Before the Mayor Weighed In

On Tuesday, Gossips published a statement from Mayor Joseph Ferris which was received before there was time to report on the Common Council meeting that provoked the mayor's response. Today, we catch up and report on the meeting. But first, some history.

In January 2023, the Common Council passed a resolution approving the sale of two parcels owned by the City of Hudson to Kearney Realty & Development. The two parcels were the vacant lot at State and North Fourth streets, currently being used as a parking lot by Columbia County, and the land on Mill Street that had been and still is a playing field and was generally considered to be part of Charles Williams Park. The resolution was accompanied by an agreement of sale, but the actual agreement of sale was not executed until May 2023.

The actual agreement of sale, which is essentially the same as the one attached to the resolution presented to the Common Council, was signed by Mayor Kamal Johnson for the City of Hudson and Sean Kearney for Kearney Realty & Development and dated May 3, 2023. That agreement, like the agreement attached to the resolution, set the closing "on or before the date which is two years after the full execution of this Agreement." The agreement stipulated that the purchaser could postpone the closing for up to two six-month periods. The two years and the two six-month extensions were over on May 3, 2026.

At the informal Common Council meeting on Monday, June 15, residents of Mill Street urged the Council to act on the contract, which they believed had expired on May 3. What was not known at the time was that, unbeknownst to the Common Council, the agreement of sale had been amended by Mayor Joseph Ferris on May 20, 2026, to alter the closing date. Between the informal Council meeting on June 15 and the regular meeting on June 23, Council president Margaret Morris researched the issue, and at the regular meeting read aloud the amendment to the agreement, which had been signed by Ferris and Kenneth Kearney. The amendment changed the date of closing from a fixed date to an open-ended one: "thirty (30) days after the Seller has discontinued all pending actions/proceedings relating to the ability of the Seller to convey title to the Property." In other words, thirty days after there has been a determination favorable to the City in the current Article 78 proceeding.

The question was raised but not answered if the mayor had the authority to amend the agreement without the knowledge and the approval of the Common Council.

Councilmember Henry Haddad (First Ward) brought up another issue: the selling price. Haddad cited $450,000 as the price; it is actually $420,000 for both parcels--Mill Street and State Street. Haddad called the deal "bad for us and bad for Mill Street" and asserted "to continue this is a slap in the face to taxpayers." Councilmember Jennifer Belton (Fourth Ward) mused, making reference to the three projects the City had chosen Kearney to pursue, "If two of them aren't happening, and the worst one might happen. . . ."

It was in response to this that Ferris issued this statement:

The contract closing date was not extended. The amendment simply clarified the current state of the contract and provided the closing will occur pending the Court's Article 78 determination.

The City of Hudson cannot unilaterally cancel the contract. If we were to do so, Kearney Group would have a breach of contract claim against the City and could seek damages for the City's termination.

Corporation Counsel [City Attorney] advised me that since the City was already in contract with Kearney Group, is a named party in the Article 78 proceeding, and has a legal obligation to perform under the contract until such time as a Court rules otherwise, it was necessary to execute the amendment to maintain the status quo.

Much of this was discussed at a March 6 meeting attended by myself, Council President Morris, Mill Street petitioners, and the respective legal representatives.

The Council can debate prior resolutions of support but as this city's mayor, my responsibility is to protect the city and at this point in the Article 78 process, that means doing everything in my power to avoid unnecessary and expensive legal actions whose cost will be borne by the taxpayers.

It will be recalled that last year, before he was elected, Ferris called on the Planning Board to deny approval to the Mill Street Lofts project. Ferris said at that time, "There is no such thing as a good project in a floodplain. Let's build a future that's safe, equitable, and forward-thinking. Approve the Bliss Towers redevelopment and reject the Mill Street Lofts as it stands." Despite significant opposition from elected officials, neighborhood residents, and the public in general, the Planning Board granted site plan approval to the project in May 2025.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

Mill Street Neighborhood Responds

Last week, it was revealed that, unbeknownst to the Common Council and to the public in general, Mayor Joseph Ferris amended the terms of the agreement to sell two City-owned parcels to Kearney Realty & Development Group. According to the original agreement, the closing needed to take place on or before May 3, 2026. The amendment to the agreement, signed on May 20, 2026, changes the date of closing from a fixed date to an open-ended one: "thirty (30) days after the Seller has discontinued all pending actions/proceedings relating to the ability of the Seller to convey title to the Property."

As soon as the information about the amendment went public at the Common Council meeting last Tuesday, Ferris issued a statement explaining why this action was taken. Gossips has published that statement twice, here and here. 

Today, the residents of Mill Street issued their own statement, responding to Ferris. The statement, which was published on the Mill Street Neighborhood website, is reproduced below.

Late last week, Mayor Ferris gave a statement explaining his decision to extend the City’s contract with the Kearney Group. Our neighborhood would like to respond to falsehoods in his statement and set a few facts straight about our litigation. 

As a reminder, the Mill Street Lofts is a proposed apartment complex six times the size of our entire neighborhood. It would be built on public parkland, in violation of state law, on a parcel that regularly and severely floods. Those are only the headlines in a long list of design failures that our neighbors pointed out to the Planning Board and the Common Council for over a year. Both boards chose to ignore the red flags in order to push the project through at then-Mayor Kamal’s urging. The process was so clearly stacked that three of our own city representatives encouraged us to file a lawsuit. Mr. Ferris gave a written statement of support as we prepared to file the suit, joined us for a neighborhood organizing meeting, and publicly stated his opposition to the project on his campaign trail. 

But in his public statement last week, Mr. Ferris shows that not only has he reversed his opposition to the project, he is willing to collaborate with the developer behind closed doors and lie about it. 

Mr. Ferris’s statement includes the following falsehoods: 

“[I am] doing everything in my power to avoid unnecessary and expensive legal actions whose cost will be borne by the taxpayers.” 

“The contract closing date was not extended.” 

“The City of Hudson cannot unilaterally cancel the contract.” 

“Much of this was discussed at a March 6 meeting attended by myself, Council President Morris, Mill Street petitioners, and the respective legal representatives.” 

Let’s start with the Mayor’s statement about March 6th. On that date, our neighborhood enthusiastically offered to cooperate with the newly elected administration on settling the case, explicitly to stop wasting city funds. We asked that the new mayor recognize the 40 pages of municipal documents acknowledging the parcel as parkland, so as not to waste taxpayer dollars waiting for a judge to recognize what the city record already plainly shows. In that same meeting, we had our attorney explain that the City can choose to exit their contract with the Kearney group at any time, without penalty, and that city governments are very rarely held liable for doing so. 

The Mayor said all of two sentences in that meeting, namely, “I’m Joe Ferris the Mayor and I’m just here to listen,” and “Thank you everyone for your time.” It is a complete fabrication that anyone--our neighborhood, or Council President Morris--were clued in on the Mayor’s actual intention to singlehandedly extend the developer’s contract once it expired. No other strategies to resolve the case were offered. No one from City government responded to our settlement offer in any way. 

That alone should clarify that the Mayor is not “avoiding unnecessary and expensive legal actions.” In fact, the City’s next move after our meeting was to pursue an unnecessary additional legal step, a Motion to Dismiss, that delayed the judge’s ruling by months. This wasteful attempt to throw out our case was rejected by the judge on every point. (You can read the judge’s opinion here). 

When Mayor Ferris says, “the contract closing date was not extended,” is Mayor Ferris playing word games, or does he not understand the impact of the document he signed? The contract had a clear closing date (May 3rd, 2026), after which the City administration could exit or declare a default. Instead, he collaborated with the developer on an amendment that has no predictable end date at all. 

But the amendment does more damage than keeping the Mill Street Lofts project on lifeline. Mayor Ferris bargained away the City’s leverage over its real estate in exchange for nothing. The extension ignores that the Kearney Group completely abandoned work on the State Street apartments and Rossman Avenue townhouses that are bound up in the same contract and promised in their original proposal. He signed the amendment without any public process and kept it out of the public record until Council President Morris formally requested it 6 weeks later. When Carla Sadoff, candidate for 4th Ward supervisor, asked if he had amended the contract at his town hall on May 18th, he dodged the question and feigned ignorance. All this from the Mayor that ran on government transparency and accountability! 

There is one sentence in the Mayor’s statement that does ring true, and that is, “it was necessary to execute the amendment to maintain the status quo.” For over a year, the City has been indefinitely bound to an underperforming developer with a terrible plan for our neighborhood, with the City and the neighborhood footing legal bills while we wait for a judge to explain the obvious. Mayor Ferris is 100% correct that he took the action that would be most likely to maintain that status quo. 

Mayor Ferris: This is not what you were elected for. Your obligations are to your constituents and to legal process, not to protect the interests of an outside developer. We demand that you honor your campaign promises to our neighborhood to extract the City from this deeply flawed project, and terminate or relocate the Mill Street Lofts deal.

More News from the Informal Council Meeting

The informal Common Council meeting is typically when resolutions are introduced to be voted on eight days later at the regular Council meeting. Last night, however, there were three resolutions that had to be introduced and voted on that evening: the resolution to add a second full-time code enforcement officer; a resolution authorizing a budget amendment to cover the fees for the Planning Board attorney; and a resolution authorizing a budget amendment to cover anticipated legal fees for the remainder of the year. The third resolution is of particular interest.

In the 2026 budget, $80,000 was appropriated for legal expenses. Now, just halfway through 2026, that $80,000 has already been spent. The resolution before the Council would authorize taking $103,000 from the fund balance to cover anticipated legal fees for the remainder of the year. As justification for this, the resolution explains: "[T]he City has been heavily involved in Planning Board-related litigation, tax certioraris, and union contract negotiations." The resolution explains how the sum of $103,000 was reached:

[W]e have received estimated billings for June through December 2026 of $15,000 from Hinman Straub (labor attorney); $70,000 from Tabner Ryan & Keniry LLP (Planning Board and tax certiorari attorneys); $7,500 from Rodenhausen Chale & Polidoro LLP (Zoning Board of Appeals Counsel), and $11,000 from Rodenhausen Chale & Polidoro LLP (Historic Preservation Commission Counsel).

When asked to comment on the proposed budget amendment, Heather Campbell, city treasurer, said, "I'm not particularly happy about it, but I don't see that we have much of a choice, short of trying to . . . reduce the amount of activities that are causing litigation against the City."

At this point, after Council president Margaret Morris invited public comment, Josh Kipp, a Mill Street resident, asked, "Wouldn't our money be better spent trying to get out of the fact that we approved to build on state parkland or city parkland?" He was alluding, of course, to the ongoing litigation over the sale of the former Charles Williams field to Kearney Realty and Development and Mayor Ferris's recent unilateral act to extend the terms of the contract.

Although the money being spent by the City defending against the lawsuit brought by Mill Street Neighbors represents only a fraction of the estimated $103,000 in anticipated legal expenses, Mill Street remained a topic of comment. Lakia Walker told the Council that the Mill Street Neighbors met in March with Mayor Joseph Ferris in an effort to "come up with some kind of settlement" to avoid further legal fees. She said nothing came of their efforts. She told the Council that she and her neighbors were "actually paying twice": "We're paying our own lawyer fees and we're paying our taxes, which is also fighting against us." 

Speaking of the meeting with the mayor on March 6, the meeting Ferris referenced in his statement on June 23, Mill Street resident Jack Hornickel told the Council, "I found it personally offensive that we organized a settlement conference with the City, and we heard nothing back. We offered to settle our case, and we heard nothing back. And when I say nothing, I mean no yes, no maybe, or counteroffer. Nothing. We offered that with the goal of settling the case and limiting everyone's exposure to endless litigation. My understanding is that the mayor is charge of litigation strategy, and from my perspective there is no litigation strategy."

In the end, Morris suggested that the resolution be amended to reduce the amount being taken from the fund balance from $103,000 to $40,000--enough to cover the next two months of legal fees and prevent the City from being delinquent in paying its bills. She also proposed that the law firms involved show how they arrived at their estimates. The Council agreed to the amendment, and the amended resolution passed without opposition.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

Legislation and Dogs

Tomorrow at 4 p.m., Mayor Rick Rector will hold a public hearing before acting on an amendment to Section 70-4 of the city code to allow dogs to be present in Henry Hudson Riverfront Park.

Also tomorrow, at the informal Common Council meeting, which takes place shortly after 7 p.m., following the organizational meeting, the new Council will receive Mayor Tiffany Martin Hamilton's veto of the resolution passed by the previous Council expressing "its opposition to the construction of a dog park at Charles Williams Park" and recommending "that the Mayor explore constructing a dog park at another location." The mayor's veto, which was issued on December 20, 2017, reads in part:

In October of this year [2017], after evaluating every available green space owned by the City of Hudson, I, in consultation with others, determined that the Charles Williams Park was the most logical location for a dog park based on, amongst other things, the following factors:

• Charles Williams Park has the most available green space of any park within the City limits;

• The original design for Charles Williams Park contemplates the inclusion of a fenced-in area for dogs;

• Charles Williams Park is markedly underutilized by the majority of Hudson's citizens;

• Residents of Mill Street have raised the issue of nefarious activities taking place in the park;

• Increased use of Charles Williams Park will act as a deterrent for those wishing to use the park for illicit activities;

• There is parking available at the end of Mill Street near the entrance to Dugway Road, as well as available street parking (all homes have driveways);

• As with all other streets in the City, Mill Street is a public thoroughfare, open to pedestrian and vehicular traffic;

• While there can be a conversation with residents regarding the dog park rules and any safety concerns, it is important to bear in mind that Charles Williams Park is a public amenity funded by all of Hudson's taxpayers, and full use and enjoyment of the park should be encouraged;

• In the City's densely-populated two square miles, every resident experiences pedestrian and vehicular traffic--including in some areas heavy truck traffic--passing by their homes, and is surrounded by other homes, businesses, parks, schools, churches, healthcare facilities, etc.;

• As has been documented in countless studies, dog parks provide many social benefits to communities; and

• Roughly $14,000 of private funds have been raised specifically to construct a dog park, providing the community with a highly desired amenity at no cost to the taxpayers (the park will continue to be mowed, as it is now, by DPW).

If the Council decides to vote on overriding the mayor's veto, that vote would not happen until the regular monthly meeting of the Council on Tuesday, January 16.
COPYRIGHT 2018 CAROLE OSTERINK

Meetings of Interest in the Week Ahead

The midweek holiday that seemed to spread to the weekends that preceded and followed it is now behind us, and we're back to the monthly round of meetings, starting with a trifecta at City Hall tonight.

Today, Monday, July 9, two public hearings precede the monthly informal Common Council meeting.

• At 6 p.m., there is a public hearing about the proposed new franchise agreement with Mid-Hudson Cablevision. The old franchise agreement expired a few years ago, and it's only now being renewed. To review the terms of the proposed agreement, click here. 
• At 6:30 p.m., there is a public hearing about the route of the Empire State Trail through the city. The route being proposed enters Hudson from the north on Harry Howard Avenue, goes down the Dugway to Mill Street and then Dock Street, south across the city on Front Street, then up Allen Street to Third Street and continues south on Route 9G.

• At 7 p.m., the Common Council holds its informal meeting for July. The proposed amendment to the zoning code that would allow nonconforming uses in R-2 and R-2H districts to double in size and expand onto adjacent lots is expected to be introduced at this meeting. Click here to review the amendments proposed.

The R-2 and R-2H districts are located primarily along Green Street and Fairview Avenue and include the neighborhoods off Fairview Avenue to the west and between Fairview and Route 66 to the east. State Street from Fourth to Sixth streets is also designated R-2 or R-2H as are North Fifth Street and the streets that intersect it--Prospect, Washington, and much of Clinton. 

Also of interest on the agenda for tonight is a resolution to sell 67 Fairview Avenue, a vacant lot where the City demolished a house back in 2013; a resolution to adopt the Strategic Housing Action Plan created by the mayor's Housing Task Force; and the proposed law pertaining to vacant buildings.

On Tuesday, July 10, the Hudson IDA (Industrial Development Agency) is scheduled to meet at 1 p.m. in City Hall. No agenda is available for that meeting.

On Thursday, July 12, there are two meetings--one in the afternoon and one in the evening.

• At 2 p.m., HCDPA (Hudson Community Development and Planning Agency) has its monthly meeting at 1 North Front Street. Among the topics it's possible to predict will be discussed are the agency's financial crisis, the imminent departure of its executive director, and the ongoing sale of surplus property, including the parcel now being sold by sealed bid.
• At 6 p.m., the Planning Board holds its monthly meeting. On the agenda for this meeting is an application for a lot line adjustment at 248 and 250 Columbia Street to create two lots of equal size.

Gossips devoted much attention to these two houses back in 2013, when their owner, Per Blomquist wanted to demolish them and build in their stead a new building with five one-bedroom apartments, each with an area of 700 square feet. A misreading of the Bulk and Area Regulations in the zoning code claimed that the minimum size for an apartment was 1,500 square feet, necessitating an area variance for the building. The error was embraced and vigorously defended for months until finally Daniel Tucsinski, then assistant city attorney and counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, succeeded in correcting the misconception and clarifying that 1,500 square feet pertained to the lot not the apartment. Meanwhile, Blomquist had lost his funding for the project and expressed his disdain for the snafu by spray-painting the two houses gold. It will be interesting to see what his plans for these two houses are now, but the request for a lot line adjustment doesn't bode well for their survival.

On Friday, July 13, the Historic Preservation Commission holds the first of its two monthly meetings. A full agenda is not available, but certain to be reviewed is the proposed facade restoration/renovation of 364 Warren Street. Jason O'Toole, representing the Galvan Foundation, presented this rendering of the facade to the HPC at its last meeting, but consideration of the proposal was postponed until architect member Kate Johns could be present, which will happen on Friday.

COPYRIGHT 2018 CAROLE OSTERINK

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: "After this therefore because of this." It is usually considered a logical fallacy to assume that because Event Y happened after Event X, Event X caused Event Y. In this case, it isn't.  

Event X  On June 23, it was revealed that Mayor Joe Ferris had amended the contract for the sale of the Mill Street property, changing the deadline for closing from a fixed date (one that had already passed) to an open-ended one (thirty days after pending litigation is settled in a manner that would allow the sale to go forward). This was done without the authorization or the knowledge of the Common Council. Indeed, the Council and the public would likely have known nothing about it had a Mill Street resident not pointed out, at a Council meeting on June 15, that the deadline for closing the sale, as specified in the original contract, had already passed. 

Event Y  On July 20, at the informal meeting of the Common Council, a resolution was presented "stating the Common Council's power to authorize sale of real estate." The resolution reads in part:

WHEREAS, Section 41.1 of the City of Hudson Code states that no sale or lease of City real estate or of any franchise belonging to or under the control of the City shall be made or authorized except by a vote of 3/4 of the weighted vote of members of the Common Council, and 

WHEREAS, the Common Council requires that contracts of sale be submitted for review as part of the authorization process, and  

WHEREAS, any subsequent substantive change to a contract authorized by the Common Council is subject to review and further authorization by the Common Council . . . 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Hudson does hereby assert its right to review contracts and subsequent substantive changes to previously authorized contracts in compliance with Section 41.1 of the City of Hudson Code. 

When Councilmember Claire Cousin (Fifth Ward) asked if there was "something that the City has discovered that makes this clarification necessary," Council president Margaret Morris explained there were two reasons--both having to do with the contract for the sale of the Mill Street property. First, the contract that was signed by Mayor Kamal Johnson on May 3, 2023, is not the same as the contract that had been approved by the Council on January 17, 2023. Second, the amendment to the contract made by Mayor Joseph Ferris on May 20, 2026, was a "substantive change" which needed Council approval, and that did not happen. 

Authorization of real estate transactions requires a supermajority, which back in the days of the weighted vote was three-quarters of the votes but today is nine affirmative votes.

With reference to the resolution, First Ward resident Matt McGhee put the issue in a larger context and urged the Council to "fulfill their promise to support by Constitution by defending their prerogatives against usurpation by the executive branch."   

It is expected this issue will be discussed further at the regular meeting of the Common Council on Tuesday, July 28.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

The Issue with Mill Street

The extension of the terms of the contract to sell two City-owned parcels to Kearney Realty & Development was a topic of discussion at tonight's Common Council meeting. Council president Margaret Morris read the amendment to the contract, which alters the deadline for closing on the sale from a fixed date to an open-ended one: thirty days after pending litigation is settled in a manner that would allow the sale to go forward. 

There was significant discussion about whether or not the mayor could amend the contract without the authorization of the Common Council. Before I could write a post about what happened, I received the following statement from Mayor Joseph Ferris:

In response to discussion about Kearney Group's contract with the City of Hudson at this evening's formal Common Council meeting, Mayor Ferris released the following statement:

The contract closing date was not extended. The amendment simply clarified the current state of the contract and provided the closing will occur pending the Court's Article 78 determination.

The City of Hudson cannot unilaterally cancel the contract. If we were to do so, Kearney Group would have a breach of contract claim against the City and could seek damages for the City's termination.

Corporation Counsel [City Attorney] advised me that since the City was already in contract with Kearney Group, is a named party in the Article 78 proceeding, and has a legal obligation to perform under the contract until such time as a Court rules otherwise, it was necessary to execute the amendment to maintain the status quo.

Much of this was discussed at a March 6 meeting attended by myself, Council President Morris, Mill Street petitioners, and the respective legal representatives.

The Council can debate prior resolutions of support but as this city's mayor, my responsibility is to protect the city and at this point in the Article 78 process, that means doing everything in my power to avoid unnecessary and expensive legal actions whose cost will be borne by the taxpayers.

Gossips' coverage of the discussion of this issue at the Common Council meeting will follow, although reporting on the outcome of today's primary election may take precedence. 

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

Meetings and Events in the Week Ahead

The first full week of April promises a fair number of April showers, as well as a fair number of meetings of importance.

• On Monday April 7, at 5:45 p.m., the Common Council holds a public hearing on an amendment to the zoning code that would permit child daycare facilities as a conditional use in all the zoning districts in Hudson. (They are currently permitted only in R-5 Districts.) The hearing is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Microsoft Teams. Click here for the link to join the hearing remotely.
• At 6:00 p.m. on Monday, April 7, the Common Council holds its informal meeting. Among the items on the agenda for the meeting is a resolution to increase the rates for parking at meters to $1.00 an hour for meters on the street and $.75 an hour for meters in municipal parking lots. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Microsoft Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely.

• On Tuesday, April 8, the Planning Board holds its monthly meeting at 6:30 p.m. The agenda for the meeting contains only two things: Mill Street Lofts and an application from the new rector at Christ Church Episcopal to keep chicken in the backyard at the rectory. Despite there being an A/V professional on the Planning Board, the meeting will be in person only at City Hall. 

• On Thursday, April 10, at 6:30 p.m., the Planning Board holds a public hearing on the conditional use permit for Colarusso's dock operation. The hearing does not appear on the City of Hudson calendar, but Gossips has learned it will take place at the Central Fire Station, 77 North Second Street. Not surprisingly, the hearing will be in person only.

• On Friday, April 11, the Historic Preservation Commission meets at 10:00 a.m. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Microsoft Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely.

COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

Every Building Has a History

This house at 739 Columbia Street is undergoing a major restoration/renovation, and in the process, the current owner has uncovered some interesting information about its history, which has been shared at Historic Preservation Commission meetings.

In an early presentation to the HPC, the applicant revealed that the building had been moved to its current location from someplace on State Street in the 1920s. Yesterday, the applicant returned to the HPC seeking an amendment to the certificate appropriateness already granted. Approval was sought to raise the gabled roof 24 inches.

In the process of making the case for the change, the applicant shared this photograph of the house as it was soon after it was moved to the site in the 1920s. The photo shows that the gabled roof was added to the original building.

Of equal interest in the picture is the building that is its focus, which bears a sign that reads "Hudson Dress Co." As Gossips discovered at few years ago, the Hudson Dress Co. was founded in 1919 by Isadore Krupnik in the "old Traver Mill building" on Diamond Street. When the picture below was taken, the company was known as Krupnik & Jitomir Hudson Dress Co.

The ghost of the sign can still be seen on the building, which is now the location of Kasuri. 

In 1922, the Hudson Dress Company moved to a location farther up Columbia Street, to the building across an alley from 739 Columbia Street, which was the original St. Charles Hotel. 

COPYRIGHT 2023 CAROLE OSTERINK