In the criminal case surrounding the Schoharie limo crash more than a year ago, the defense argued that the limousine's operator, Nauman Hussain, be exonerated.

Court filings disclosed last week showed alleged inaccuracies with work Mavis Discout Tire performed on the limousine before it crashed.

Now, Schoharie County District Attorney Susan Mallery says claims by a former Mavis manager were taken out of context. She says the brake work in question was not a factor in the crash.

Mallery reiterated a proper New York State Department of Transportation inspection of the limo would have revealed other brake issues thought to be responsible for the crash. 

The defense had claimed Hussain was billed for work on the limo that was never done. Mallery says that’s a misrepresentation, claiming work was done but instead of being charged for a labor fee, employees would bill it under an equivalent repair to meet sales quotas. 

Mallery adds Hussain was notified multiple times the limo needed to be brought into state compliance. The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles has said it plans to investigate the claims against Mavis.

Mavis has denied any wrongdoing. 

Wednesday night, following Mallery's letter, the defense team — Joseph Tacopina, Chad Seigel, and Lee Kindlon — issued a press release in response.

"The district attorney’s letter of [Wednesday] claiming 'the defense generally makes false and inaccurate assertions about what was disclosed,' regarding Mavis, fails to recognize the defense’s assertions quoted verbatim the information provided by the district attorney itself. The district attorney now seeks to minimize such information to further its unwarranted prosecution of Nauman Hussain, by describing Mavis’s invoices as simply containing 'inaccuracies.'  

However, its earlier disclosure made clear its own investigation uncovered 'a billing practice at Mavis in which certain services were substituted on invoices for the ones actually performed, in the store to meet sales quotas established by the corporate office.' If true, that is not simply an inaccuracy. Rather, it is the apparent hallmark of fraud. That is why the district attorney revealed such information under the constitutional mandate that requires it to disclose all favorable evidence to the defense.

The district attorney’s present claim to the contrary ignores critical facts in an effort to distract from the main issue in this matter: What legally caused the limousine’s catastrophic brake failure to occur. To be sure, despite the district attorney’s contention, the catastrophic brake failure did not directly result from an out-of-service sticker — which had nothing to do with the vehicle’s brake system.  

Instead, it directly resulted from a failure of the brakes themselves which — according to the district attorney’s prior letter — Mavis falsely claimed on an invoice to have serviced.  For the district attorney to now say 'the lack of a system brake flush' did not cause the failure of the brakes turns a blind eye to reality. That is why, apart from making such a misguided conclusory statement, the district attorney’s letter offers no support for it. Of course Mavis’s failure to service the brakes properly would cause the brakes to not function properly. 

Rather than falsely accusing an innocent man, the community would be better served if the district attorney focused its intention on Mavis’s alleged fraudulent billing practices — which is apparently the true direct cause of this tragic accident. The district attorney, according to its letter, seeks to take credit for doing so by touting its willingness to 'cooperate with any entity with authority to investigate these allegations,' and the fact the DMV is already investigating such practices.  

Yet, that misleading self-adulation obviously ignores the DMV’s prior statement that it 'first learned of these shop allegations in media reports' — not from the district attorney —and that it had 'not previously taken administrative action against Mavis at the request of the District Attorney.'  

Instead of making empty statements concerning it not condoning alleged fraudulent billing practices, we would have hoped the district attorney would have acted upon the information it uncovered to pursue charges against those actually responsible for the limousine’s catastrophic break failure — and not Mr. Hussain."

A Mavis spokesperson also sent a statement Wednesday night.

“Many of the statements attributed to Mr. Virgil Park, a former Mavis employee, in the October 7 letter, as well as those made by Mr. Nauman Hussain’s criminal defense attorneys in the October 8 letter, are inaccurate or misleading. 

Mavis is committed to providing high quality, safe, affordable services to our customers. Our service and billing policies are honest, fair and sound and we vehemently disagree with any allegations to the contrary.  Mr. Hussain and his criminal defense lawyers are attempting to falsely attack Mavis in a desperate diversion tactic to shift responsibility away from Mr. Hussain, where it solely belongs.

The vehicle in question traveled more than a thousand miles over several months since it was serviced at Mavis. During that time, Mr. Hussain, according to the District Attorney’s Office and the New York State Police, committed serious crimes by, among other things, defying an order to take the vehicle out of service.

Our thoughts and condolences remain with the victims of this tragic accident. Mavis did not cause the accident, however, and bears no legal responsibility for it. Mavis continues to fully cooperate with authorities as a witness in the criminal case against Mr. Hussain.”

10.16.2019 People's Response to 10.08.2019 Defense Letter by anney123 on Scribd

To read more on Schoharie click here.