Competition - Hofstra University School of Law

; ,
...
•
The Journal of the Nassau County Bar Association
April 2004 w~w.nassaubar.org Vol. 53, No.8
HOFSTRA TEAM WINS TWENTY-FIRST ANNUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION: Winning team members (ctr., with plaques) Coach Barbara Barron,
Stanley Robert (who also received the Edward J. Hart Memorial Best Oral/st Award) and Daniel Gibbons are surrounded by Final Round Moot Court
judges I. to. r, President William M. Savino, Hon. Arthur D. Spatt, Hon. Elaine Jackson Stack, Hon. Leonard B. Austin and NAL Dean Donna-Marie Korth.
Hofstra wins Moot Court Competition
By CHARLES E. HOLSTER III
f all the worthwhile pnogz-arna and
outstanding events sponsored by
this Bar Association, the one that
lllakeS this author the most, proud is the
annual Moot Court Competdt.ion. We provide
the for-urn for area law students to test
their appellate advocacy skills in a very
realistic court roorn setting, and they, in
turn, dazzle us with their perfonnances
and r e rnrnd us why we became attorneys.
Four law schools participated in this
year's competataori, which was held on
March 23 & 24. Representing the City
U.niversity of New York Law School was
the team of Preeti Lala, Justin Haines and
Tracey Downing. St. John's Law entered
two t.earne: Charlotte Haznarngfan,
Christopher Papaleo and Teri Ann
Puliafico; and Lynne Nissen, Peggy Pan
and Jesse Rutter. The rnernbez-s of the
Hofstra Law School toarn were Andrez
Carberry, Daniel Gibbons and Stanley
Roberts. Touro Law Scool fielded two
cearns: Jeffrey Herbst and Mar-yarn Jidali;
and Quynda Henry and Ann Desai. All of
these students reflected favorably upon
their schools, not onl:y-in tez:ms of their perfor-marice
in the cornpetdtdon, but also in
regard to the very professional and dignified
rnarmer in which they comportecl
thelllSelves.
In this year's fictitious rnoot, court case,
the Petitioner before the U.S. SupreIne
Court pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 was an
artist who was asserting the First
AInendInent rights of the MuseUIn that he
contends was coerced by the City not to
approve the Exhibition ofhis works, based
solely on their content.
The ca s e was largely inspired by the
See COMPETITION, Page :18

~ -
,
,>
..
18 • April 2004 • Nassau Lawyer
COMPETITION ...
Continued From Page 1
controversy several years ago between the
Brooklyn Museum of Art and New York
City Mayor Guliani over an art exhibition
which included vulgar and offensive
depictions of religious figures, and by the
more recent controversy over an exhibition
at Nassau Community College that
aroused. controversy over desecration of
the American flag. However, the facts of
the fictitious moot court case were written
so as to present close issues about (1) governmental
power to withhold funding and
(2) state action.
As Association President Bill Savino
stated after the final round of the competition,
on March 24, our rights under the
First Amendment are being re-examined
in light of recent events and the students
participating in the competition could
very well playa role in helping our highest
court define our constitutional rights
in the future. Based upon the briefs that
were submitted and the oral arguments
that were held this past week at Demus,
it appears that these lawyers of tomorrow
are up to the task.
Applying Supreme Court precedents to
the facts of this case would not have been
easy, even for the most seasoned constitutional
lawyer. Yet these young law students
did it remarkably well. When their
briefscores were tallied, the winner ofthe
Best Brief award was determined to be
the St. John's team of Charlotte
Hamamgian, Christopher Papaleo and
Teri Ann Puliafico. The brief masterfully
presented the team's argument, skillfully
weaving legal authority together with the
facts of the present case.
The oral argument skills which the
student competitors demonstrated were
also very impressive. They maintained
their composure, even when peppered
with questions, and smoothly returned to
their arguments. All were able to deftly
discuss prior Supreme Court cases and
to distinguish one from another. Some
did not even glance at their notes. Many
of the judges remarked that the oral
argument skills of the student competitors
were as good,ifnot better, than most
practicing attorneys. Every one of these
law students will make an outstanding
advocate.
Thus, the decision as to who would
win the Edward J. Hart Memorial Best
Oralist Award was not an easy one. By
the same token, there can be no doubt
that the correct decision was made when
the award was bestowed by presenter
Dorothy Phillips upon Stanley Roberts
from Hofstra Law School. His performance
was flawless. And as Judge Arthur
Spatt pointed out, Mr. Roberts did not
bring a single piece of paper with him to
the podium. He had committed everything
to memory.
No one who read the competitors'
briefs or watched their oral arguments
can have any doubt that they had spent
countless hours in preparation. That
they did so while also carrying a full
course load at law school is all the more
impressive. The same can also be said of
the Association members who, despite
their busy professional schedules, graciously
volunteered their time to make
this event a resounding success.
The Moot Court problem was brilliantly
written by Gene Pagano, Donna
Marie Korth, Abe Krieger, Susan Slavin
and Stacey Ramis Nigro. The highly
qualified brief scorers were Stacey
Ramis Nigro, Karen Fielder, Nancy
Weiner, Jerry Podlesak and Charles
Holster. The honorable oral argument
judges for the preliminary rounds were
Cheryl Lynn Bartow, the Hon. Robert G.
Bogle,Lauren B. Bristol, the Hon. Jeffrey
Brown, David G. Gabor, Domingo R.
Gallardo, Danny E. Greenblatt, Joseph
Arthur Hanshe, Fred J. Hirsh, Charles
Holster, Mark Ialenti, the Hon. Steven
M. Jaeger, Howard S. Kass, Abraham B.
Krieger, Steven G. Leventhal, the Hon.
Randy Sue Marber, the Hon. John G.
Marks, the Hon. William J. O'Brien, the
Hon. Sondra K Pardes, Marian C. Rice,
Samuel Rieft: Claudia S. Schultz, the
Hon. Peter Skelos, Clare M. Sproule, the
Hon. Norman St. George, Andrew M.
Thaler, and Owen B.Walsh. Judging the
semi-final rounds were JoAnn Browne,
Lorraine M. Korth, the Hon. Susan T.
Kluewer, Kent Moston, Dorothy Phillips
and the Hon. Ira B. Warshawsky.
The distinguished judges for the final
round were: the Hon. Arthur D. Spatt,
Judge, USDC, EDNY; the Hon. Leonard
B. Austin, Justice, Supreme Court,
Nassau; the Hon. Elaine Jackson Stack,
Justice, Supreme Court, Nassau; William
M. Savino, Esq., Rivkin Radler LLP,
Uniondale; and Donna-Marie Korth,
Esq, Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman,
East Meadow..
The energetic Chairperson of the
Moot Court Competition was Susan
Slavin. Coordinating all the players, and
keeping it fun, was the Nassau Academy
of Law Director Barbara E. Kraut, along
with NAL Assistant Patricia Anderson.
Invaluable assistance was also provided
by Donna-Marie Korth, David Scheffel,
Chandra Ortiz and the Hon. Sondra
Pardes. Debbie Hammer and Josh
Hammer performed an essential service
by acting as timekeepers. Students from
the paralegal program at Nassau
Communty College also pitched in.
Hector Herrera digitally photographed
the event for posterity, and Andrews
Caterers provided the volunteers with an
exceptional gourmet dinner. 0