Le Roy's town supervisor, arrested a little more than a year ago on a harassment charge stemming from a dispute with a neighboring property owner, has been granted an opportunity to have the criminal charges dismissed.
Known as "adjudication in contemplation of dismissal" (commonly, ACD), the determination does not include a guilty plea, but does require Supervisor Steve Barbeau to avoid criminal contact with the police for six months.
Barbeau's case was prosecuted by Assistant District Attorney Will Zickl in Bethany Town Court.
While Barbeau was originally arrested on a charge of harassment, the criminal charge was later upgraded to include third-degree assault because of the extent of the injuries suffered by the victim, Peter McQuillen.
ACDs are common in misdemeanor cases involving defendants with a long history of avoiding trouble with the law.
As part of the plea deal, Barbeau was required to pay restitution to McQuillen in advance for medical expenses and lost wages.
The agreement was finalized last month, Zickl said.
The confrontation 13 months ago on McQuillen's property behind Barbeau's residence in the Village of Le Roy stemmed from a long-standing feud related to McQuillen trying to develop the 13-acre parcel.
Barbeau was part of a successful lawsuit that killed McQuillen's "Robbins Nest" development.
At the time of the confrontation, McQuillen was constructing a red storage shed as close to Barbeau's property line as possible.
The construction of the shed, as well as McQuillen's construction and planned construction of duplexes in the subdivision known as Presidential Acres, are the subject of a second lawsuit that is still pending.
Barbeau is not a party to the second lawsuit, though most of his neighbors are.
Previously:
Here we go again, another
Here we go again, another case of those with connections who commit a crime get off Scott free. Not only does "barbeau the Bully" get off Scott free, he gets biased blog posts and articles, like this one, that whitewash the seriousness of an elected officials "assault" on a fellow citizen.
I'm sure that "barbeau the Bully" was apoplectic to receive an ACD in lue of receiving a guilty sentence. Normal people, or "takers" as "barbeau the Bully" would refer to them, who had assaulted a fellow citizen causing them physical injury, hospitalization, out of pocket medical expenses, and an inability to work, all directly caused by that assault, would be spending time in jail, receiving large fines, would probably be sentenced to probation or some type of anger management program which they would also be paying for out of pocket, and would be reimbursing the victim for all their expenses to include lost wages and medical bills.
Previously, I should have typed brownwashing instead of whitewashing, when characterizing your blog post, because it was so full of BS. You spend more time attacking Peter McQuillen as someone who
1) "had a long standing feud" with 'barbeau the Bully'
2) 'barbeau the Bully' "was part of a successful lawsuit" against Peter McQuillen
3) was constructing a barn "as close to" 'barbeau the Bully's' "property line as possible"
4) and did I mention that there is a second lawsuit against Mr. McQuillan for his barn and other developments that may take place on his property
It seems Howard, you were hoping or trying to imply that there was enough guilt on both sides in this feud or maybe Peter deserved the assault that he received because of legally building a barn on his property.
Maybe, you should have been asking if bullying tactics are just SOP for "barbeau the Bully?"
Or maybe you should have been reporting about the extent of the victims injuries?
Or maybe you should have been reporting on wether the victim agreed with the ACD?
Or maybe you should have been reporting on the fact that judges don't usually allow for an ACD when a victim has sustained injuries during a third degree assault?
Or maybe you should have been reporting that "barbeau the Bully", by being granted an ACD, which is also known as a "Get Out of Jail Free Card", by not having to plead guilty to the crime of assault, the notorious "barbeau the Bully" is allowed to:
1) let all the lies he told and the misrepresentations he made about his assault on Peter McQuillen stand uncorrected
2) sets a terrible example for everyone in the community, especially our children
3) proves there are separate levels of justice for the "haves" or "connected" and the "have nots" other the "disenfranchised"
4) allows the prep to negatively use the services of the police and the judiciary with with no fiscal consequences
5) and let's "barbeau the Bully" escape making a public apology to his victim and the community that he so grossly failed as an elected official of the Town of LeRoy
Or maybe you should be asking why it appears to be acceptable for certain people to be able to get away with bullying behavior while it is so highly condemned in the rest of society?
In conclusion, why don't you just reread "barbeau the Bully's" non-apology apology, published in the Penny Saver, and do a critique on that piece of crap? Also try to find out if he paid for the space or if was given to him because of his position as Town Supervisor? Could he just be another "taker?"