
Lewiston Party House defendant seeks dismissal
LOCKPORT — The man who previously pleaded guilty to charges of providing booze and pot to teenagers in a Mountain View Drive home that became known as the 'Lewiston Party House' is asking to have his case dismissed.
Gary Sullo, 58, has appealed to Niagara County Court Judge John Ottaviano, asking to have the charges he has already admitted to — and been sentenced for — thrown out because he claims his constitutional rights to a speedy trial were denied.
Lawyers for Sullo and Niagara County District Attorney Brian Seaman argued the appeal before Ottaviano on Wednesday.
Defense attorney Jessica Kulpit told the judge that after Sullo was first charged in 2018 it took '4 years, 9 months and 8 days' to resolve his case.
'There is no universe I can think of where it takes 5 years to resolve a misdemeanor case,' Kulpit said.
While admitting that proceedings in the case were impacted by restrictions imposed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Kulpit insisted that 'the Town of Lewiston Court did nothing, without explanation, the court did nothing (to advance the case). This is a deprivation of constitutional rights.'
Sullo was sentenced by Lewiston Town Justice Hugh Gee to three years probation for his guilty plea to misdemeanor charges for providing alcohol and marijuana to teenagers in the home he shared with his late wife Tricia Vacanti, who was also originally charged in the case. His sentencing came more than six years after the first reports of booze and drug-fueled teenage parties at the home.
Sullo was charged with multiple counts of endangering the welfare of a child and unlawful dealing with a child but ultimately pleaded guilty to just two counts of endangering the welfare of a child in a deal with Niagara County prosecutors.
At the time of that deal, Sullo had filed a motion in Lewiston court to have the case dismissed, arguing that his speedy trial rights had been violated. Before prosecutors could respond to that motion, and before Gee could issue a ruling on it, Sullo reportedly emailed the judge and said he wanted to take the DA's plea offer.
Kulpit said that despite her client's decision to take the prosecutor's offer, the request to have the case dismissed should have been ruled on in the Lewiston court. She said Sullo always expected to get a ruling.
'He took the plea believing he could still appeal,' Kulpit said.
Assistant Niagara County District Attorney Laura Jordon told Ottaviano that Sullo has no right to appeal.
'The case law is clear,' Jordan told the judge. 'A guilty plea precludes a (speedy trial) appeal.'
Jordan also said all of the delays in the case, before Sullo's guilty plea, were a result of either Covid restrictions or requests from his defense attorney.
'Not a single delay was attributable to the people,' Jordan said. 'The record (in the case) shows all those delays, outside of Covid, were at the defendant's request.'
Sullo's sentencing followed the sentencing of the other remaining adult in the case, Jessica Long. Long, 43, was sentenced by Gee in January 2024 to six months of interim probation for her guilty plea to one count of first-degree unlawfully dealing with a child.
Vacanti had faced 41 counts of unlawfully dealing with a minor and endangering the welfare of a child in connection with the house parties. But she died suddenly on July 3, 2022, and the charges against her were set aside.
Specifically, Vacanti had been accused of providing booze and pot to at least three teenage girls, who later claimed they were sexually assaulted in her home by her then-teenage son, Christopher Belter.
Belter was indicted, and pleaded guilty in June 2019, to felony charges of third-degree rape and attempted first-degree sexual abuse and two misdemeanor charges of second-degree sexual abuse for encounters with four teenage girls that occurred during the parties at the family's home in 2016 and 2018.
In November 2021, Belter was sentenced to eight years of sex offender probation. A month later, he was classified as a Level 3 sex offender.
Level 3 is the most serious classification and legally indicates a 'sexual predator.' Belter was also declared a sexually violent offender.
Sullo and Vacanti were originally charged with 19 combined counts of unlawfully dealing with a minor and endangering the welfare of a child in connection with the parties at their home from 2016 to 2018. In January 2020, Niagara County prosecutors leveled an additional 22 counts of endangering and unlawful dealing against Vacanti and another eight counts of the same allegations against Sullo.
Long was charged with single counts of unlawfully dealing with a minor and endangering the welfare of a child.
Sullo, who now resides in Florida, was not present in court for the hearing on his appeal.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lewiston Party House defendant seeks dismissal
The man who previously pleaded guilty to charges of providing booze and pot to teenagers in a Mountain View Drive home that became known as the 'Lewiston Party House' is asking to have his case dismissed. Gary Sullo, 58, has appealed to Niagara County Court Judge John Ottaviano, asking to have the charges he has already admitted to — and been sentenced for — thrown out because he claims his constitutional rights to a speedy trial were denied. Lawyers for Sullo and Niagara County District Attorney Brian Seaman argued the appeal before Ottaviano on Wednesday. Defense attorney Jessica Kulpit told the judge that after Sullo was first charged in 2018 it took '4 years, 9 months and 8 days' to resolve his case. 'There is no universe I can think of where it takes 5 years to resolve a misdemeanor case,' Kulpit said. While admitting that proceedings in the case were impacted by restrictions imposed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Kulpit insisted that 'the Town of Lewiston Court did nothing, without explanation, the court did nothing (to advance the case). This is a deprivation of constitutional rights.' Sullo was sentenced by Lewiston Town Justice Hugh Gee to three years probation for his guilty plea to misdemeanor charges for providing alcohol and marijuana to teenagers in the home he shared with his late wife Tricia Vacanti, who was also originally charged in the case. His sentencing came more than six years after the first reports of booze and drug-fueled teenage parties at the home. Sullo was charged with multiple counts of endangering the welfare of a child and unlawful dealing with a child but ultimately pleaded guilty to just two counts of endangering the welfare of a child in a deal with Niagara County prosecutors. At the time of that deal, Sullo had filed a motion in Lewiston court to have the case dismissed, arguing that his speedy trial rights had been violated. Before prosecutors could respond to that motion, and before Gee could issue a ruling on it, Sullo reportedly emailed the judge and said he wanted to take the DA's plea offer. Kulpit said that despite her client's decision to take the prosecutor's offer, the request to have the case dismissed should have been ruled on in the Lewiston court. She said Sullo always expected to get a ruling. 'He took the plea believing he could still appeal,' Kulpit said. Assistant Niagara County District Attorney Laura Jordon told Ottaviano that Sullo has no right to appeal. 'The case law is clear,' Jordan told the judge. 'A guilty plea precludes a (speedy trial) appeal.' Jordan also said all of the delays in the case, before Sullo's guilty plea, were a result of either Covid restrictions or requests from his defense attorney. 'Not a single delay was attributable to the people,' Jordan said. 'The record (in the case) shows all those delays, outside of Covid, were at the defendant's request.' Sullo's sentencing followed the sentencing of the other remaining adult in the case, Jessica Long. Long, 43, was sentenced by Gee in January 2024 to six months of interim probation for her guilty plea to one count of first-degree unlawfully dealing with a child. Vacanti had faced 41 counts of unlawfully dealing with a minor and endangering the welfare of a child in connection with the house parties. But she died suddenly on July 3, 2022, and the charges against her were set aside. Specifically, Vacanti had been accused of providing booze and pot to at least three teenage girls, who later claimed they were sexually assaulted in her home by her then-teenage son, Christopher Belter. Belter was indicted, and pleaded guilty in June 2019, to felony charges of third-degree rape and attempted first-degree sexual abuse and two misdemeanor charges of second-degree sexual abuse for encounters with four teenage girls that occurred during the parties at the family's home in 2016 and 2018. In November 2021, Belter was sentenced to eight years of sex offender probation. A month later, he was classified as a Level 3 sex offender. Level 3 is the most serious classification and legally indicates a 'sexual predator.' Belter was also declared a sexually violent offender. Sullo and Vacanti were originally charged with 19 combined counts of unlawfully dealing with a minor and endangering the welfare of a child in connection with the parties at their home from 2016 to 2018. In January 2020, Niagara County prosecutors leveled an additional 22 counts of endangering and unlawful dealing against Vacanti and another eight counts of the same allegations against Sullo. Long was charged with single counts of unlawfully dealing with a minor and endangering the welfare of a child. Sullo, who now resides in Florida, was not present in court for the hearing on his appeal.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Apple Valley woman latest to be charged in Feeding our Future fraud
An Apple Valley woman is the 72nd person federally charged for her role in the $250 million fraud scheme that exploited a federally funded child nutrition program during the COVID-19 pandemic, acting U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson announced on Friday. Dorothy Jean Moore, 57, of Apple Valley, was charged in a federal indictment with three counts of wire fraud and two counts of money laundering, Thompson said in a news release. According to the release, Moore launched two purported federal child nutrition program sites in late 2020 under the sponsorship of Feeding Our Future. Moore completed and signed meal count forms, claiming to have served 1,500 meals to children each day at each of her sites, which she said she operated out of community churches. Moore claimed and received reimbursements for those meals through the Feeding Our Future program, the release said. In addition, she said she operated a catering company called Jean's Soul Food and claimed additional federal reimbursements for food from that company used at the other sites. The release cited her bank records, saying they show she used 'little of the reimbursement dollars she received to purchase food. Instead, Moore used those funds for other purposes, including to purchase cars and fund an enhanced lifestyle.' She is the 72nd Minnesotan charged with defrauding the U.S. Department of Agriculture's child nutrition programs during the pandemic, when regulations temporarily were loosened and a variety of businesses and nonprofits were allowed to help feed hungry kids while schools were closed. Federal prosecutors have called the scheme the nation's largest coronavirus pandemic fraud, amounting to more than $250 million. 'This fraud is outrageous, brazen, and seemingly never-ending,' said Thompson in the release. 'Stealing from a program designed to feed vulnerable children is not only criminal — it's unconscionable,' said Special Agent in Charge Alvin M. Winston Sr. of FBI Minneapolis. Moore made her initial appearance in U.S. District Court Friday. Brooklyn Center attorney suspended by Minnesota Supreme Court U.S. Customs Border Protection officer charged with possessing child porn Man once convicted in Minnesota of supporting al-Qaida is now charged in Canada for alleged threats Jury finds Milwaukee man guilty of killing and dismembering 19-year-old woman 'We feel relief': Derrick Thompson found guilty in Minneapolis crash that killed five young women
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Christine Van Geyn: Do police have the right to peer at you in your car with a drone?
Can police use a drone with a zoom lens to peer into the interior of vehicles stopped at red lights? Can police enter a home's private driveway and look in the windows of vehicles? Can the government track the cellphone location data of millions of Canadians to track their movements? And can a private foreign company scour the internet collecting photos of Canadians for use in facial recognition technology that is sold to police? These questions are not hypotheticals; they are real live issues in Canadian law. We are living in the mass surveillance era. But many Canadians do not have a thorough understanding of how far surveillance goes, or what the limits on it are, or whether our legal protections are adequate. The police in Kingston, Ont., are ticketing drivers at red lights for merely touching or holding their cellphones based on evidence collected by a drone. The Supreme Court recently heard a case about police entering a private driveway and not just looking in a truck window, but opening the door and collecting evidence — all without a warrant. The Alberta Court of Kings Bench just considered a case involving the facial recognition technology of Clearview AI. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Canadian government was tracking the cellphone location data of 33 million Canadians. After the Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act, the government ordered the freezing of bank accounts of a police-compiled 'blacklist' of demonstrators, which was distributed by the government to a variety of financial institutions and even lobby groups. What these cases are demonstrating is that we have entered the era of mass surveillance, and Canada's legal protections are inadequate. First, Canada's privacy legislation is outdated. Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne has said we are at a 'pivotal time' for privacy rights in Canada. Former Ontario Privacy Commissioner Dr. Ann Cavoukian has also called for updates to Canadian privacy laws, 'so they apply to all data, including anonymized data.' Much has changed since the current federal privacy legislation was drafted in the early 2000s, but efforts to modernize this law died when Parliament was prorogued. Second, when it comes to state intrusions, the concept of privacy may be inadequate. Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this right to mean the protection of a person's 'reasonable expectations of privacy' against state intrusions. The notion of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' has become a mantra in Section 8 jurisprudence. But some academics have said that in the era of mass surveillance, this guiding principle is an inadequate gatekeeper. In a lecture for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's new free course on privacy rights, Osgoode Hall Law professor François Tanguay-Renaud proposes a thought experiment that reveals the inadequacy of 'privacy' as an organizing principle. What if the police were recording people on the street, with drones following people and recording their movements as they went about their day, zooming in on their cellphones and recording their conversations? In such a scenario, where people are in plain view, privacy is an inadequate concept to limit what we all see intuitively as oppressive state conduct. At one time, this hypothetical might have been considered far-fetched. Today it is eerily similar to the Kingston police drone scenario. In Kingston, police are using a drone to take aerial images peering into cars and zooming in on cellphones. Those drivers do have reasonable expectations of privacy inside their cars, but what would limit this police conduct if they surveilled citizens on sidewalks or parks, where they were in plain view without those privacy expectations? A principled line must be drawn between things done in plain sight that police can view and constant surveillance using enhanced technology. It may not be possible to draw that line on the basis of the existence or not of 'reasonable expectations of privacy.' There are other values that could serve as guiding or informing principles for Section 8. There is nothing in the text of Section 8 that mandates the gatekeeper of the right be 'reasonable expectations of privacy' rather than another interest, like dignity, liberty, security, anonymity, public confidence in the administration of justice, and many more. Indeed, American jurisprudence has been moving away from the concept of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' as the sole guiding principle for their 4th Amendment. To meet the challenges of the surveillance era, it is well past time for Parliament and the provincial legislatures to update privacy laws. But as recent police conduct shows, it's time for our Section 8 jurisprudence to be revisited as well, to meet the emerging challenges of the surveillance state. National Post Christine Van Geyn is the litigation director for the Canadian Constitutional Foundation. Canadians who want to learn more about their privacy rights in Canada can sign up for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's free course at Opinion: In 2020 the world shut down, and Canadians lost their privacy rights Facial recognition tool used by RCMP deemed illegal mass surveillance of unwitting Canadians