Porchetta in Brooklyn

[oakapple]

Neither has OJ.

That would be funny if it wasnt childish.

Fact it's until there is concrete proof, the presumption of innocence is how things work in America.

←

Actually, that isn't how it works. Presumption of innocense is purely a legal concept. Outside of the courtroom, we are entitled to believe anything we want. O.J. is the ultimate example — there are others — of someone not convicted legally who is nevertheless guilty in the minds of the public.

(Obviously, the offenses Neroni is accused of, whether guilty or not, are on a whole different scale than O.J.'s.)

Edited April 12, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[docsconz]

Moderator's Note

What has so far been discussed regarding the legal situation of Jason Neroni has been pertinent to the situation, but so as not to get bogged down in legal semantics, I would ask that any further discussion be limited to the facts as known and not supposition about guilt, innocence or generalizations about the legal process unless it provides new insight into new developments in the situation - i.e. sheds real light on the legal processes pertinent to the situation for those of us less familiar with them.

[Megan Blocker]

Personally, I just wonder what the restaurant thinks it has to gain here. The $$ amount seems paltry compared to the potential bad press and consequent sketch factor that could arise.

Though in that thinking I could be violating the cardinal rule, mentioned above, that no publicity is bad publicity. But I don't know that I'd want to go to a restaurant where I would spend the entire meal convinced of the tension in the air.

Has anyone been to Porchetta since the news broke? Are they open?

[Sneakeater]

Eater's latest update (a volley from Chef Neroni's side):

http://eater.com/archives/2007/04/neroni_behind_b.php

(It's better for you all to read than for me to try to characterize it.)

[Sethro]

I thought "petit larceny" was a funny little food pun, but I'm no legal eagle...

[docsconz]

From the Eater article linked to above by Sneakeater, a quote from Neroni spokesperson Steven Hall:

Yes the charge is petit larceny because Jason signed his own paycheck as, according to him, he has done many times in the past. Marco claims that he is the only person allowed to sign checks, but Jason says he has signed checks for vendors and his staff before. Marco told Jason that he'd drop the charges if he publicly apologized to him, Jason feels he has nothing to apologize for.

[Sneakeater]

I don't like to keep posting these links, but it seems like it's misleading if you only post some but not all of them.

More from Eater:

http://eater.com/archives/2007/04/neroni_behind_b_1.php

You should read all of it (and I do not want to be held responsible for editing it). But some highlights:

Before we go any further down the road with Neroni Behind Bars, it should be noted that the situation has been dominated by a conflicting chorus of voices from all sides. Jason Neroni and Marco Rivera's voices have been the loudest here, natch, but we would be remiss not to mention the fact that several folks have also come forward to voice opinions on the brouhaha and it turns out they've been mostly anti-Neroni.

We checked with a Brooklyn based attorney, who routinely deals with these matters and was able to clarify some of the more murkier areas of the situation: "If Neroni was arrested, he was absolutely fingerprinted and photographed. Then, he either sees a judge at court (and is released after posting bail or without bail) or is released from the Precinct -- without the filing of any charges -- with a date to return to court when the charges would be filed. This latter case is called a Desk Appearance Ticket or DAT. When a DAT is issued – there are no records in court. The only records are contained in the Police Department."

So, as it stands now, we know this: his spin doctors are great, he was absolutely, definitely finger printed and photographed, and there is a mid-May court date. And this is turning into the greatest shitshow of all time.

Edited April 12, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[H. du Bois]

Which of them was the first to go public with the accusation. Neroni?

[Luckylies]

Petty larcenty is how 'Mericans prounounce Petit larceny.

this is all quite fascinating stuff...allegations of theft...in a restaurant...

[Sneakeater]

Which of them was the first to go public with the accusation.  Neroni?

←

Yes.

[docsconz]

Which of them was the first to go public with the accusation.  Neroni?

←

Yes.

←

I don't recall Neroni making any accusations other than "irreconcilable differences."

[Nathan]

it depends upon how you define "accusations"...

He asserted several reasons for his parting with Porchetta...some of which seemed implausible at the time.

[Sneakeater]

I believe Chef Neroni shot first with an explanation that owner Morena wanted to run a neighborhood place while Neroni had higher ambitions, that Morena opposed Neroni's high ingredient costs, that Neroni resisted adding sandwiches to a lunch menu -- things like that.

[H. du Bois]

I was referring to the theft allegations - the first I read of it was Neroni's "imagine my surprise" statement.

IMO, it doesn't reflect well on either of them, playing it out in the press like this.

[oakapple]

I assume we'll know the true story eventually, but the defense Neroni's spokesperson offered seems unbelievably lame: "If Marco didn’t want anyone signing checks, including Jason, he should have put the checkbook in the safe." If that's the best explanation he can come up with, Neroni needs a new spokesperson.

[Megan Blocker]

IMO, it doesn't reflect well on either of them, playing it out in the press like this.

←

Exactly, no one benefits - which, again, begs the question - why on earth would Rivera make such a giant public fuss over $1,000.00? Fire the guy and let it be done.

Seems like a pride thing more than anything else. I certainly can't believe it's going to help him find a new chef or attract business to the restaurant...

[Nathan]

I think Rivera's argument is pretty clearly that he wasn't going to say anything until Neroni talked trash.

[Sneakeater]

I was referring to the theft allegations - the first I read of it was Neroni's "imagine my surprise" statement. 

IMO, it doesn't reflect well on either of them, playing it out in the press like this.

←

My recollection (which may be wrong) is that Rivera (I hope I'm getting his name right) mentioned that first.

(I'm pretty sure I'm right, because the first thing I remember Neroni saying about the warrant was a denial that it existed.)

Edited April 16, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[docsconz]

I guess I don't really see that what Neroni said was really talking trash, although Rivera must have seen it that way. It didn't really get ugly until Rivero made his statements. Without them, the whole thing likely would have blown over pretty quickly. Too bad.

[Megan Blocker]

Looks like this story is over, folks:

"Although it probably comes as no surprise, it looked last night as if Porchetta is no more. The place was dark last night, the chairs were on top of the tables, and the menu displays for lunch and dinner had been taken out of the window. They're not usually closed Monday nights." Phones at the restaurant are going unanswered at this time and we're awaiting comment from owner Marco Rivera, but menu displays removed don't signal anything good. File Porchetta under doneski.

A link to Eater's coverage, and one to Gawker's.