NYC Council Democrats say punishment is coming after Kevin Barry Love backed Sam Pirozzolo. The majority whip’s household is discovering that political clout can become political baggage.
By Rick LaRivière and Richard Luthmann
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. – Kamillah Hanks’ husband backed a Republican, wants credit for helping that Republican, and may now have handed Council Democrats the excuse to stop treating the Hanks-Love household as somebody else’s problem. Democrats in the City Council say Hanks faces punishment once the election dust settles.
No sanction has been publicly announced, but their grievance is clear: the majority whip’s household cannot advertise its importance to an apparent Republican victory and expect Democratic leadership to applaud.
The NYC Board of Elections’ unofficial returns put Assemblyman Sam Pirozzolo ahead of Democrat Matthew Mobilia by 1,313 votes, with 98.53 percent of scanners reporting as of 12:42 a.m. November 4. Pirozzolo had 18,322 votes across his Republican and Conservative lines; Mobilia had 17,009. Certification remained ahead, but the narrow margin supplied precisely the backdrop in which every political operator starts auditioning for the role of kingmaker.
This outlet reported Love’s endorsement on October 17. Love is now talking as though he and Hanks supplied the winning margin. The tally cannot establish that claim, however enthusiastically Kevin promotes it.
What it establishes is a close contest; what the boasting creates is a leadership headache for a Democrat whose title carries an expectation of political reliability.
Hanks’ Republican Love Affair and Menin’s Leadership Test
Speaker Julie Menin brought Hanks into her leadership team in January, when Hanks publicly thanked her for the trust. A whip helps hold a caucus together.
Having the whip’s husband celebrate a Republican endorsement while claiming the household delivered decisive influence makes that arrangement look less like disciplined leadership and more like a political franchise operating on both sides of the street.
Love has every right to support Pirozzolo, and his endorsement does not automatically become his wife’s. The October report documents his action, rather than a public endorsement by Hanks. But Council Democrats describe her as interested in a borough-president run, and that ambition sharpens the accountability question: does the household want Democratic leadership’s prestige while selling itself as indispensable to Republicans?
Cross-party cooperation has a public purpose; a couple’s perpetual influence auction deserves considerably less reverence.
Council Democrats describe consequences still to come, with no publicly announced decision specifying their form. Menin nevertheless owns the judgment behind her leadership team, and the question of Hanks’ reliability is now sitting squarely on her desk.
Hanks’ Republican Love Affair: The Baggage Predates Pirozzolo
The couple’s controversies long predate this endorsement. NY News Press has reported disputed campaign-payment claims and Richard Luthmann’s litigation against Hanks and Love.
Those allegations require their own evidentiary treatment, but they explain why Kevin’s latest victory lap lands against an established record of conflict, rather than an otherwise tranquil political marriage suddenly disrupted by one Republican handshake.
The Ettore Mazzei reporting identified his board role at Hanks’ Historic Tappen Park nonprofit. IRS-derived tax-return data list Hanks receiving $82,375 in 2019. That nonprofit connection warrants scrutiny of governance and the relationships Kevin Barry Love and Kamillah Hanks maintain.
Then came Love’s reported July 10 detention during a Bay Street narcotics sweep. A source claiming to have been detained in the same operation placed him at the McDonald’s and later the 120th Precinct. That account remains uncorroborated by an arrest report, criminal complaint, or released bodycam, which are currently being sought under multiple FOIL requests.
The amended FOIL request seeks records capable of confirming or disproving that account. The NYPD’s July acknowledgment projected a response around November 30, a date still ahead. The responsible demand remains disclosure: establish what happened, explain the disposition, and let the records settle whether political influence entered the process.
The $2,100 Tom Curitore Connection
A separate campaign-finance trail now reaches Thomas Curitore, the former Staten Island official arrested in Florida last week. Official Campaign Finance Board entries list “Barry, Kevin,” identified for this reporting as Kevin Barry Love, contributing $2,000 on September 25, 2008, and $100 on November 24 to Curitore’s 2009 Council campaign. Both list Maribella X Group and the occupation Real Estate Manager, consistent with contemporaneous reporting about Kevin Barry’s real-estate business. Other archived donor records list “Barry Love, Kevin” with “Maribella Grp.” as employer.
Curitore was arrested last month by federal law enforcement on one count of distributing visual depictions involving the sexual exploitation of minors. NYC’s own appointment announcement confirms his earlier Staten Island transportation post and NYPD career.
The Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) charge remains an accusation. Love’s donations establish earlier political support, not knowledge of, involvement in, or responsibility for the conduct now charged.
“Ettore Mazzei traffics drugs. Tom Curitore looks like a kiddie porn peddler. Both are lucrative vices,” said a New York City political consultant. “When was the last time Kevin bought or sold a building?”
On November 4, this outlet sent Hanks and Love a 30-question inquiry covering the Pirozzolo endorsement, possible Council consequences, the Bay Street detention account, Mazzei, Curitore, and disputed campaign payments. Speaker Julie Menin was copied on the email. The inquiry invited Hanks and Love to answer separately, deny allegations, identify errors, and supply supporting records.
As of press time, there was no response. Here is what we asked:
From: Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>
Date: On Wednesday, November 4th, 2026 at 3:16 PM
Subject: PRESS INQUIRY: Hanks-Love Republican Victory Lap, NYC Council Fallout, and Unanswered Questions
To: kevinblove@gmail.com, district49@council.nyc.gov, kamillah.hanks@gmail.com, khanks@council.nyc.gov
CC: richard@nynewspress.com, richard.luthmann@protonmail.com, RALafontaine@protonmail.com, ralafontaine@protonmail.com, mthomasnast@protonmail.com, msully0916@gmail.com, frankiepressman@protonmail.com, Jmenin@council.nyc.gov, SpeakerMenin@council.nyc.gov
Council Majority Whip Hanks and Mr. Love:
I am leading a group of journalists examining Kevin Barry Love’s endorsement of Republican Assemblyman Sam Pirozzolo, claims that the Hanks-Love household “helped deliver” the resulting Democratic defeat, and information from Democrats connected to the City Council that political consequences for Majority Whip Hanks may follow. Our reporting also concerns the older financial, political, and law-enforcement questions surrounding your activities.
Mr. Love is presenting himself as a political difference-maker. We are asking for the facts behind that presentation. A victory lap is easy to stage; accounting for the influence you claim requires names, dates, documents, and answers that readers can examine.
Please answer separately where your knowledge or positions differ. Council Member Hanks, please ensure that this inquiry reaches Mr. Love and identify any spokesperson authorized to respond for either of you.
A. A Democratic Whip’s Household Backs a Republican
Our October 17 reporting identified Mr. Love’s endorsement of Pirozzolo over Democrat Matthew Mobilia. The Board of Elections’ unofficial returns, time-stamped early November 4, showed Pirozzolo ahead by 1,313 votes, with 98.53 percent of scanners reporting.
1. Mr. Love: Do you confirm that endorsement? When, where, and through what communications did you announce or circulate it, and what reasons did you give for supporting Pirozzolo?
2. Council Member Hanks: Did you support, approve, coordinate, or participate in your husband’s effort? Did you personally endorse either candidate, communicate a preference to constituents, or authorize anyone to convey your support?
3. Both: What did your involvement actually consist of: fundraising, expenditures, advertisements, campaign appearances, telephone calls, volunteer recruitment, voter outreach, or introductions to political organizations? Please identify the activity, who directed it, and who paid for it.
4. Mr. Love: Our reporting describes you as speaking as though you and Council Member Hanks supplied the winning difference. Is that your claim? If so, what evidence supports it? Please distinguish documented campaign work from your interpretation of the result.
5. Council Member Hanks: Do you endorse your husband’s account of your joint influence? If he has overstated your involvement, please identify exactly what he got wrong.
B. Who Is Doing the Whipping?
Democrats in the Council describe anger over the endorsement and anticipate consequences for Hanks after the election. We have not located a publicly announced sanction or a decision establishing what those consequences would be.
6. Council Member Hanks: Have Speaker Julie Menin, members of her leadership team, or other Council Democrats questioned you about Mr. Love’s endorsement or your own involvement? Please identify the participants, dates, and substance of those discussions.
7. Has anyone discussed your continuation as majority whip, requested an explanation or apology, or raised possible changes to your leadership responsibilities, committee assignments, or participation in caucus activities? What, specifically, has been proposed?
8. Do you intend to remain majority whip, and what is your answer to Democratic colleagues who question whether your household is helping defeat their party’s candidates while benefiting from a Democratic leadership position?
9. Are you considering a campaign for Staten Island borough president? Have you or Mr. Love discussed that prospect with Republican officials, donors, political organizations, or intermediaries? Has support for Pirozzolo figured in any such discussion?
10. Both: What role does Mr. Love play in Hanks’ political and official activities? Does he advise her, direct campaign work, communicate with government officials on her behalf, or give instructions to staff? Please explain the boundaries between his private activities, her campaign, and her taxpayer-funded office.
C. Bay Street: What Happened on July 10?
Our July reporting described a source who said he was detained in a narcotics operation and placed Mr. Love in the same operation, beginning near the McDonald’s at 501 Bay Street and continuing at the 120th Precinct. That account has not been independently confirmed through an arrest report, criminal complaint, or released body-camera recording. The restricted docket entries reproduced in that reporting did not identify Mr. Love.
These questions give you a direct opportunity to confirm, correct, or deny the account.
11. Mr. Love: Were you stopped, searched, detained, handcuffed, arrested, questioned, transported, or processed by NYPD personnel in connection with that location or a narcotics operation on July 10, 2026, or during the following two days? Please identify which parts of the source account you confirm and which you deny.
12. Did you enter the 120th Precinct or spend time in a holding cell? If so, when, for how long, and what explanation were you given for your presence or custody?
13. What suspected offense, if any, did officers identify? Were you issued a summons, appearance ticket, release paperwork, property voucher, or other document? Please provide the releasable paperwork and any incident, complaint, arrest, or disposition number.
14. Was any property taken from you, inventoried, retained, or returned? What explanation were you given, and what records document its handling?
15. Council Member Hanks: Did you, anyone in your office, or anyone acting at your request contact Tania Kinsella, personnel at the 120th Precinct, other NYPD officials, or prosecutors concerning Mr. Love during or after the reported encounter? Please identify who contacted whom, in what capacity, what was requested, and what response followed.
16. Mr. Love: Did you ask an elected official, government employee, attorney, or political intermediary to contact police or prosecutors for you? If so, whom did you approach, and what assistance did you request?
17. Both: Have you been contacted concerning IAB Log No. 2026-24243, or provided information about this matter to Internal Affairs or another investigative body? The existence of that log establishes that a complaint was received; what account have you given, if any, in response?
The amended records request seeks records capable of confirming or disproving the source account. The NYPD’s July acknowledgment projected a response around November 30. If either of you possesses releasable records explaining the encounter or its disposition, please provide them.
D. Ettore Mazzei and the Nonprofit Connection
Earlier reporting identified Ettore Mazzei’s board role at Historic Tappen Park Community Partnership. IRS-derived financial data list Hanks as president and CEO receiving $82,375 in 2019. A November 2025 appellate order records Mazzei’s appeal from a judgment entered upon a guilty plea; that order does not identify the offense to which he pleaded.
18. Council Member Hanks: Do you confirm Mazzei’s board service? Who recruited or recommended him, when did he serve, and what responsibilities, financial authority, or access to organizational records did he have?
19. Both: Please describe your respective personal, political, and business relationships with Mazzei, including when those relationships began, any joint ventures or financial dealings, and your most recent contact.
20. Did Mazzei, his businesses, or entities he controlled provide money, loans, property, services, fundraising assistance, or other benefits to the nonprofit, either of you, or a Hanks campaign? Please identify the transactions and supporting records.
21. Council Member Hanks: What review did the nonprofit undertake after Mazzei’s arrest or subsequent criminal proceedings? Were transactions examined, conflicts reviewed, or corrective measures adopted? What records can you provide showing the scope and findings of that review?
The organizational relationship warrants examination on its own facts. It does not establish that either of you participated in Mazzei’s criminal conduct.
E. Thomas Curitore: Two Contributions and a Political Relationship
The Campaign Finance Board’s records for Thomas Curitore’s 2009 Council campaign contain these entries:
-
September 25, 2008: “Barry, Kevin,” $2,000, transaction R0000050.
-
November 24, 2008: “Barry, Kevin,” $100, transaction R0000201.
Both list Maribella X Group and the occupation Real Estate Manager. Contemporaneous real-estate reporting associates Kevin Barry with that business, while archived donor data identify “Barry Love, Kevin” with “Maribella Grp.”
22. Mr. Love: Do you confirm that you made these contributions, totaling $2,100? If you dispute the identification, please explain the discrepancy.
23. How did you meet Curitore, why did you support his campaign, and what other campaign work, fundraising, introductions, or political assistance did you provide?
24. Did your relationship continue after that campaign? Please describe subsequent personal, political, business, or governmental dealings, and identify your most recent contact.
25. Council Member Hanks: What relationship, if any, have you had with Curitore, and what knowledge did you have of your husband’s support or subsequent dealings with him?
Local10 reported Curitore’s October 27 arrest on a federal charge involving distribution of visual depictions of the sexual exploitation of minors. That charge remains an accusation. A lawful contribution in 2008 does not establish knowledge of conduct charged eighteen years later; our questions concern the nature and duration of the relationship documented by the campaign records.
F. Campaign Bills, Collection Disputes, and Claims of Influence
Prior reporting includes disputed campaign-payment claims involving Michael Cox and Richard Luthmann, along with accounts of communications concerning collection efforts. For transparency, Luthmann has a personal litigation interest in claims against you, which is relevant to readers’ assessment of that reporting.
26. Both: What work did you or the Hanks campaign authorize Cox and Luthmann to perform, what payments were made, and which claimed balances do you dispute? Please provide contracts, invoices, payment records, and your explanation of the disputed amounts.
27. Mr. Love: Do you dispute Cox’s account that he was offered a fraction of his claimed payment? What was the offer, who authorized it, and what was its basis?
28. Earlier reporting describes calls to collection attorneys in which you invoked the FBI, DOJ, political connections, or possible professional consequences. Do you dispute that account or the authenticity of the recordings identified in the reporting? Please explain the purpose and context of those communications.
29. Council Member Hanks: Did you authorize Mr. Love to communicate with attorneys or government officials concerning these disputes on your behalf? What instructions did you give him, and what records support your account?
30. Both: Which specific factual assertions in the linked coverage do you contend are false, incomplete, or misleading? Please identify the passage, state the correction you seek, and provide the supporting evidence.
Your household’s claimed political influence is a legitimate subject of public scrutiny. Readers deserve to know who acted, what authority they exercised, what money changed hands, and what the documents actually show. A broad complaint about hostile coverage will not resolve a specific factual dispute; a supported denial or documented correction can.
This is your opportunity to deny the allegations, correct the record, and place your position before readers without distortion. Please respond to the numbered questions, identify any authorized spokesperson, and provide records supporting your answers. Your responses may be quoted in full or in part, with their meaning and material context preserved.
Our coverage will accurately distinguish a denial, a partial answer, an express refusal, and the absence of a response. We will review any subsequent response and incorporate material information through an update or follow-up.
What Menin should confront is the Hanks-Love operation’s appetite for influence and the unanswered questions surrounding it. If Democratic colleagues finally act because Kevin helped a Republican, they should explain why party loyalty commands an urgency that older public-interest questions did not.
Hanks cannot make her household’s claimed clout the sales pitch and then treat its political consequences as an intrusion. The whip’s job is to count votes; Kevin’s victory lap may have invited a different count, of colleagues still willing to carry her baggage.
About The Author
Leave a Reply