to thc barn, reported the fire to 911.

Robert Browne recalled an odd statement Hudson made after arriving at the scene. Standirg next to Robert Browne, the smoldering

w1y-morning remainsof the bam before them, Hudson said, "I guess I didn't have edough insuatrce to

govei the mortgage," Robert Browne said.

The couple recalled wondering at the time why Hudson would mention that fact in that way, on tlle moming of the fire.

AJter asking Hudson repeatedly about the status of the insurance in the weeks after the fire, Madelyn Brome called Callicoon Coop, which insured the business. She discovered

that Hudson had couected $300,000 in liability insurmce on the business, but hadn't taken out the $1 milIion fire insurance policy required in the sale contract.

The liability insurance check was payable to the business, as well ro to the Bronneg personally, and a couri battle ensued over the prrceeds.

HudsonandMrtino sued the Brownes, seeking to dissolve the contract. Tbey cleimed the elderly couple duped them into buying the . business by misrepresenting the farm's agreement to serve as a hlrina feed distributor. Tbe Broqrnes denied that allegation, ild a lengthy legal battle fouowed.

The psrties eventually settledby sptitting the $300,000, with the Brownes collecting $200,000 and Hudson and

Martino receiving the rest.

According to a report

from m investigatorhired

by Callicoon Coop Insuance, the blaze started at an electrical outlet at the west end of the barn. Hudson told Continued on page 13

112'

sur'roAB

AUQust?t 2013

son didn't volunteer any information regarding the insurance policY or his role in Rhein's wiil, said Van Court' who had onlY a vague under- ' standing of that involvement at the time. Van Court said she knows of no one else in her family who was contacted bv Dolice during the initial inv6sligation oI her son's death'

Continued ftom Dage 10

It's not unusual for underwriters and insurance inves-

tigators to overlook or choosenot to explore some avenues ol

inquiry, according to insurance exDerts.

Balancing risks with costs, after all, is a fundamental asoect of doing business in the iif" insurao"e industrY, which bets on the health and vitality of its customers, as well as

Family members who agreed to be interviewed for this story said they were not contact-

ed bv oolice. ,qnt6onv Rhein's brother Jim Rhein said that he and his oth-

their honesfy.

with Rhein's Dolicy, the relatively small Premium likelY iustified a low level of scru-

er siblings who live in Ormge Countv learned of Hudson's involvement in their brother's life insurance Policy from Paula Noriega, who told them about it at Anthony Rhein's funeral. Jim Rhein knew of Hudson from having worked with

iinv of details such as Rhein's puipotted business-Partner

relationship with Hudson' explained weisbart of the Insurance Information Institute. "one of problems of the in.lustrv is that in these smallish policies, there's not a lot of

room in the expense component of the premium to do much other thm a fairly cursory under-

writing and investigation Pro-

tors looking into Rhein's death had no reason to suspect Kev' in Hudson of mmipulating the

cess," Weisbart said' "Bottom line is that the Policy was aPolied for and issued ProbablY ;ithout a lot of thoughtfulness, because it was for a relatively small amount on a relatively voung Derson."

' caiii to Nationwide

life insurance aPPlication or playing a role in the fire that killed Rhein.

According to those reports'

Hudson was a cooperative and concerned witness.

It was Hudson who rushed to the Salisbury Mills house at about 7 a.m. th6 morning of the fire to talk to firefighters md

ctaims

Investigations were not returned.

A spokesman for Protective Life and Annuity said the com-

pany could not talk about its clients or its subcontractors' lncomplete inf ormatlon Based on the Police md fire investigation records they re-

ceived, insurance investiga-

"We just never had oolice. according to the fire police rePorts. Hudson a good feeling about lnd told iire and Police officials

him (Hudson)i' Jim Rhein said'

that Rhein had been a friend, and that he was careless about using an oil-filled radiator left

TIMELINE: A TUMULTU0US DECADE Madelyn Browne agree to sell their business, Farmer Browne Feeds, to Kdin Hudson and Chris Martino'

Marsh 2,2OO4: A fire destroys the Brownes' barn, which housed Farmer Browne Feeds.

Apill 2006: Chris Martino buys a house at 286 Lake Road in SalisburY lvills. He and Kwin Hudson begn adding a tull ssond flmr to the house.

Eady 2008: Kevin Hudson allows Anthorry Rhein to

ffiording to insurance

live rent-free at the 286 Lake Road house.

Dsembel 2OO3: Bob and

Match 2OO8: Rhein

'

him vears -but before at a Part-time job, had never known him oersonallv until Hudson startid hanging out with his brother Anthonv.

telt unea3y about Anthony's Anthotry Rholn'r brothor Jlm Rholn 3ald hb lsmlly about ownlng 8un3 and knowlng frlondshlp wlth Kevln xuo*on, *io ie'i"iJuogglo momb6ts of motorcYcle gangl'

dffuments.

applies

May 20, 2OO8: A check for $209.30 is submitted

by Anthony Rhein, who apparently oPened a cheking account in order

'

for a $25O,OOO life

lnsuEnce PolicY with Kevin Hudson's helP. Hudson is made the Pdmary

to Day the Premium' The

beneficiary.

:

May 7' 2oO8: A check on the bank a@ount of Alben Hudson - Kryin Hudson's brother - ior first insurme Premium i3 reiected bY underuriteF' who note that thir+Party payments are consldered a "red flag' fot traud'

the

'

same day, Anthony Rhein writes a handwritten last will and testament, according to Orange County Surrogate's Court papers. ln I typed version of the will, he leaves his life insurance Proceeds to Kevin Hudson and his motorcfcles to Albert

'''li1

Bl'i'"?:',ili.,i.T",1i',.'i:Tlili,"i";:i$Tils'#"il"f tttui ntt"i" son had a penchant for. bras;"fiilil;;;.ii about,his-coni rew weeks be- ging, especiallv ril-rt.ii "Hi" candle nections to motorcycle gangs ioi"-*ttn; and about suns !: use." *-i-udson "i."less ",Yry9lJ.H acted as an inter- Rhein said (Accordlng.to-tne ormse countv Clerk's office' p"ii"" .to rl,i"ilrv'u.i*""" concealed carry iirr"ini ru.irv.

-C""'it H; not onty Hudson has a io the policl permit for hmdgms ) a good i.i,"" v* "we just never had ;d;"ilTa"k;;; o-"i""ti]"", t'" feeline about.him (Hudson)"' deteciive #;ii,;;;;;the pri' Jim Rhein said' ;'k;il;; q*iiiont in a*btnAt the time' Rhein's reratn" ;;,;;;;;;;;;b., had no way to check.thâ&#x201A;Ź er recall.ed. questions, tives ""'i-ilil!""d details of the insurmce po-licy "ome on Rhein's life' as onlv.Hud' b"t#til;;t;;Gedmosi son, the primary beneficiary iou.t ruia. iiii,"rir':-;V"n *il;ilc it" i"1i.uli*, uua of the policv' had access to th(

Hudson. To his family' hhein leaves nothing but his clothes and a small debt owed to his brother Danny.

Oc't 2, 2oO8: Anthony Rhein calls a friend, Paula Noriega in the aftemoon, to tell her that hâ&#x201A;Ź intends to

remove Kevin Hudson trom his will and life insurance policy. He tells her he will tell Hudson the next ilme he sees him. Kwin Hudson stops at tio house where Rhein is staying at 10;30 P.m., according to Hudson's statement to

investlgation is closed, and the fire is ruled an accident' Feb, 25, 2oO9: An insuranc( check for $253,439.46 is issued to Hudson.

police. Hudson tells Police he unplugged an oil-filled heater Rhein had left plugged in.

3, 2008: A fire breaks out at the Lake Road house, where Rhein is asleep. Rhein's badly burned body is later found by firefighters. An autopsy finds traces of Prescription sleep medicine.

Oq't-

Oct 21,

2OOa:

Ihe

insurance claim investigation into Rhein's death begins.

F6b. 3. 20o9i The insurance

i ' ' .

Soptmbor

2O1O:

Louise Van court and her daughter, Barllara Rhein, obtain Letters of Limited Administration for Anthony Rhein's estate and Rle a wrongful death lawsuit against Hudson and Martino, claiming they were negligent ln letting him stay in a

S0iltoAy, AbGrJsT;2R. 2013'

lrtUrunfcono

i3

the fire inspector that an incubator had been plugged in at that location, according to the insurance investigation report. Bsed partly on that information, the inspector surmised tbat a malfunction in the machine might have caused the fire, though the sondition of the bam's remains made it hard to be certain.

Jim Rhein explained. "Everything (about the will and life insurance) was stiU hearsay at the time."

Noriega said she stayedaway She be-

lieved Rhein's stories about Hudson carrying a concealed handgun and about his friendships with law enforcement and biker Bangs, she said. Hudson apparently overheard Noriega and her husband at Rhein's funeral, when they told Rhein's brothers and sisters about the

will

trrr,res

Continued fom page 11

records. And Hudson would not file the typed will for another two years.

"We didn't know what to do,"

from police out of fear.

i

Bob Brome, who was intetriewed last ye€r for this story, died in September. His widow grieves for her lo8s, as well as the loss of a life time dream. She survives on veteran's disability shecks

and insurance, Noriega

said.

"If anybody spreads any gossip about me, and I hear about it, I'm goin8 to take cae of it,'!

Noriega recailed Hudson saying at the funeral home, loud enough so she could hea! it. "It wasn't like he was saying it to me, but it was to me and my

Anthony Rh.ln could bar.ly rotd or wttr. Hla tlutlng natuto loft hlm wlneEblc to pcoplo who mlgtt acck to taka adnila8. ol hlm, mrdlng to long$mo frlend Paula Notloge. "He got suckcd ln osy wlth p.opL who pFycd on hlm," shc !ald'

husbmd."

Fire and building inspectors judged the remains of the house where Rhein died to be a safety risk. The building was condemned and torn down

shortly after the fire investigation. Martino stopped making mortgage payments on the property around August 2009, and the lender has foreclosed

it.

Rhein's body is no longer avai.lable for study. According on

to Van Court, Hudson insisted that it be cremated rather thm buried sfter the autopsy.

for her husbmd's military sewice ard her Social Se curity. It's a modest income, but nothing close to tlle comfortable retirement the

cause he wag

Ns best friend,"

Anthony Rhein's the mother said. body is no longer I goo4 imoc€nt porson' After Rhein's father, Anthony available for study. Rhein Sr., died, the son moved from one relative's home to anAccording to Van other. Though, he maintained a strong relationship witb his Court, Hudson mother and sister upstate, the bond with bis brothbrs and it insisted that sister in Orange County were sometimes strained, Noriega be cremated. recalled.

Rhein spent much of his time on tbe road, making the rounds

from one relative or friend's home or workplacE to another, Noriega said

"He (HudsoD) said that's what Tony wanted, and he

knew what Tony wanted, be-

Washlngtonvllle.

dangerous house. Hudson and Martino deny the allegation.

ADdl 1,2oat Chris Maruno ffl6s ior bffkruptcy.

,anuary 2OAn: Hudson flles a petltion to revoke the women's Letters of Administration, claiming that he has a typed coPY of the handwritten will that Rheln wrote ii 2008.

The handwritten will ls not submined with the Petitlon when it is tiled. The typed copy of the will submitted

by Hudson bears what purports to b€ Anthony Rhein's slgnature. Based

Aprll 4, 2(ylt At Kevin Hudson's u.ging, the Mllage Board agrees.to hirs Chds Martlno and Hudson's oldor brctier, Albert Hudson, to two public wotks Buperuisory posiuons. Hudson also urges the hlring ol his peMnal attomey, j@ village auorney Ruymi, Hudson says hls btother and Mardno are hlghly qualifled md will save the

on compaaigons wlti other Rhein signatures, a handwrltlng expert hired bY thc Tlmes He€ld Rsord latat determines Rhein's signature on the wlll likely is not genuine.

March 2O1l- Hudson ls elected mayor of

s

He'd often end up at her doorstep.

"Tony thought that nobody loved him, nobody cared about

him," Noriega said. "I'd

say, 'I know, but ..."'

It was his sense of loss and

ionging for his father that

Noriega believes led Rhein to trust the mm she and his family fea mmipulated him while claiming to be his friend.

"He was just a good, innocent persn," Noriega said. "He didn't deseroe what happened to him." j sulliv an@th-r e cor d. c o m

village money.

Court and Barbara Rheln as a potentlal liability.

The two women drop the lawsult soon atter.

2O1!

say,

'Tony, we love you,' and he'd

Augud 20tt Kevin Hudson tiles for bankruptcy, llsung the lawsuit from Louise Van

llovembor

couple had spent decades working toward, she said.

Kevin

Hudson personally oversees the teardown of WashingtonYille's Village Hall b€fore Federal Em€rgency Management Agency offlclals can inspect the damage and determine an amouni for

Among the things her husbmd lost at the end of his life; tbe widow continued, was a faith in people that had endured w:r, ec(} nomic hardship and yearg of back-breaking work. She blames that loss on Hudson.

The Brown$ lost their business md their barn, and because Hudson md Martino hadn't taken out fire insurance, they couldn't aJford to rebuild.

"AIl our life, we tried to Uve rigbt, do what was right," she said. "Then someone like this comes slong sd destroys You. That's what Kevin Hudson did, he destroyed us."

flood reimbursement. The agency later cites the mayor's hasty actlon as the basis tor its decision to slgnificantly reduce flood aid to the villag6.

Hudson says the building posed

I

publlc hazard.

February 2013: After a reviil of year€nd tinarces by vlllage trustees, it is found that lGvin Hudson rseived a $4,OO0 raise and spprwed more than 2OO hou6 of ov€ttime each for his broth€r, Albert Huden, and his business

: r i

i j

partner, Chris Martino.

The overtime added tens of thousands of dollars. to the two public works superMsors' salaries, which had been raised to a combined total of about $11o,OOO, an increase of more than 45 percent in less than two years. Hudson says that he, hls brother and lvlartlno deserve tjre money bffause of their hard work.

Marci19,2013:Kevin Hudson loses his bid for r*lection ln a landslide.

fecoru{online.com - The erma}or, a fire vctim and arr insurance policy

811312014

The ex-mayor, a fire victim and an insurance policy

'He didn't deserve what happened to himo ByJolm Sullivarr Tircs HeraH-Record Prfilished:2S0 AM - 08125113 higtr blood Anthony Rhein was an unlikety candidate for life insrnance. The 39-year-old was overweigfut wiftr pressure. A laborer and taxi driver, he eanred just $25,000 a year according to his insuance application, and i" Ua no dependen6. He cog6 barelyread orwrite, a fonnidable liabilitywhennavigatingthe corrylexterms ofa hft irnuance policy.

of Despite these obstacles, Rhein was approved for a $250,000 insurance polby on his hfe in the spring migtrt happen to her and 200-g. Hjs rnother, Lnuise Van Court, who lives upstate, said he worried abor.d what friend, Paula Rheirt's older sister, Sandra Rherr, if he died. According to Rheirt's nnther and his chse Noriep,

beconre mayor he had he$ in taking or.t the policy from Kevin Hudson, the buiher who would later

of Washingtorwille. him of Hrdson's term ended in March after two conffoversbl years in ofice, during which critics accused nepotis4 inproper rse of arxhonty and misuse ofpubfic fixlds, all ofwhich Hudson has denied. The orange village during his County Dbtbt Attorney's Office has initiated an investigation into the nnnring ofthe frnances at the request ofthe uoroioi.tuti.rq and tte state Corytrolefs offce bas begrrnboking into vrlhge Washiqgtonville new vilhge administration Hudson has nnintained ftat the inriestiptions bcus on other officials or erybyees.

Martino.

Back in 200g, Hudson was a buiHer who flipped houses frr a living with his business parheq Chris in ljke Road 286 Hudson and Martino allowed Rhein to live renf-free in a house tbey were renovating at

SalbburyMIls. Just before sgnrise on

Oc;

3, 2008, the bouse was engufed in flarnes. Hours later, frefiglrters pulled Rhein's

buned body orr ofthat house' But he didn't According to Rhein's frierds and frm,ity, he wds a Eht sbeper who woke up earty every day. in his system medicine wake rry ufien the fire started. An autopsy revealed the presence ofprescrftion sleep Four months after Rhein died, it was Hr:dsonwho collected $253,000 on his life instnance.

New Windsor fre investigators ruled tlre fre accidental, ttre result" they said, of ofthe bedroornwhere Rhein slePt'

afty

wirmg beneath the floor

ido tbe deatb frrnrd no signs The New Wirdsor police Departmetr, which conducted th initial inrrestigation an interview about the of fuul play, and has since closed the case. The deparffitr bas declined requests &r investigation. enougb eviCence exist for Estate attomeSa and insrmnce eryerts toH the Tfrnes HeraH-Record tbeybelbve serieralrmrsual a fifiherrevbw of*re circrnmtances srnroudingAnfhorryRhein's death- Theypoidto http:/Aumr.recordonlire.cm/appsfibcs.dll/rticle?AlD=2013ffi2tNEl,SfinS?l0SgnilSE\RCH&terplateâ&#x201A;Źtririlart

gl13:z014

f

eqtrdonline.corn - The e)cnxa)or, a fire vctim and an insuram^rrolicy

litt .'drance policy. Chief among

therU the expe. -- said, is the designation Hudsorl who was not rehted to Rhein and had a loosely defrred business relationship wittr him, as the prirnary benefttary of Rhein's life insurance policy. aspecrs of Rheinis will and hs

of

Rhein's rnother clains Hudson fied to her about the armunt ofthe proceeds and withheld fromher ard her fimily the full extent ofhis invoherrent in lrer son's life insurance application and will

The experts also point to what tlrey see as peculiaritbs in Hudsou's handling ofAnttrony Rhein's will, as well as its content. For exarryle, Hudson didnt produce tbe will until two years after Rhein's deatb" He did so in l3sponse to a lawsuit brouglt byRhein's motlrcr, Inuise VanCourt, and her oldest dauglrter, Barbara Rheq accusiqg Hrdson

ad Martino ofnegfigence

in

fu lnrse fu.

That typed doctrment is purported to be a copy

ofa handwritten will Hudson never proviled to the cotnt.

Rhein's relatives claimed in a Sr:rropte's

expert hired by the

Cout proceeding

ttrrat the

will was a forgery and a handwriting

Tinrs Herald-Record detennined it is 'VirtuBlly certain" the signattne on the docunrent

is

not Rhein's.

Hudson provided the Record with on$ a brief interyiew regarding sonre ofthe matters related to Rhein's a bottb death. Asked abor.rt the shepingncdicine found inRbiir-s body, Hudson said he saw Rhein

$*

of

cold nndicine prior to going to bed the niglt befure he died'

Asked abor.d the carse of the fre, Hudson rnsed on the poor choice ofelectrbal wiring he claired a neigfobor had installed in the horre. The neiglbor Hudson spoke of denbd domg any ehctricalwork on the house.

Asked aborf the insrnanse cbinq Hudson said he gave the proceeds to Rhein's mother and sister. Told the worren clairned he lied to them abor.t the firll vahre ofthe polby and only gave them a fractbn ofthe proceeds, he ended the conversation.

The furmer mayor ofWashiqgtonville declined all srfiseqrcnt eftfts, irrluding requests sent by certified rnal to interview him aborI Rhein's deatb as well as requests to talk to him abor$ another fre in Harrptonbur,gh in which he was involved in a battle overllsurance proceeds. Several other people nrentioned in court or insurance records in connection with one or both ofthe fres also declined or did not respond to interview requests.

A friend's fears msl Her hte husband, Orhndo Norieg4 owned a paving corpany and often called Rhein for he$ on a job when he needed an extra tland - and jrst as often

Paula Noriega bad known fuithony Rtrcin longer than

whenhe diCn'L she said.

Noriep had been fond ofthe bearbhrnan she affectbnatâ&#x201A;Źly called 'Tone Tone," bU she also worried abor'S him Rhein had a |arge circb of frbnds he'd visit thougfoor$ Orange County. Some oftherr, Noriega knew, took advantage ofhis naivete and lack ofeducatbn.

'TIe got sucked in easy with people who preyed on hir4"Noriega said. 'They would see him as a kid that htp:/fuqru-recordanline.con/appslpbcs.dlliarticle?AlD=/2013082tNEWSf;10824$ffi/0EEARCH&tefiplsteFprintart

-ecordonline.com - The ernnyor, a fire \.'icilm and an insuranc^ iolicy

81132014

they could get one over on."

Noriep grew concefired about Rhein's new friendship with Hudson, she said. Rhein told her the burlder carried a concealed handgul bragged ofconnections to police and ttre FBI, and clainpd he had a hwyer who could sue people for him ifhe wanted. Noriep said.

A modest estate One day, Rhein began talking aboru gettforg life inswance. It was Hudson who carne lry with the idea, Noriega recalled Rhein saying. The br.ulder knew Rhein wonbd aborf his npther and sister upstate. Hudson suggested Rhsin take or$ a policy and leave the mney to him in a will, according to Norb ga. Tbtway, Hudson could

take care ofhis mother and sister ifMein died,

Noriep

said Rhein told her.

'Brff you're not gomg to die?" she had asked her friend.

'Well

ifl

do, I do, and rny npther and sister will get tlre rnoney," Rhein responded.

Noriega phaded with Rhein to think it over. The4 he asked her if she would be the exectdor ofthe will Noriega declined. just 'T tbought if it (the hfe insurance) was going to his mother and sister, well, let them be on it, thafs

conxron

sense," she said. 'Th.il Tony didn't think like that.u Rhein toH Noriega that he had no choice

brt to go with Hudson, Noriep recalled.

'You haven't even known that gry so long, you suro he's golrg to do what he says?" she asked.

'Yeah, Pauh, I just seem to trust hifi1" he told her' Convinced her friend had rnade rp his mind, Norbga backed off She was suprbed several rrndrs later to receive a phone call from Rhein saying that he'd reconsidered Hrdson's roh in the wf,l The call carre on Oct' 2,2008,the daybefore tre fre that kilbd hirq Noriega saidRhein had just retunred from a lons tnp down Sorilh to he$ friends move. He called to tell Noriep tbat he had a cold, brtr he'd s6ll come over the next monring to work wittr Noriega s hsband. Rhein then told Norbga that be phrned to remove Hudson tomhis we rmking his nnther and sister Se execdors instead.

He would tellHudson fte next

tirE he sawhin\ Norbp

said he told her.

According to a statenpnJ Hudson gave polbe, Hudson dropped by to see Rhein at the Salbbr:ry Mills house at l0:30 that ni$t. Hudson fourd an oilheaterpluggBd into an oUlet in the roomwhere Rhein slept and grphrgged it, he toH police. The phg Hudson said, feft lpt Hudson said he rnoved fte beater to th kitchen and left, according to the polbe report dated the day ofthe fire.

When her ltiend didn't slrcw W for wor{< the next nrorning Noriega grew anxious. Rlpin had never broken a promise to work with her h$band. Orlando Norbga calbd Rbein s mother in Rorne, N.Y. Van Cotnt told the http:ihrrr,w.recordonlinecon/app/pbcs.dll/article?AlD=/2013ftp5/NEt/Vsn0824$gg/O/IsEqRCH&terplate=printart

3/13

r4cordorlins.co.n - The e*repr, a f,re $ctim and an insutancâ&#x201A;Ź *{icy U1.3/.20'14 colpb &at stle had received a pho- ual from Hrdson eadbr t]nt rnoming. Tony .,as dead, kilH ina fre attlrc horcwhre hewas staying.

When rescwrs puled Rhein's body ors ofthe house, his hngs were so badly that

slre told ther4

flbd wifh soot, and hb body

was

burrd

frmly rrer$ers had to fud redical records to heb confrm the ideffiry.

IncomFlete information Accordi4g to New Windsor fre inspectors, tb fre was started by the frrtrne of ebctbal wires tht ran rder the fuor oftbe bedroom ufure Rbin was sbepng Ore ofth wires powered the ottlet in Rbin s room Ttre two rext to it proviled ehctrbityto tb garap. Lsulatbn onthose two wires nrhed ofi baving them resulting in a fre that buned eryosed and sparking It b rmchar from fte report what caused the wires to

fi[

ttnoughtre foor ofthe room New Windsot's chieffre inspector, Ken Scbenrerhrn, sait k had rpt lrard ofHtdsorfs imioherent in Rheirt's life insurarrce ad will at tlrc tirre ofhb invastigatbn He dil not belbve tlre inforrmtbn wouH have inftrenced tb way h ard other fire inspectors examired the scene, h saiC. 'The fre investigatbn was based on a tborcug[ revbw ofthe p$nical evidence," he said.

Schermerfrom referred additbml questions abors declined to conment.

tk inrrcsigation

to tlre town attorrey, Mfohel Blyttre, who

New Widsor polbe provlled tlr Times Herald-Record an ofrcial written rebase early this year stating that the departrrrt hd revbwed addifronal inbrrnabn provfuted by the Rtein fimly but found rcthing that would warrant reopening

fu

case.

The Tirres HeraH-Record iwestigation records.

t}rn ftd

a Freedom

oflnfrrmatbn law reqwst frr

The departrrred responded that polbe ChbfMbhael Biasotri

-

a copy

at the tinre on sick leave

mfh

ofall ofRbirt's chsed

- wanted to rnake

bter, the departrnsnt ore finalrcvbw ofthe fibs before determiningth case to be closed. Thee closed tbe case brrwouldprovile no additionaldocrreffi fomthe case fib, chimingtbat allotherrecords in the imrcstiptbn were exerryt under tb state's open records hw. Asked to idodify those exefipt records, Blythe, the afiorreyftrthe town, declined.

A mother?s grief fu,

Van Corrt tustsd Hudson as mrch as her son diJ. Whih her son was alive, Hudson regularly shtck rp forhirq especially in disagreenrenfs wifh Martirn, u/b, according to Van CourL dishked the fict ttnt Hndsonalbwed Rheinto suy atfte SalisbuyMilh horse re,fi-free.

At

'I'd callKevin, ad he'd

wothit

ove,r,"VanCourt saiJ.

trtg/Anv,rrreoda{ire.cm/appsfibcs.dllarticle?AlD=lX}l3ffitlEws tr824$ffi6EARCH&tenpab=prirrart

4/13

gfit7f'14

Maftb

r--ordodine.com - The e*nqpr,

has declined or frilsd to

a fire riclim

sd

an inssance rr.ricy

res*-nd to rnrhiple irfervbw reqrrests.

Convirrced ofHudson's generosity toward lrcr sorl Van Court sall she didn't qr.rcstion her son's phn to have Hgdson take care ofhr and his sister ifhe died. The rnother said she did not hrow enoug! abots insurance

polries to ask abors details, such as viho woub be rumed the bernficiary.

'l jrst assrrred it woub

be

np ard Sandra, because Tony sail

he wanted

rs to harrc the rmrrcy," slre

recalled.

Van Corrt's fiifh in Hrdson grew even shonger after her sort's deadr The buiHer invifâ&#x201A;Źd the gtevitng rmther and daugfterto stayinWashirrytonvrTewithhimad hb furrty. He took tho wonrn orf to dinrnr, drove tlrm aroud ad pail for tb cremation ad finsrat Hrdson toH tbe wornen that iftky ever reeded noney, all

ftey had to do was call was part ofthe phn to have Hrdson take care ofthem in tlre errcnt ofher son's deatlr, Van Cogrt took himrry on his oftr. Hrdson began sending checks. The wonrn estinnte they received a total of$40,000 over six to eiglt mnfls to pay the rmrtgge, buy a used car and repair a se'ptic tank. TtF money was part ofth total of $?5,000 Hr.dson toH drem h had colbcted from Rhein's ftft imurance polfoy, Van Thinking that the

oftr

Court said.

Then, wifircltt waming Hrdson stopped serdingpayments to Van Court and her daughter and stopped retuming their calb, the wonpn said.

Van Corrt tzcked Hudson dowu and asked him frr an eryhnatbn Hrdson ton }ler he had invested the retrginder ofthe rnorey in stocks, tb mther sail. Abrmd, she spoke byphone to her daughter, Barbara Rheb, uifo6 had worried abort her mthet's unquestbning fust in Hudson By ther1 Barbara Rhein had called the lift insurarrce coryary and bamed that Htdson had actrralty colhcted rmre than $250,000 on Rhein's policy.

b

daugber abors Hrdson's reason When Van Corrt began to ten fte daug$er stopped hsr in disbebf

frr rct

giving her

ttr

rest ofthe $75,000,

her right fiom thg begiming that he was m good," Barbara Rhein sail, recalling tbe sbock in her polby amorrnt. 'tsU by then, it was akearly done ; Kevin had gotten rmtbe/s rrobe when she was toH the

'I tofi

trr

the insurarce rrnrey."

Van Cogrt mw belbves Hudson only gave

br

and

br

daugfrter

sonr rnolrcy to pbcate ttpm Her otrrer

childrenallhad dourbts aborsHudsonfromth start she said.

'I-fte Tony, I firstpeopb too easily. That's nryprobhrl"

she said.

The life insurance application Accordiqg to Van Corrt, ber son dil poorly in scbol, in part because hc was bulbd from a young age. By ttre tirre 59 reached sixfh grade, he had frllen so frr behind that even remedial cornses were too nnrh for him, so he dropped o1t. Thafs why she belbves her son couh never bve taken or.fr a lib innnarce policy on his htFJ ,r,vwrecordfidine.corlbpelpbcs.dl/article?AlD=t2fi30S25lNEWS80e?$Sg0nsEARCH&tenddrpirnrt

8113tN14

!--ardor*irgoc[n - The e*nryor,

a fire rictim ard an

irE$arice rdicy

owIL

,

'Ifyou harded him a conhact, if anything; he wouHn't know what he was s!3ting" the rmther said.

'Sonrbody wouH have had to have been behind hirq somebody wouH've had to kmw what to do. " Accordingto Rlrein's insurarce papers, tbat personwas Kevin Hudson In the applbatio4 dated March 25,2A08, Rhein lbts Robin's Taxi in Mildle*own as his errployer, with inconr of$25,000 a )â&#x201A;Źar. The corryany, v/hbh changed owners since 2008, couh not confiffnRhsin's

erryloy,rern, as it dbcarded oH eupbyee records wihthe change inownership.

Tb docrrrr,t descrbes Rbin's rehtixship wifh Hudson as brsirrss partrr. Hrdson b lbted benefoiary offu polfuy. Hb wi&, JeanHrdso4 b tbe secodarybeffifuiary'

as the

primaty

The lg-year, $250,000 poficy was brokered fuor4f Accr.qrrcte, an online insurance broker based in Illinois, Policy applhants can conpbte fte paperwork by rnail or onlire witlrout ever nrceting an agerrt in person Accuquote fognd an insurer, Protective Ijft ad Aflxuily ofAlabarna, willing to underwrite ttrc policy.

Wbenrnderqritâ&#x201A;Źn determired Rlpin's weigfot of305 pords to be a risk frctor, Htdson sigred as a wifiress to the anprded polby. Ard wlrn it canp tire to pay tlrc initial premilnn of $209.30 to pr* t}rc polioy i*o etrect, Hrdson's brotbr, Ahert Hrdsoq wrote the check onhb ownbank accotrtf.

Undemniten frr tbe polby fiTomWest Coast tift in San Francisco, a subsidiary ofProtective Lift and Arrruity, becarp alarrredbyfte tbird-partypayment. The Accuquote apntinlllimis explained inanenuil ftat neitber fte polby boHer (Rhin) rcr tbe beneftiary {Hrdson) had a bank accottr, so they had asked AhertHudsonto vwile a chck ontbeirbehaE 'TIe b the onty person araJable tlrat Ant}ony krmws with a checking accorrxt ... Pbase advise ifyou can rmke an exceptbn to 1fiis inithl premigrn ...,'fte AccrEuote agent wrote.

reqrrsq nodng tbat thirrd-party ckcks are 'bonsidered to be a 'red flagi according to tlrc governrenfs 'Affi-Morey laundering Guilelines,'n acconding to a btter West Coast Ufr sent to Antbony Rhin "Ard tlrcy have aho been a source ofhigfur chim experbnce than found in ttn rest of our infrrce btsiness."

The undemnifsrs rejected the

following forn days, Rhein opened hb own checkirg account, filhd ors a ba* ctBck fur the $209.30 premirm and setr it to &e insurer, uifobh approrrcd it thb tirneIn

tb

The date oftbe check, May 20,2008, nrarked

th oftial start offts polby.

Rheindbd inthe SalisbuyMilb fre fourrmntk and 13 dap later.

A 'suspicious' will Accordiqg to court papem, on tlrc rcry sarlE day Rhein siped that check, he abo wrote a will

paglVanHogfen, a fibnd ofKevinHudson's who signed as a wihess to that wilL said ttrat Rhein canrc to his t@:/rhrtrecadonlire.csr/Wps&bcs.dl/article?AlD=801$WNEiVS/:W4{EggOrSEARCHEierSe=pirtart

d13

gt/13,2014

r -qdsiinacdn

- The e*nplor, a fre ricfim

sd

an insutarce

pdiry

withHrdson atrr -r€ Muphy, anodFr fbnd ofHtdson-s wh" ,-,so act€d as a wihpss.

The forr rrpn sat on Van Hoden's deck as Rhein wrote ot$ a last will and tesbnsnt, wtrib abo speaking at length abod his stained rebtionship with soms ofhis brothers ard sbters, Van Horfren said.

fogrse in Crreflr\/ilb

Rhein's conrylaids aborr his rehtives apparently ended

W

in the handwritten

wiL whfoh Hudson kept.

Two years later, as Rkin's rebtirrcs fought Hdson ftr cordrol ofhb estat€, Hrdson prodrred what he cbimd wasi a typed copy ofRhein's lralyl-unifien unT. Rheids rehtirrcs objected" chiming fte docr"urrnt was a forgery.

After windng cor$rrol ofRhin's estate fuough court-appro\€d bfiers of adminisfatbn in Septer$er 2010, Van Court ad Barbara Rlrein fled a'mongfrl death lawsuit to go after fu life insrnarce ImIEy colbcted by Hrdson The hrvsuit accwed Hudson and Martino ofregtgence for albwing Rhein to fue in a horne with figlry electbalwiring ard no smoke ahrm Hudsonand Maxtilm denied tbose albptbns.

Hgdson tben petitbned to revoke Van Court and Rhein's letters of adminis0atbn He produced tlrc q/ped will siped and dated byRhein, whbhVanHor$enuulM,lph1rhd signed as wihsses.

Van Horgen declined to answer additioml qrrstbns abor$ the docunei*, ad has since passed away.

Muphydll notrespod

to reqrrsts

br animeniew.

vn[ Hrdson was designated fu

execr$or ofRhein's estate. The will left Hrdson all 'hwsuit rmney''or 'tnsuiance rmney'' associated with Rhein's death. It bff Hudsons brother, Alb€rt Hudsoq all of In the typed

Rhein's motorcycbs and rchichs,

Rlrids onlypossessbns ofauy significart'uahr.

doclred suggests a rift between Rhein ad his brutkrs ard sisten. Ore ofRhEin's brotkrs is accrsed ofhaving an aftir with a frmty fibnd. That wonqn b assaibd as 'b backstabbing (expbtirc)'" To Rhein's sister, Barbara Rbin, the will sa1c, "Bloop' my (sbter) Barbara - I hope tlre clothes you get ft."

The

asseb left to frnmly rreders irrctded a bank accouf - u/hbh turcd otf to be efipty, according to Van Cogrt - Rheins r1ged cbthes ad $150 in cash to repay a personal debt Rbein owed to hb oher brother,

Otbr

Darmy.

Hudson filed an affiavit epbining u/hy it bad taken so bng to produce the will In the docrreut, he explained tbat $e typed wilt was e copy of an original will handuniren by Rhein' and tbat he had shown the origiml to Van Cout She had reqr.rsted it not be fb4 becawe tbere was no vahr in Rlpin's estate, and becawe the negative corfients offte docurrnt mi$s ryset her frxnily' That accout' b corroborated by Van CorrL wh recalbd Hrdson brbffy showing trcr a pbce ofnotebook paper with lsriting ttat migh bave been ber son's. The excbangs occured a week after her sort's death, while rfr. uoA her daruhter were staying at Hrdson's lmwe. Van Court had never seen her son write more than his

narE, so she cog$ mtbe certainoftk docrreds ar&embfty, sb saiJ. Ttr documetr incbded that conhrorrersial statenrnts abor$ ber fr$flly, so sh asked Hudson to hoH onto it, stp sall. Van Court said - she ever saw the handunitren docrrent. was ths last

t'

Hand$nitren, or 'bobgraphb" wills, as tbey are knoum in estate phming are tSpicalty used for enrcrgencies, gl}ch as vfoen a rrcrtally wounded soHlr settles his affiirs whle being treated on the battlefekl" sail Steve

Haffiett, associate director ofedrrcatbn for tre tade gror4 AmericanAcadery ofEstate PbnningAtforre)E. Submitthg such a will in itsetrb bgal, brt claidng 6at a typed wrll b a copy of a bobgraphb donrrr'fi b an htpJArmrw.reada{ire.con/appsrbbcs.dl/article?AlD=2o1308aflNEl/lSrc0Sa{$g0sEAROH&tanpldespirtant

7113

&1g2014

ecordortinâ&#x201A;Ź,canr - Thâ&#x201A;Ź e)Gmalo{', a fire uctirn arxi an insuranceoolicy

irrvitation to a legal challenge, Hart'^-'i said.

'It

doesn't take a lawyer to tell you that that's sttspiciots," he said'

Hr.dson did not submit the handwrinen will with his petition

And Anthony Rhein's slgnaMe on ttle typed docurrnt appears not to be genuirr, according to Bob Baier, a forersic tnndwriting expeft in Warwick whom the Tinps HeraH-Record hired to atnlyzn the writing on both Rhein's insr:rance application and the typed wifl Hudson fled in Orange Couty Surrogate's Court. According to Baier, a person's handwriting usualty fills wifhin a rnargin ofvariability every tinn he or she srgns sonnthing.

Baier corryared Rhein's signature on the will wifh his signahres on other docurrents.

exaryhs, fewer than the 25 Baier said wouH be illeal for nrling otfr anonnlies. After analyzing those docurrents, Babr detennined it is The

Tinrs Herafi-Record's wido.ranging

search for Rhein signatr:res located nine

'Virtually certain"that Rhein did not srgn the will.

'There were drastic differences in the will from the known writing" Baier said. 'The evidence was overwhehning in this case.'

While Baier determined that Rhein's sigrr,atrne on the will probably is not gernrine, he fornrd that Rhein likely dirJ signthe life insrrance applicatbn Van Cornt and Barbara Rhein went forward with their wrongful death lawsuit against Hudson and Martino, brf began rurning out of npney. Then Hrdson and Martino fled for bankrrytcy in 201 I , detailing tlreir own fuancbldifficuhies. Martim's banknptcypetitbn- whbhwas dated April l, thee dals before hdson, newly inducted as mayor, would hire him 2009,2010 or early 201 l.

br

a village

publb works srpervisor position

-

lists no wages for

Hudson's banhuprcy petition, fibd in August 2}IL,lists $60,000 in credit card debt and aborf $5,000 a monfh in incoue, rnost of it from a rental properly. His only wages were the nearly $ I ,000 per morrth he was paid as mayor.

After leaming ofHudson and Martino's frrarpialdifuuhies, Van Court and her daughter fuined their chances ofrecovering auy rnney were slighr Near$ broke thersehes and exhausted from fighting fte ahost two' year-long court battle, the wornen dropped tlreir lawsuit, as wefi as their questions abotfi the arf]renticify ofthe will and other matters related to the fre.

"Orn lawyer said there's nofhing left we can do," Van Corrt said.

The two wonren had asked to interview both Hudson and Martino about electicalwork perbrned on the house during a 2006 renovatbn of the second floor. Tb building permit papers frr tht work inchded an inspection for work on22 recqtacles, eiglt frrtures and nine switches. Hudson and Martino chired in their response to tk hwsuit ttrat the work had no connection to the problerratic wires tbat caused the fre that

buned down the house and kilbd Anthony Rhein

htp:lArrr.r,rirr.recordgnline.con/appl@s.dlllarticle?AlD=/20130USNEV1,93@1033SftySEARCH&tenplatFprintart

8/13

W:JlaO14

-'ccordonline.corn - The e*maycr', a fire r,ictim arrd an insurance nolicy

Limited scrutiny lnsurance and fraud experts asked about Rhein's lifr insurance policy and chims investiption said that rnore scntiny should have been focrsed on Hudson's invohement in the policy.

By hw, a norrfr.mily beneficiary ofa life insurance poby rmst llal/e an "insurable interes!" or financial$ dependent stake in the lift ofa pohcytnher, explaired Steven Weisbart, senior vice presiderd and chief economist with the Irsuance Infrmration Irstihse in Mafihttan- Business parhers are coEidered insurable the death ofthe pohcyhoffier would sornehow pbce tbe parher at financbl risk, Webbart e:plained.

if

That might erylain why Hudson was listed as a business partner ofRheirt's on the insnance applicatbq he said.

However, it's diffcuh to see how Rheirt's death wouH have affected Hudson financially. Rhein had no known jobs he'd do in return for being business rnanagenrnt eryerbnce. He worked for Hudson, but nnstty at odd allowed to live rent-free in ttre Salisbury Mills honp, according to his frmity' Becarse Rhein died within the life-irsurance policy's two-year contestability perbd, Protective Lifr and Arxruily autonratica.lly looked into his death" The conpany hired Nationwide Clains Irwestigatbns, a subconkactor in New Mexico. The investig&tioq whbh began on Oct. 2l,2008,lasted rmre than three rnordhs, during which tirr investigators for tbe frrn colbcted medical, fre and police investiption records by nrail and conducted phone interviews.

Such'Hesktop" investigations are inherently shalhw conpared to ortlre-ground intervbws where an investigators can sift ttmoWh phlnical evidence and get a feel for the peoph involved, said Jim Whitaker, Ohio-based fraud examiner and formsr polbe detective who specializes in insurance and arson inrestiptiors.

'Thafs where you conduct a thoror4fi irwestigtbq" Wtrftaker sairl. '?eople will tell you verry frtth on the phone."

In one imtance, Van Cowt received a packet of inftrnration from the investigation frrn inchding a ssven-page tanscript ofan interview. Written in the frst person, the docurent appears to be a verbatimrecord ofVan Court's responses to rnrrprous questions aborf her son from the investigator' provided Natiomride Van Court, however, never spoke to an imurance investiptor, nor does she know who Chin6 Investigatbrs wifh tlp dsraihd responses to tle qr:estiors aborX her sorl she said. The ffirrntbn that canre seerred to be largely accurate, so she signed the docrments and prt them in a prepaid envelope with the transcripts,

'I j'st

signed it and rnailed it in, 'cause thaf s what it said to do," Van Court

sail.

'T wasn't srspicious about it,

because it carne fromthe insurance corryany."

erylore some It's not unusual for underwriters and insurance investigators to overlook or choose not to avenues of inquiry, according to insurance experts' indusry, Balancing rbks wift costs, after a[ is a finrdanetal aspect of doing business in the life insurance whioh bets on the heafth and vitalify of its crstorers, as well as their honesty.

9/13

hftp:/Arra,vw.recordonlire.con/apps/pbcs.dll/erticle?AlD=2013082SNE1IIS/30S24{B9OSEARCH&tanflatrprintart

'

U13/n14

.rdor{irE cqn. The

ernnpr,

a ffre riclim and an irsurance

pd*.y

Wifh Rbeins polby, the rebtive$ srrlo{premiuul liketyjusftd a bw hvel ofscnrt of detaib such as Infornration Rhein's purpo-rted buiress-parftr relatbrshb wittr Hudsoq exphined Webbart oftbe Imurarre

'

Instih$e. is tbat in ftese srnallish polbbs, there's not a bt of room in the eryense conponed oftbe premigur to do mrch otkr rhan a Aidy cusory undenwriting and investiption process," Weisbart sail. 'Bottomlire is tbat fte polbywas applied br and issrnd probablywithotf a bt of

'One

ofprobbm of fte indrstry

ttrougtrtfrrkress, because it was for a rebtively

smll armunt on a rebtively yowtg person"

Ca[s to Natbnwide Chims lnvestigptbns were not rehnned.

A spokesmn frr protective Lift ad Amity

salC ttre

coryarry codd not ta[< abors its cfieffs or its

subcontactors.

Incomplete information imo Rhein's Based on the polbe and fre investigatbn reconds they received, insnance investigators boking or playing a role in dea& had m reason to supect Kevin Hgdson ofnnanipnhting the fift insurance applicatbn the fre tbat

hlhd Rhein

Accordingto those reports, Hudsonwas a cooperative and concerned wittess'

Itwas Hrdsonwho nshed to the SalisburyMills howe at abotil 7 a.m the rnmirgofthe fre to ta[< to polbe offciab frtat Rhein firefigSers and polbe, according to tbe fre and polhe reports. Hudson toH fre and ptrypd into a socket the niglt had been a frbrd, ad that he was carebss abors rsiqg an oiFflhd radbtor bft wift 'bareless before &â&#x201A;Ź foe. Hudson also toH fre inspecton tht Rhin started a fre a ftw weeks before cardh tse."

Van Court to the Hudson acted as an inteffiEdiarybetweenpolice ad Rhein's fuifiy. He mt on$ drove qrnstions in a priwte police statbn to talk to a detective, he sat rext to her as th detective asked her intervbw rcorn, the mfterrecalled.

'I

answered sorne questions, bnt he (Iltdson) answered most ofther4" Van Court said.

the insuarrce polby or hb role in 'solunteer any infrmratbn regarding at tinr. Van Court Meinis will, sall Van Cour! wbo had only a vague rdentading ofthat inrohernert polbe during the fuitial investigtbn ofher said she knows ofno one else in her fimly v.'ho was cofracted by said tbey were mt contacted by sort's death Fandy meders wlp agreed to be iderviewed for this story

During the idervisw, Hrdson

dlln't

tk

police.

who live in orange Couly harned of who toH tbem abors it at Hudsou,s imotveretr in tbeir blotbt's liE insurame poffcy fromPaula Noriega, part-tirrre ArhonyRhins fireral JimRhinknew ofHudson fromhaviogworked withhimyears before at a job, md nevrir known him personalty rrrtil Hudson started hanging out with his brother Anthony.

Anthony Rbein's brotlrer Jin Rbein said that he

ad

his

othr sblinp

Uj

especially abotfr his According to the storbs toH to him by his brother, Hudson had a penchart fur bragging;

trfu:/Am,lw.recadcrline.cqr/dpbcs'dl/rticle?AlD=f2fi3ffiNEvvsfrXE240$sm6B\RcH&terpl#tpririlart

10/13

g132014

cordonline'corn - The

cornectbns to

mtorcyck

chrk's offce, Hudson

exnaFr'

a fire r'ictim and an

insuramr

-'licy

to the orange gangs ano about gws he owned, JimRherr said. (Acv-^ding

Courty

has a conceabd carry permit for handgus.)

(Iludson)," Jim Rhein said' 'We just never had a good feeling aborfr him insurance polby onRkin's lib, as only At the tifiF, Rboins rehtives had no wayto check fte details ofthe to the records' And Hudson wouH not file the Hudson, the prinary berrc cnry ofttre polfoy, had access typed will br anotber two Years'

,we didnt know what to do,,, hearsay at the tinn'"

tre insr:rance) was still Jim Rhein erylained. 'Everything (abort the will and

believed Rhein's storbs abors Hudson carrying a Norbgp said sk stayed away from pofre ors of fear. she and biker Fx$, she said' Hudson conceabd handgun and abor1 hb frbndships wift hw enfurcerneflt frneral, when they toH Rhein's brothers and sisters apparently overheard Noriega ard her ru"tnra at Rhein's

aborf the willand

ins

nrce,

Noriep

said'

I hear abori i! rm going to take care of it," Noriega recalhd coub lrear it. 'It wasn't hke he was saying it to rne, but Hudson saying at tlre 66Jzl horr*, loud enouglr so she it was to re and myhrnband." ,Tf

anybody spreads any gossip abors

nr,

and

house where Rhein dbd to be a safety risk' The buildng Fire and burding inspectors judged the remains ofthe investigtion Martino stoppedrnakingtmrtpge was conderred njto*downshorrryaftertbe foe bnder has forecbsed on it' payments on the property around August 2AAg, and the to van courL Hr.dson insbted that it be crernated Rhein,s body b ro bngrr availabh frr strdy. According

rather than buried after &e attopsy.

best he knew what Tony wantsd, because he was his 'TIe (Hudson) said that,S what Tony wante4 and friend," the rnother said.

tA goodo innocent Personr from one rebtive's horrr to another' Though he After Rhein's fither, Anthouy Rhein Sr., died, the son moved ard sbter tpstate, the bond with hb brothers and sister in rnaintained a sftong relationshfu with hb rmther

orangeCotffyweresometirpsstained,Noriegarecalled.

Rl'in

sped rnrch ofhis tirne on

tb

honr or workplace road, unking the rounds from one rebtive or fiiend's

to anotheq NorieP sall.

He'd often snd W at her doors0eP'

yoq' ,Tony tboqirt that nobody hved binq nobody cared abod hir1" Noriega said. '1'd say, 'Tony, we love and

k'd saY, Tknow, bl$...'u

It was his sense ofloss and bnging for his frftsr that NorbF finalyfearmanipulatedhimwhjbchimingtobehisfriend.

belbves hd Rhin to trust tlre nran she

ad

his

11t13

htp/Am/\r*recordq{ire.convapps/pbcs.dll/article?AlD=2013082tNEWs/30s240c390/sEAR""gtt'6gte=printart

.adorJire.corn - The

gn3fo,14 'T{e was j

jrst

ernqpr,

a f re rictim

ad

an insurarce

"'licy

hao.cned to a good, inrocent persorr," NorbgA said. 'TIe didn't deserve what

him"

sulliran@ttt-record' com

Timeline: A tumultuous decade Deceder 2003: Bob and MadelynBrowrF Hudson and Ckis Martino.

agree to selltheir bushress, Farrner Browne Feeds, to Kevin

Farrrer Browne Feeds' March 2, 2004: A fre destola the Brownes' barq uihichbwed He and Kevin Hudson begin April2006: Clris Martirp brys a trorse at286l^ake Road in Salbbr.ury Milb. adding a firll secod floor to the house. at the 286 Early 200g: Kevin Hudson albws Amhony Rhein to live rent-free

lake Road house'

poliory with Kevin Hrdson's March 200g: Rhein applies for a $250,000 life insurance

the

hb'

Hud$on is nade

primryberefonry'

Hudson's brother - for the frst May 7, 200g: A check on the bank account ofAlbert Hrdson - Kevin ttrat third-party paynnnts are considered a '?ed flag" insurance premium is rejected by underwriters, who note for fraud, accordingto insurance documeds'

who apparemly opened a checking May 20, 200g: A cbeck frr $209.30 is submitred by Affiny Rhein, writes a handwriften last will and acco'nt in order to pay the premirm- The sare day, Anthony Rhein In a typed versbn ofth wil, he leaves his testaffinq according to orange Counfy surrogpte's court papers.

Abert Hudson To his frrilly, Rhein leaves life ins'rance proceeds to KwinHrdson and his rmtorcycles to nottring brI hb cbtbs and a snrall debt owed to hb brotrer Damy. in tk aftemooq to tell her that he irfeds to Oct. 2,2008: Anthouy Rhein calb a frbnd, Pauh Noriegp her he wilt tell Hudson the next tinre he reunve Kevin H'dson tom his will and lifr irsurance pohcy. He tells b staying at 1030 p.rn, according to Hudson's sees him Kevin Hudson stops at the horse where Rhein

staternetrtopolice.Hudsontelbpolbehtryrugeâ&#x201A;Źdanoi!'fiIledheaterR}leinhadleftph:gggdin asbep. Rhein's badlyburned body is oct. 3, 200g:A fre breaks ors at the I ake Road buse, vfure Rhin b shep rredicine' hter foud by frefiglrters. An ar$opsy frrds taces ofprescrftbn

oct.21,2008: The insuance claim investigatbn itro Rheirr's death begins.

Feb. 3, 2009:The insuarce investigatbnb cbsed" and

th

fre

is

rubd an accident'

Hudson Feb. 25, 2009:An insrrarce check for $253,439'46 is issued to Rhen, obtain Irtten of Limited Septenrber 2010: Inuise Van Court ad ber daugHer, Barbara lawsuit apinst Hudson and Martino, Administatbn for Adhony Rheir{s estate ard flea wrongfirl death house. Hudson and Martino deny the allegation claiming they were regfiged in letting him stay in a dangerous

htF:/Amrr.records{irn cm/ap5/pbcs.dllarticle?AlD=20130S23NEri\tSEo824ffiSOSEARCH&terplsbEprinbrt

'ordorlinqcom - The exnapr'

Uf3fn14

a fire r'ictim and

ar insurance -"licy

he has a

of Administr*.on' chiming that Hudson fibs a petitbr to revoke the women's ktters with the in 200s. Ttre handwritten will is not submitted typed copy of the handwritten will that Rhein wrote '

by Hudson bears what p'rports to be Anthony petition when it b filed. The typed copy ofthe will s.bmitted the Tinres Rhein signatures, a handwriting eryert hired by signatwe. Based on corryurlsons with other January 201

l:

Rheirt's

wilhke$ b not gernrine' Herab Record bter dete11pires Rhein's sigmtrne onthe MarchZ}l|:HrdsonbelectedtmyorofWashingtonrilh.

April 1, Z}tl:Ctris Martino fibs for banlcnptcy'

Board agrees to hire Ctris Martino and Hudson's older April 4, 2Ill:At Kevin Hrdsorf s urging tlre Village *p"i..t6ory potib*' Hrdson also rrges the hiring ofhis brother, Albert Hudsog to two p6lic qualified Hudson sap his bro*pr and Martino are hig!$ personal attorrey, Joe Rrryack, as drage attorney. ard willsave th vilage Imney'

*"*t

Louise Van Corrt and Barbara Hgdson files for banlrnrytcy, lbting the lawsuf from the hwsuit soon after' n6Jio as a potential liability. The two woIIBn drop

A'gst 201 1: Kevin

vilhge Hall befrre Kevin Hgdsonpersonally oversees the teardown ofwashingtonville's for flood can inspect the danage and determirp an anro'nt Federal Erergency Managered eg"ncy lftiab for its decision to sigpificantly later cG the mayot's trasty action as the basis

November 201

1:

reimbursement.

*

"** reduce flood ail to tnJ vnage. Hudson sap

the bul6ing posed a

p'blic

M',fi'

village tr.rstees, iI is frwd tbat Kevin Hudson received February 2013:After a revbw ofyear-end finarces by and his rhan 200 bun of owrtim each for his brother, Albert Hrdsoq a $4,000 raise and approved 1p1s publb works added tens oftbusards of dolhn to the two business partrr, cnls uartino. The overtire than corsined total of about $1 10,000, an increase of nnre srpervisors, salaries, whbh had been raised to a because he, his brother and Martino deserve the rnoney 45 percent in bss than trro years. Hudson says that

oftheir hard work. in a lanrtsMe' March 19, 2013: Kevin Hudson l0ses his blt fur re-ebctbn

1313

EXHIBIT

6(B))

AIryTDAVIT STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

)

COTINTY OF MONROE

)

) ss.

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared BRUCE STEWART. who after being by me first duly authorized and sworn, deposei and says:

l.

That I am a Distribution Specialist for Furina Mills LLC's Northeast Region, calling upon dealer prospects and dealing with distribution issues.

2.

That I have been a Distribution Specialist since November, 2003 and prior toNovembe split my time between being a Distribution Specialist and a District Sales Manager.

r

2003 I

That as part of my previous duties as a District Sales Manager I regularly call upon our existing ?

Purina dealers in Northern New York.

New Jersey, Northeast Pemsylvania, and Orange County uni Sulliuun Couity,

3.

That one such Purina Dealer that I regularly called upon in my territory up until November, 2003 was Farmers Browne's Feeds,Inc. at 13 sarah wells Trail, Campbell Hall, tbqto.

Ny

4.

That I was familiar with the owners ofthe dealership as being Robert and Maddie Browne" an3 when I would call upon the dealership it was with Robert and Maddie Browne that I spoke.

5.

That sometime around August or September of 2003 I had heard rumors that the Browne,s had sold their business.

6-

That around this same time I asked Maddie and Bob Browne directly whether they had sold or were in the process of selling their business and both denied that they were jelling their business.

7.

That I asked Purina Mill's financial services department to inquire with the Browne,s as well ancl later was told that when they inquired they were also told there was no sale of the Browne,s business.

8.

9-

That in early March,2004I became aware that the dealership had experiencecl a derrastating fire.

That sometime thereafter Kevin Hudson called me to inquire about what was happening to his Purina dealership and that he and Chris Maitino were still interested in carrying purina pioducts in tle future.

10. That I responded by telling Kevin Hudson ttrat the Farmer Browne's Feeds, Inc. dealership was with the Browne's, and was not transferable by the Browne's to a new owner.

l.

I That thereafter I met with Kevin Hudson and Chris Martino and told them that they did not have a current dealership with Purina" that if they were interested they could apply to become a dealer, I treated them as I fieat other dealer prospects, I shared witli them a copy of our credit application and dealer contract-

FURTHER YOUR AFFI,ANT SAYETH NOT. Bruce Stewart

Mills LLC Distribution Specialist

Purina

ly larown to me

to or affirmed and subscribed 2004,by BRUCE STEWART" who is did take an oath.

EXHIBIT

$C))

AFFTDA\TI.OF ALAN L. JOSEPH. ESQ. STATE OF NEW

YORK

cotrNTY oF ORANGE

)

}

SS:

)

Nan L. Joseph, Esq., being duly sworn hereby deposes and

says.

I

I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of New Yoric

2.

My office is located at26l Greenwich Avenue, Goshen, New York 10924

J.

I was the attorney of record having represented Kevin M. Hudson J.

Martino,

as

and Christopher

the purchasers of the business entity know as "Farmer Browne Feeds,

Inc.," and thebuildings, lands, frxtures and irrprovements located thereon at i3 Sarah Wells Trail in the Town of Hamtonburgh, New York in Orange County 4

A Stock Purchase Agreement was executed on behalf of the above named purchasers on or about October l"2OA3.

5.

Thereafter,

I

attended the closing on the purchase

of the lands" buiidings and

improvements thereon which property is iocated at 13 Sarah Wells Trail in tlte Town

ofHamptonburgh, New York on behalf of the atrove named purchasers on or about December 5,2003.

It

is the closing on the abqve-described property on or about December 5, 2003, upon

which this affidavit is relevant.

Irr attendance at the property closing on behalf of the seller's holding "Lincolndale Ltd." was corporate officer Madelyn C. Browne, Secretary

cornparlv -f

reasurer

of Lincolndale Ltd. who executed all documents on behalf of said holding companY 8

E' tsach.

Representing the seller's holding company at the property closing was "Iohn Jr., Esq., whose offices are located at 38 Scotchtown Avenue, Goshen. hiew \lcilt

10924 and at whose office the property closing took place, 9

With regard to that part of the properly ciosing proceedings dealing with Fire Insurance and Liability Insurance. The requirements of the Installment Contract

of

Sale as set forth in Fire Insurance at paragraph 12 and Liability Insurance

at

Paragraph 13 were waived by Secretary - 'Ireasurer Madelyn C. Browne of pnopertv

holding company Lincolndale Ltd.

t0

In replacement of the above indicated waived insurance requirenients

Secretary' -

Treasurer Madelyn C. Browne of property holding company I-incolndale l-td. authorized the continuation and pro-ration

of

seller's existing

fire and liability

insurance already in effect and paid to the end of its term.

11.

Subject to these revised insurance requirement terms and conditions the Installment

Contract of Sale was executed and the property glosing was concludeci

Sworn to before me this 4th day of August, 2004.

Notary Public TONIANN VANCE

Notary Public, Stale of New York Qualified in 0range Counly ..1 ,.r 1 Commission Expires Februa ry 17, ,{,U'(l

EXHIBIT

6(D))

HLJDSON:

No' no' no'

TITUS: KEVIN HIIDSON:

(inaudible)

KEVIN LEE

I

just have a couple questions on the policy' This was the

originel policY.

LEE

TITUS:

KEVIN LEE

HUDSON:

OK.

All right'

TITUS:

KEVIN

I'll try to answer it'

HLJDSON:

professionai Oh no, you should be able to' I just need your oPinion.

All right' TITUS: was insured for 195, KEVIN HUDSSN: With the building, the structure itselithat

LEE

building $195,000? I just need to know, there's no way that could've been insured for $1,000,000?

LEE

TITUS:

Oh mY.God, no'

KEVINHUDSON:

AbsolutelYnot,right?

TITUS: KEVIN IIUDSON:

NO.

LEE

LEE

TITUS:

And You're"'

I mean, here's what happens' When you have a' you don't insure it. know how difficult it was for me to get anybody to

KEVIN LEE

HUDSON:

TITUS:

KEVIN

IIIIDSON:

They didn't want to insure it to begin with?

Yes' So

one"'