A notebook containing photographs of the former Springdale power plant is admissible in a case brought by the warring parties over a proposed implosion of the plant’s boiler room in Allegheny County Court, according to a ruling handed down Tuesday.
Allegheny County Judge John T. McVay Jr. denied a move through Charah Solutions, owner of the power plant and defendant in the case, to exclude from the case an allegedly forgotten notebook with photographs taken during a site visit.
The paperback, the latest piece of evidence presented through attorneys representing the citizens of the district seeking to block a boiler room implosion.
Residents filed an injunction in September, alleging that the June 2 implosion of the chimney has harmed them and the community. They argued that an implosion of the boiler house would cause more damage.
Throughout the months of proceedings at the McVay, Charah courthouse, demolition contractor Grant Mackay Co. and explosives contractor Controlled Demolition Inc. said implosion was the safest way to demolish the boiler room.
In October, lawyers and experts made a site on the property.
But on Nov. 15, footage of the plaintiff’s stop in the city was called into question. Charah’s lawyers claim that after having examined all the evidence, Janice Savinis, whose firm Savinis, Kane and Gallucci represents the residents, presented the “forgotten” portfolio. As evidence, it contains photographs taken on the scale of the place. Savinis turned him over to the court for “consideration. “
Charah expressed fear that the photographs had “the propensity to confuse and deceive” McVay by presenting photographs of either the boiler room or the administration building. The photographs were also not presented or authenticated through a witness at the trial.
The plaintiff’s lawyers argued that Sharah’s opposition provided a rational basis for rejecting the test.
Attorneys for the plaintiff did not immediately respond to a request for comment on McVay’s decision.
“We will continue to let our strike movement speak for itself,” said Dave Raphael, a lawyer representing Sharah.
McVay’s order referred to the plaintiff’s response, filed through attorney John Kane.
In his response, Kane wrote that Sharah’s lawyers had been provided and consented to the on-site inspection. He wrote that Charah knew that the photographs were taken during the inspection of the site, and that recommending anything else “would not only be a waste of legal resources, but also quite misleading. “
The parties have until Friday to submit post-hearing briefings.
Grant Mackay Co. et Charah had in the past filed a motion to dismiss the injunction, saying the plaintiffs had failed to show that the injunction was necessary.
About us
Advertise
Career Opportunities
Contact Advertising
Contact the newsroom
Contact us
Back
Request Correction
Resource Center
Scholarship Opportunities
Send a letter to the editor
Send a tip
Subscribe
Subscriber Services
Blog
Electronic functions
Email Newsletters
eTrib
Home Delivery
Marketing Minute
Store Locations
Aplicación TribLIVE – App Store
TribLIVE App – Google Play
Culture
Best of the best
Business Directory
Circulars
Contests
Coronavirus
Lifestyles
Local
News
Obituaries
Opinion
Our Publications
Real Estate
Sport
Video
Weather Report
Cookie Settings
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use