Representing Knapik, Springfield lawyer Edward Pikula argued that the signs were removed in the aftermath of the October blizzard because they posed a safety risk in a neighborhood concerned about traffic safety.
SPRINGFIELD — A federal judge is expected to rule in coming weeks whether a lawsuit against Westfield Mayor Daniel M. Knapik for removing campaign signs will come to trial.
The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, alleges that Knapik had public employees remove signs supporting City Councilor David A. Flaherty and Municipal Light Board representative Jane C. Wensley one day before the Nov. 8, 2011 election.
The suit was filed on behalf of Flaherty, Wensley and David Costa of Russell, who owned the property at 38 East Silver St. where the signs were posted.
Knapik had denied doing anything wrong and is contesting the lawsuit.
Lawyers for both sides argued in U.S. District Court Thursday for verdicts of summary judgment, meaning they had already submitted enough evidence to prove their cases without a trial.
Representing Knapik, Springfield lawyer Edward Pikula argued that the signs were removed in the aftermath of the October blizzard because they posed a safety risk in a neighborhood concerned about traffic safety.
Knapik, who lives across the street from where the signs were posted, was trying to avoid accidents and protect city from liability, Pikula argued in asking the judge to dismiss the suit filed in March, 2012.
But plaintiff lawyer Luke Ryan of Northampton said only the political signs at that location were removed, while a commercial real estate sign was left standing.
He said there was a history of animosity between Knapik and Flaherty, with the mayor referring to the councilor as “flapping-jaw Flaherty” and the mayor’s wife calling Flaherty and his supporters “ignoramuses.”
The sign-removal was motivated by politics, not public safety, Ryan added. Signs for other candidates had been posted at the same location for as long as a month and city workers never removed them, Ryan said.
“This had never happened before, or anywhere else,” Ryan said.
Judge Michael A. Ponsor expressed skepticism at both motions for summary judgment, citing disputed facts and unresolved legal issues in the case.
At one point, the judge told Pikula “that’s a fabulous closing argument but I don’t know if it gets you there for summary judgment.”
Ponsor took both motions under advisement, without indicating a time frame for his ruling.