Politician Breaks Into Home, Sues Owners For Injuries

File this one under “S” for “shut the front door!” — no, really, shut the front door and lock it: Senator Jim Alesi of New York is very angry that he injured himself after breaking into a home, and is suing the owners, his constituents, as well as the builders of the home.

Sen. Alesi claims in his lawsuit that he was hurt after deciding to look into the house of a Perinton, NY, couple, which was under construction under the time. The fun part is they didn’t know he was “looking into” their home, and he definitely was not invited, reports Rochester area WHEC News.

The couple’s builder, isn’t happy about the lawsuit: “It was very upsetting. Something that happened three years ago. We thought we put it to bed three years ago, and all of a sudden it rears its ugly head.” He adds that the home was not open to the public.

Alesi was cited in a sheriff’s report for criminal trespass, as the front door of the home was locked. He reportedly went to the back and snuck in through a basement level back door. He then tried to climb a ladder to the first floor, and fell, suffering leg injuries that required surgery. Alesi’s suit says the builders were negligent in maintaining a safe premises. DiRisio insists that the home was safe — for construction workers.

And Alesi’s story as to why he was even there in the first place, uninvited by the homeowners? He was checking out the house “for a friend.” Suuure, we’ve used that one before, pal.

So of course, when you break into a home and hurt yourself, it’s the fault of the people whose home you were entering without their permission.

Alesi gave News 10NBC a statement saying, “An attorney filed an action on my behalf. Beyond that, I have no comment.”

Senator Jim Alesi’s broken leg lawsuit [WHEC.com]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Cactus Wren says:
    • you-toe-pee-an says:

      Yeah, a first year law student could tell you that he didn’t have a chance in hell. The senator is an idiot.

    • antisane says:

      From your link: “But, in filing the suit, Alesi opened the door for the Heckers and DiRisio to file a counter suit, regardless of the three-year statute of limitations for his civil action.”

      I hope they do.

    • galm666 says:

      Consumerist is a bit slow on this one, but yes – it’s withdrawn. Too bad for Alesi – he’s probably going to get a countersuit and I’m pretty sure he’ll lose.

      • YokoOhNo says:

        yes, that is a shame. i hope he only gets what he deserves (public humiliation, and loss of bribes, er, funds)

        • Coyote says:

          The above link mentioned that he is now open to a counter-suit, I hope the home owners, contractor, and even the manufacturer of the ladder sue his pants off (note he should not file any pants related counter counter suits as we all know how that went).

    • AEN says:

      If you ever visit Rochester, you’ll find that the bulk of it’s economy now seems to be based on personal injury advertizing by lawyers. Sadly, Kodak has been replaced by a bunch of ambulance chasers.

  2. Tomas says:

    I hope the slime ball loses his suit, and loses it badly. No excuse for the trespass AT ALL.

  3. YouDidWhatNow? says:

    Just remember folks…we are the ones who elect these idiots into office.

    Democracy: a mechanism by which the people are guaranteed a government no better than they deserve.

    • DEVO says:

      Unfortunately with our two party system, and it really is a two party system, which requires a sort of bred politician to even get enough money etc. to get on the ballot, it leaves the voter with lesser of two evils or not to vote at all. I’m not sure we are getting what we deserve anymore with what our system of democracy has devolved into. No real choice isn’t even democracy anymore.

      • kc2idf says:

        I’ve been trying to tell people this for at least 20 years . . . going back to when I lived in the greater Rochester area.

      • Youngfrankenstein says:

        +1

      • Doubts42 says:

        But it is a 2 party system because we are lazy and choose to believe the drivel we are handed by the MSM. if everyone who grimaces and chooses the lesser of 2 evils at the ballot box would pick 3rd party candidate it could actually bring about a small measure of gradual change.
        But if we just shake out heads and cry about a 2 party system then we are getting what we deserve.

        • ARP says:

          The problem is that its self-correcting back to a 2 party system. For example, if the Tea Party really broke off from the Republicans, they would take a significant percentage of a the vote from Republicans and the democratic candidate would win. The next cycle, that would self-correct and people that would normally support the Tea Party candidate would support the Republican as the “lesser of two evils.” Same with left leaning parties (democrats, greens, socialists, etc.). So there needs to be a long term sustained movement to permanently establish a third party. Americans simply don’t have the patience to do that.

          • YouDidWhatNow? says:

            No, there’s no way the attention-deficient American public is going to bother to learn anything…about anything…including why the current 2-party system is corrupt, or why a 3-party system might be any better.

            The only solution is to outlaw political parties all together. Force each and every candidate for every position to stand on their own and be judged by the people based on their own platform.

            …that would force the American public to either actually pay attention to the political process, or abstain from participating in it. Either of which would be a huge step forward.

      • eyesack is the boss of the DEFAMATION ZONE says:

        It’s true – if this guy was on my side politically and wasn’t getting primaried, I probably would vote for him over his opponent (or sit it out).

        New Hampshire is considering an “approval” system instead of a straight-up voting system, where you can “approve” of however many candidates you want, and whoever gets the most points wins. It’s a start, but I’m worried this will result in even more muddling, because the most boring candidate will win by virtue of being “nice”.

      • YouDidWhatNow? says:

        Correct. Political parties are right at the top of the things that should be banned. Along with lobbying, the TSA, and DRM to name a few others.

        Our government is essentially run by two non-governmental organizations – the Republican and the Democratic parties. To the point where there are official positions in our government for “majority” and “minority” party representatives.

        Sorry morons on capitol hill – those 2 organizations should not be granted any special powers. And the fault lies to a large extent with US citizens, who are stupid enough to believe that there are only 2 possible choices to solve any given problem. This government is a reflection of it’s citizens – and we are some stupid effing people.

        • longfeltwant says:

          It’s wonderful that you have found a way to feel superior to everyone else.

          • YouDidWhatNow? says:

            Not nearly as sad as it is that you think any of the things I listed there are good for the citizens of this country…

        • Mecharine says:

          There are plenty of solutions to replacing the two party systems,. One of which is the instant-runoff ballot, that allows preference instead of “all or none” voting. This would allow larger shares of votes to go to 3rd and 4th party candidates.

          • YouDidWhatNow? says:

            How does that help in the slightest? You’re still going to have Republicans and Democrats on those ballots, and those parties still given special powers in the government…

    • DerangedKitsune says:

      Throughout human history, people have either been ruled by thieves or murderers. By virtue of the electoral process we’ve weeded out the murderers.

      This is actually as good as it gets.

    • DFManno says:

      YOU may be one of the those electing these idiots. I personally don’t vote for idiots. Try it sometime.

  4. mcgyver210 says:

    This criminal should be in prison & probably would be if he wasn’t a Senator & above the laws. He definitely should be removed from office & IMO he didn’t get what he deserved for Breaking n Entering.

    What a farce that he was even aloud to file such a joke of a suit. When someone files such a frivolous suit they should be punished maybe then there would be less of these kinds of claims.

  5. mythago says:

    Oh, it’s even worse than that. The couple declined to press charges against him because they felt sorry for him. He waited until the statute of of limitations on trespassing ran out – THEN he filed his lawsuit.

    It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if he were one of those bozos always yapping about “frivolous lawsuits” during his day job.

    • zombie70433 says:

      He was pushing tort reform.

      • Me - now with more humidity says:

        Problem is, he thinks tort reform has something to do with changing a pastry recipe.

    • mmmsoap says:

      He didn’t just wait for the statute of limitations to expire, he filed the suit on the day it expired….because why be greedy when you can be greedy and shady?

      Glad to hear he’s dropped the suit. Way to ensure you’re not getting elected again, Mr. (State) Senator.

  6. stevied says:

    Go ahead and “check out a house for a friend” in my neighborhood.

    One bullet, and your body will be found laying over the window sill. Always with the head in the building so the home owner can claim self defense.

    • DH405 says:

      Is your neighborhood in Texas, or is it just on Internet Tough Guy Avenue?

    • kmw2 says:

      I’m pretty sure that even in Texas you only get to execute people that try to break into your own house, not random houses in your neighborhood.

      • Southern says:
        • kmw2 says:

          Did you actually RTFA there? Joe Horn shot guys in his own yard, and stated that he had the right to defend his own property.

          • Southern says:

            No, I didn’t RTFA, so I don’t know how it reads.

            I DO know all about Joe Horn, though.. Living in Houston and listening to talk radio as I do, he’s the only thing they talked about for the better part of a month at the time it happened. I’ve listened to the 911 tapes about 200 times, and could probably tell you what Mr. Horn had for breakfast that day. :-)

            The facts are thus: He caught them breaking into his neighbors house through a window. He called the cops. The cops hadn’t got there by the time they were coming back out through the window carrying a bag (which they found later contained $2,000+ and jewlery). He picked up his shotgun, cocked a round, and said (to the 911 op), “They’re coming out the window, I gotta go.”

            No more than 15 seconds go by and you hear him say “Move and you’re dead”. No more than 5 seconds after that, 2 shotgun blasts. They musta moved. ;-)

            They had no weapons (although Joe had no real way of knowing that). One of the thieves were shot in the back as he was (running?) away.

            Some wanted him brought up on charges, I wanted to give him a medal. Either way, he wasn’t charged because the Texas Castle Doctrine specifically says that you can shoot to protect your NEIGHBORS property, not just your own.. And not just your life, your PROPERTY.

            Beside the fact that he was within the law of the doctrine, I doubt they could have found 12+ people willing to convict. ;-)

      • Doubts42 says:

        Nope in Texas we can shoot you to defend our neighbors property as well, and after dark you just have to be on the property not in the house. I still manage to check on a couple of friends houses and pets at all hours without getting shot. of course I do not skulk around in shadows, or try to climb through windows either.

      • MrEvil says:

        The Texas Penal code does provide for threat of deadly force to protect another person’s property if its at night and there is no other way to prevent the theft. The original intent of the law was to let rural residents, miles away from the nearest law enforcement officer, defend each other’s property from theft and vandals. However I don’t think the USE of deadly force is permitted unless there’s a credible threat to your own life.

        In Joe Horn’s case the grand jury didn’t find sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial, however, I would hardly call two unarmed men a credible threat to the life of a man with a loaded shotgun. I don’t know though, I wasn’t on the grand jury and didn’t see the evidence the DA brought against Mr Horn.

    • Alter_ego says:

      I’m really glad then that my friend doesn’t live across the street from you, since there have been a couple of times that I’ve had to climb in through his window to get him his wallet, or computer, since he forgot them, and I don’t have a set of keys to his house. Wouldn’t you feel stupid if you took a human life just to protect someone’s property, only to discover the property didn’t even need protecting.

      • faislebonchoix says:

        If your friend trusts you enough to retrieve things from his house, why doesn’t he give you a key? Breaking into a house (even your own house) looks suspicious. Remember Obama’s friend Henry Louis Gates Jr.?

        • Alter_ego says:

          because why give me a key for the 3 times in the past 13 years that we’ve known each other. It doesn’t happen a lot, but I’m grateful there are no Internet Tough Guys near by to put me in my place.

    • Bye says:

      Big talkin’ small man.

    • stevied says:

      Guy in my neighborhood actually defended his neighbor’s house.

      Wee hours of the AM. Neighbor is on vacation. Guy has the key… is house sitting, feeding the fish.

      Moving van is parked in the driveway. 2 (or maybe 3) bad dudes in nondescript clothing are loading the van.

      Guy goes to the house with his trusty 12 gauge loaded with bird shot. Uses his key. enters the house. wanders through the house looking for the bad dudes.

      Finds a bad dude in the kitchen. Scares bad dude (pee on the floor afterwards). Bad dude grabs a knife from the kitchen counter and throws it at the Guy. Misses.

      Guy pops off his 12 gauge. Misses bad dude.

      Yes, really, missed the bad dude at Dick Chaney range.

      Bad dude and his friend(s) swiftly depart…. drum roll please….. leaving the moving van loaded with stolen goods from this home (and several other homes) behind.

      Moving van had been stolen. Bad dudes never caught.

      Scummy insurance company didn’t want to pay for new kitchen cabinet doors because the Guy used excessive force.

      Don’t worry. The neighborhood took up a collection to replace the cabinets. The least we could do to help the friendly neighborhood watch.

      Grand Jury no indictment.

      • webweazel says:

        “Finds a bad dude in the kitchen. Scares bad dude (pee on the floor afterwards).”

        A friend of mine has a monster shotgun. Pretty old, factory-sawed-off, that weighs a ton, with barrels on it the size of cans of V8. I just look at it and pee myself, let alone having that bad boy pointed at me. I can sympathize.

  7. d0x360 says:

    I walked down Internet tough guy lane one night and I was beaten almost to death with empty dvd cases and a box of twinkies.

  8. Marlin says:

    Want to contact Mr. Alesi

    Email address: alesi@senate.state.ny.us

    Tell him what you think of this. :)

  9. TooManyHobbies says:

    Around here anyway, construction sites are posted no trespassing. In fact, while my house was under construction, I was legally informed that *I* wasn’t allowed on-site without an escort, because construction sites are inherently dangerous. Sure, it is mainly CYA but it is there legally; if you go on a construction site and get hurt, the owners and contractors should be covered legally.

    • Rachacha says:

      I think whether the future homeowner is allowed on site during construction is really up to the builder. When my current house was being built (large national builder), I was informed that I was not allowed on site, but the construction manager said I could go on any time I wanted as long as I understood that it was dangerous and if I got hurt, I would likely be sued for tresspass.

      In the current home I am having built (small local builder) he said I could come onsite any time on any day, and he would do what he could to ensure the house was safe, but again, don’t sue because you trip over an air hose. I was even allowed to run low voltage wiring in the house which had me on site weekends and evenings, and a couple times when other trades were around.

      All other people were prohibited from the site unless they were escorted by the builder or me for liability reasons.

  10. sufreak says:

    I really was hoping there was a typo, or a headline that was misleading. But nope…all is pretty clear. My only question is, how is this man still a Senator. I realize he didn’t rape or murder anyone, but I guess that doesn’t get you removed either.

  11. jeffjohnvol says:

    There should be a law that basically says if you are injured in the course of an illegal act you are not entitled to any recourse for damages if injured while performing the crime.

    • Slave For Turtles says:

      This!

    • aweirdguy says:

      +1

    • eyesack is the boss of the DEFAMATION ZONE says:

      I agree with you in theory. The problem is in actually writing the law in an airtight manner that won’t be found unconstitutional or otherwise crappy. If I’m going 41 on a 35 mph street and someone T-bones me out of nowhere, can I sue?

      You could write it so that only people committing a FELONY can’t sue. But okay, let’s say I’m a prostitute (maybe that’s a felony in some states, no clue – but trespassing may not be a felony in many states either, so it’s a wash) and someone sexually assaults me. There’s not enough prove for a criminal case but I could sue for damages. I don’t get to anymore? That doesn’t seem fair. Yes, I was committing a crime, but the wrongness of being a prostitute doesn’t even come close to the wrongness of what happened.

      • Red Cat Linux says:

        +1 for sanity

        As appealing as it might be, that kind of law would open people up to some crazy abuses. It would have to be written well enough to prevent open season, but stop nonsense like suing for medical bills because you were bitten by the dog you encountered while breaking into a house.

  12. Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

    Dennis Kucinich has found his soul mate!
    Oops, sorry. Politicians have no souls. My bad.

  13. zibby says:

    New York: Where our state politicians are a national embassassment.

  14. kylere1 says:

    Anyone who ever votes for this clown is a fool. He is a perfect example of a complete waste of oxygen. I am just appalled that he is allowed to walk free without guards. He needs to be investigated by the ethics committee and removed from office.

  15. Big Cheese Make Hair Go Boom says:

    Tort Reform anyone? Was he trying to sue under the attractive nuisance doctrine? If so, I thought that it applied to children only. Some one explain please.

  16. BurtReynolds says:

    Another fine member of the mess in Albany.

  17. AstroPig7 says:

    This sounds like one of the fictitious examples of ridiculous lawsuits given in tort reform chain letters (burglar falls through skylight and sues homeowners). Sadly, this one is real.

  18. Sian says:
  19. Frankz says:

    He deliberately waited 3 years till the statute of limitations ran out on the home owners to press trespassing charges againts him, before he file his suit.
    As others have said, he has now dropped the suit, but only after he got so much negative publicity about it, even from his own party.

  20. romoish says:

    It may have been too long ago, but I was told in my business law classes that someone could trespass onto your property, climb into your vehicle, crash it, and sue you for damages (and actually win).

    • Papa Bear says:

      Usually they would have to be children (under 18). It’s called the attractive nuisance doctrine. However, adults have sued successfully for being injured while trespassing, also. Not the same theory of law, however. The courts have put the brakes on much of that, though. Unfortunately, here the moron may have had a case because the ladder was left out in the open and unsecured for anybody to use and it was in disrepair. Counterclaim would’ve been for trespass and damage to property, so it could have been a wash. The contractor is darned lucky it wasn’t some kid going by deciding to have a peek in the house and climbing the ladder. He’d be up the proverbial creek looking for a paddle..

      • drmk says:

        Except that the ladder was INSIDE the house. He went in through the back door and tried to climb a ladder that would have taken him to the first floor inside the house. It wasn’t just some chucklehead walking by the house and being seduced by a ladder; he had to really mean to be inside the house to try to climb the ladder.

      • whylime says:

        The ladder was not in disrepair. No where in the original article does it state that. In fact, in another article, the builder even states that the ladder was in good working condition and that the Senator fell of his own accord, probably from not wearing the correct shoes or not handling the ladder properly:

        “‘There was a ladder going from the basement to the first level of the home, and he slipped going up the ladder. The ladder didn’t break. There wasn’t a malfunction there. In fact, I still have the ladder if you want a photo of it.’ Then DiRisio added, ‘I suppose it might not have been safe for someone who is not familiar with operating a ladder, or for someone without proper footgear.’

        DiRisio showed us the ladder, which does appear to still be in solid working shape.”

        http://www.13wham.com/mostpopular/story/Senator-Alesi-Sues-Couple-that-Declined-to-Press/LCflMQQFr0qttwDf_dAapw.cspx

        • Papa Bear says:

          My apologies for the misread on the ladder; however the condition of the ladder is irrelevant. Even the fact that it was indoors is irrelevant because of the ease of access to the interior of the house. A locked house with closed windows would be a totally different situation than an open home under construction – if it was indeed open.

          Don’t get me wrong, I disagree with this sort of case when adults are involved, but the ladder was allegedly not secured or stored in such a way as to make its retrieval difficult. It must be assumed by the owner of something that could be considered dangerous when improperly used that it is going to be used if left unsecured; therefore, it must be stored in a properly secured manner when in an environment open to easy trespass. Not necessarily to protect idiot adults, but to protect children who could consider a construction site an attractive nuisance. Home construction sites are considered open to easy trespass unless surrounded by locked fences. Even leaving your garage door open and some kid comes buy and gets your ladder out a climbs it, falls and gets hurt, your screwed: attractive nuisance doctrine. That’s why I tell everyone I know who works in their garage a lot and has kids in the neighborhood to close the garage door when out of sight of the garage.

          Being an adult, the guy was on shaky ground because the doctrine doesn’t apply to adults, but there is case law to support his claim. The thing is, the elements of the law – which I don’t know and don’t care to look up as they could be different in every jurisdiction – must be applied to the facts of the case. No reasonable lawyer is going to file a claim that would be seen as frivolous on its face. Negligence itself is simple, but how the elements of negligence are applied to trespassers is not.

  21. neilb says:

    What a load of bull!
    It is not like they negligently left unpitted olives in the house.

    • AstroPig7 says:

      It’s a fact that pitted olives don’t show up on backscatter scanners. Report any unauthorized use of olives to DHS!

  22. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    I’d say he won’t be a senator for long, but this was three years ago. Way to go citizens.

  23. dolemite says:

    Throw the bum out of office and into jail. Since when is breaking into other people’s homes something we want from anyone in office?

  24. Bodger says:

    So a politician chose to commit a slightly different crime than those of his ilk. Nothing to see here. Keep moving…

  25. TheCorporateGeek Says Common Sense Is The Key says:

    What kind of loser is this guy? Oh wait he’s from NY.
    Smart Senators would have their posse do it for him…

  26. Mold says:

    Although an R, the Sen website has legislation that is in tune with his constituents. Something is not being shared with us. Nuisance suits are the habitat of wingnuts. (Read more about Kucinich).

  27. Ocyrus says:

    Another New York State Senator, Tom Libous, pulled a similarly egregious stunt a decade or so back. His son was drunk driving, and killed another motorist in collision. The Senator then turned around and sued the state for the road conditions. Only in NY, and only the Republicans…

  28. simplegreen says:

    Only a democrat. Only in NY

    • BurtReynolds says:

      Seriously, you can’t play partisan name calling when you deal with the NYS Senate and Assembly. For your Pedro Espada, I can counter with Joe Bruno.

  29. Emily says:

    Just when you thought New York legislators couldn’t get any better!

  30. kenskreations says:

    A dumb ass by any other word is still a dumb ass.

  31. Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

    I thought senators have single payer health care. All his medical bills are covered 100% by taxes.

    • Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

      oooooh, STATE senator, I should have known better since my lifelong friend works in a state senate.