|
Defiant
NY Lawyer Wins By Mark Fass A Brooklyn attorney charged in November by then-attorney general Eliot Spitzer with conspiring to defraud minority real-estate purchasers has successfully contested two of the eight charges against him. According to the state's complaint, Benzion Frankel and 10 others lured buyers into purchasing property in poor Brooklyn neighborhoods at inflated prices by promising no-money-down mortgages. Mr. Frankel purportedly prepared and submitted false documents enabling the buyers to obtain the loans. Mr. Frankel moved to dismiss the complaint. Last week, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin G. Diamond granted the motion in part, dismissing two of the eight charges against him. Specifically, Justice Diamond held that the state's "deceptive acts or practices" claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and that Mr. Frankel's alleged breach of fiduciary duty would not constitute an "illegal" act under the Executive Law. Of the 11 defendants, only Mr. Frankel has neither settled nor defaulted in the action, State of New York v. Katz, 405062/06. Judges' Grudges Kindle Clash By Brad Hamilton A rare and nasty spat has erupted among normally stone-faced appeals judges over the case of a judicial activist whose probe of Manhattan jurists sparked an FBI investigation. Presiding Judge Richard Andrias ripped his colleagues in the appellate division July 6 for rejecting a motion by reformer Anthony DeRosa, blasting their action as "both unprecedented and contrary to law." DeRosa, who sought the four-judge panel's permission to hone his appeal of a ruling against him in an eviction case, had "a statutory right" to appeal, and thus didn't even need the judges' OK to go forward, Andrias argued. But they turned him down anyway. Andrias' stunning dissent was a public slap in the face to the other panel members: David Friedman, Luis Gonzalez and John Sweeny. DeRosa has been thrust into the spotlight after he discovered that the judge who ruled against him in the eviction case, Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond, owned a block of stock in Chase Manhattan Bank, which wanted to foreclose on his Upper West Side co-op. He then began researching other undisclosed conflicts, leading to an FBI probe of Diamond and other judges. DeRosa said that he was encouraged by Andrias' dissent, but that he believes the panel's ruling was payback for his probe. "Let's call it what it is - retaliation," he said. Judge Eyed in Court-Transcript Probe By Brad Hamilton The state court watchdog is investigating charges that Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Marilyn Diamond changed official transcripts, allegedly to help cover up favorable rulings she made for pals, The Post has learned. The Commission on Judicial Conduct interviewed court reporter Maurice Schwartzberg two weeks ago - and he admitted making "substantial revisions" to transcripts at the judge's request in one case. Diamond is the central figure in an FBI probe into whether judges hid personal and professional ties to litigants, then ruled in their favor. The case involving Schwartzberg pitted a co-op owner against his building at 40 Fifth Ave. over the installation of a washer-dryer. The owner, Sam Levin, twice asked Diamond to recuse herself in 2004 after discovering that real-estate broker Douglas Elliman - which managed the co-op - rented out apartments in the judge's townhouse. Diamond refused and ruled against Levin. Judge Slapped in Art 'Scam' By Brad Hamilton A federal judge — citing 24 alleged illegal acts — has ordered embattled Manhattan jurist Marylin Diamond and two associates to enter settlement talks with a family that claims the trio stole hundreds of millions from an elderly art heiress. The judge ruled the heiress' surviving relatives showed enough proof of two dozen fraudulent acts by Diamond's co-trustee of the family trust, Janet Neschis, and another associate to allow their racketeering lawsuit to go forward. Manhattan federal Judge Richard Berman also found that the relatives presented sufficient evidence for a special trust to be created to freeze the late woman's fortune, which the relatives value as high as $2 billion. At issue is control over hundreds of millions that art-collecting film producer Jacques Gelman left his wife, Natasha, 20 years ago and which she signed over to Diamond and Neschis six months before her death in 1998. She also gave Robert Littman, a friend, the Gelmans' $700 million Mexican art collection and two homes in Mexico. But a lawsuit by surviving relatives alleges the two women and Littman conspired to take advantage of the Alzheimer's-stricken octogenarian. Berman's 51-page ruling on Dec. 13 said the special trust was needed to "prevent unjust enrichment" by the trio and he ordered both sides to begin talks to resolve the four-year-old case. "This is a big victory for my children," said Jerry Jung, 59, a nephew of Natasha's who heads a family of four that sued over the money. The Jung suit names Neschis and Littman as chief defendants and Diamond as a "co-conspirator." Neschis, the daughter of Jacques Gelman's longtime attorney, and Diamond are friends and former law associates in Neschis' estate-planning practice. Gelman discovered Mexican movie legend Cantinflas, who starred in the original "Around the World in 80 Days." He also befriended Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo and collected masterpieces from them and other muralists, along with about 90 paintings by Picasso, Matisse, Chagall and Dali. Natasha Gelman, who kept the European art in a multimillion-dollar apartment on Park Avenue, wrote a boiler-plate will in 1993 that named the Jungs and others, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art, as beneficiaries, the suit claims. But four years later, while suffering from dementia, she tore up the document and replaced it with an irrevocable trust, handing control to Neschis and Diamond, whom she named as co-trustees. They became executors when she died six months later in 1998. Since then, the two have collected more than $1 million a year each for their work on the estate. The case includes allegations that Diamond and Neschis also ripped off the Anturia Foundation, an overseas entity Jacques Gelman set up in Liechtenstein that was once worth $40 million but is now worth about $6 million. Joining the Jung suit is an Israeli research firm, the Weizmann Institute of Science, which claims its inheritance from the Anturia Foundation was fraudulently eliminated when Natasha Gelman rewrote the foundation's bylaws in 1992. Diamond, who became a New York State Supreme Court justice in 1990, is under investigation by the FBI for her role in the Gelman estate and for allegedly making favorable rulings from the bench to help out pals and companies in which she owns stock. Paul Curran, who represents all three defendants, said he was "pleased" Berman ruled Natasha was of sound mind when she rewrote the Anturia bylaws in 1992. He plans to file a motion with judge Berman to reconsider his ruling. http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/59440.htm
Boys Free of 'Millionaire' Welfare Mom First she refused to give her sons dinner or pay the electric bill at their $4,000-a-month apartment on the Upper East Side. Now heiress and alleged welfare cheat Linda Jacobs has had her youngest boy arrested. Jeffrey, 16, spent the night in the Manhattan central lockup known as The Tombs after his mom had him charged with criminal mischief following an argument three weeks ago. But the story has a happy ending: The charges were eventually dropped and Jeffrey and his brother Jason who so badly wanted to escape their troubled mom they secretly collected evidence of her alleged welfare scam are finally living with dad. Things weren't so peachy on Jan. 26, when a bizarre encounter unfolded that led to Jeffrey's arrest. That morning, Linda woke up her son by tossing papers at him showing she'd asked city child-service workers to step in and possibly take custody of the teen, he said. "She said, 'They're coming to get you,' " Jeffrey said. Jeffrey said he was held overnight in The Tombs with about 30 adult suspects before he could be arraigned and freed. The Manhattan DA's office has since dropped the charges. "I'm happy. I'm relieved," said the boys' father, Gary Jacobs, who was awarded temporary custody following an emergency hearing in Manhattan Family Court Feb. 7 that the mother did not attend. Gary, 51, an apparel consultant who's been fighting to get custody since he lost the boys following his bitter 1999 divorce, said that after the arrest, his ex-wife ordered Jason and Jeffrey out of their East 85th Street apartment. And so he asked Family Court Judge Susan Knipps to grant her wish. The change is the latest twist in a bizarre family saga that's seen the teens accuse their mother of not feeding them or paying the electric bill at their apartment then pocketing welfare benefits, despite having access to her family's millions. Their allegations sparked a state welfare-fraud investigation of Linda Jacobs, while the FBI probed Supreme Court Judge Marylin Diamond, who gave her custody. The kids say Diamond ignored their wishes after they begged to live with their dad, telling a court-appointed shrink that their mom abused them. Both sides were back in court Monday to determine if the temporary custody arrangement would be made permanent, but this time Linda showed up with two lawyers and got an extension. Both boys remain deeply bitter about Diamond's ruling and the years they were forced to live with their mother. Diamond and Linda Jacobs did not return calls seeking comment. (Gary
Jacobs and his children have FINALLY obtained some justice. On
Monday, March 21, 2005 Gary Jacobs was awarded by the Court
PERMANENT full custody of the children, which is exactly what both
he and his children have wanted for years. ) Contentious Divorce By Mark Fass The Court of Appeals has declined to hear an appeal of Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond's decision to award Jacoby & Meyers owner Gail Koff 65 percent of the marital assets in her contentious divorce. The Appellate Division, First Department, had upheld Justice Diamond's decision by a 3-2 margin, which included a 25-page dissent by Justice David B. Saxe. The Court of Appeals based its decision on jurisdictional grounds, stating that "the two-justice dissent is not on a question of law." Rather, the dissent centered on the propriety of what Justice Saxe described as the "highly skewed equitable distribution award." NY
Lawyers Sanctioned in Suit By Tom Perrotta An appeals court has sanctioned two attorneys in a controversial lawsuit that has brought attention to the financial holdings of state judges who preside over cases involving large corporations. The Appellate Division, First Department, sanctioned David B. Cohen $2,000 and Thomas D. Shanahan $250 for frivolous conduct while representing Anthony DeRosa, who has been challenging the foreclosure on his Manhattan apartment by Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond upheld the foreclosure. The First Department later agreed with the outcome of her ruling but said she should not have heard the case because she owned stock in JP Morgan Chase. The court later rescinded that opinion and said the judge had no conflict, largely because JP Morgan Chase and Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. were distinct entities. Last week, the court issued its third ruling in the case, saying Mr. DeRosa's attorneys amended an appellate caption to include both corporate names in an attempt to bolster their argument against Justice Diamond. The court said Mr. Cohen expressed no remorse for his actions and made "derogatory and undignified statements about the judiciary." The court said Mr. Shanahan accepted responsibility for the act and demonstrated respect for the court. Mr. Shanahan said, "I was sanctioned $250 in a pro bono case that I've never been paid for. The message is that for unpopular litigants, anyone who dares represent them ought to watch their step." Mr. Cohen could not be reached for comment. (In his dissenting opinion Judge Richard T. Andrias of the Appellate Division First Department stated as follows: Andrias, J., dissents in
part in a memorandum as follows: Because the Cour:t $Laps Lawyers in Conflicts Case By Brad Hamilton An appeals panel has slammed two prominent lawyers with fines for "frivolous conduct" after they represented a man who complained about judicial conflicts of interest. The state Appellate Division fined David Cohen $2,000 and Tom Shanahan $250 for wasting its "time and energy" in arguing for Anthony DeRosa, a Wall Street researcher whose private probe of Manhattan judges spurred an FBI investigation into the alleged conflicts. DeRosa, locked in a foreclosure battle with Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. over his Upper West Side apartment, lost his case before Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond — only to discover that Diamond owned at least $40,000 worth of Chase Manhattan Bank bonds and JPMorgan Chase stock and had other ties to the bank. So he asked the panel to toss out her decision, citing a judicial law that stated any judge who failed to disclose a financial interest in a case, "however small," was automatically disqualified from hearing it. But in the latest appellate decision, a 4-1 majority ruled his lawyers should have taken their complaint about Diamond's conflicts to her before they took it to them. The panel previously agreed that Diamond was conflicted, then reversed itself, claiming the judge might not have realized JPMorgan Chase and Chase Manhattan Mortgage were related companies. Judge Probed in 'Salon Pal' Custody Furor By Brad Hamilton EXCLUSIVE - The FBI is investigating allegations that heiress and alleged welfare cheat Linda Jacobs was pals with the judge who gave her custody of her two sons. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond awarded Jacobs custody of her teen sons, Jason and Jeffrey, in 1999 even though the boys told a court-appointed shrink that their mom beat and abused them. Diamond ignored those claims and their pleas to live with their father, Gary Jacobs, due to her friendship with their mother, according to the boys and the father. "It's a corrupt endeavor, what happened here," said Jason, 17, a private-school senior who has said his mother is a wealthy welfare cheat who collects benefits but doesn't buy food for him or his brother. Jacobs and Diamond live just a few blocks from each other on the Upper East Side and got their nails done at the same salon. The mother also served as a broker for a building the judge owns at 920 Park Ave., records show, although it's unclear when she did so. Diamond and Linda Jacobs were both customers for years at Vogue Nails at 1220 Lexington Ave., said salon manager Chilson Lee. FBI agents pored over the appointment book this summer, asking if the two ever came in together, she said. Lee doubted they came in together but couldn't be sure. "We don't know if they know each other they haven't come in in a long time," said Lee, whose salon has been open since 1995. But Gary Jacobs said the two women both had manicures at Vogue around 5:30 p.m. on July 22 the night before the case was due back in Family Court before a different judge. Diamond claimed in court papers last year that she didn't know Linda Jacobs and had no relationship with the real-estate agency Douglas Elliman, which once listed Jacobs as the broker for the judge's Park Avenue apartment building. It's unclear when Jacobs might have represented the building. She's no longer listed as the broker. Douglas Elliman did not return calls seeking clarification. Court records obtained by The Post show that Diamond who had not presided on the case in five years personally requested the Jacobs case file April 13, six weeks before Linda Jacobs filed a petition in Family Court asking that Gary be ordered to make support payments. She lost that bid but appealed. The appeal was denied Monday. Agents have interviewed Linda and Gary Jacobs and Gary's former attorney, Walter Anderocci, who told The Post he met twice with investigators on the matter. Diamond's husband, Franklin Weisberg, denied that his wife knew Jacobs. Diamond and Linda Jacobs did not return calls seeking comment. Misery of Rich Welfare Mom By Brad Hamilton and
Heather Gilmore The Upper East Side family whose heiress mother stands accused of being a welfare cheat by her sons is cursed with a history of tragic deaths, depression and a shocking revelation that she was adopted. The boys' allegations which include claims that mom Linda Jacobs stopped feeding them, despite having access to millions sparked a probe by state welfare-fraud investigators, as The Post reported last week. They grabbed bank records that show she got $60,000 from a mysterious source in just seven months last year. And they believe their uncle Samuel Pauker cut her off in October, a month after their grandfather died, to force their dad to pay money he doesn't have. Pauker didn't deny cutting off the mother, but said if it was done, it was to make the father honor support payments to his sister. The boys' amateur sleuthing to prove the shocking charges and ultimately get their mom out of their lives shed light on one of New York's most dysfunctional families. "It's a very unfortunate family that has gone through a lot of pain," said Pauker, brother of Linda Jacobs, 52, whose sons Jason, 17, and Jeffrey, 16, say she's fraudulently getting public assistance. Their allegations are just the latest blow to a once-happy clan that in the 1990s enjoyed all the trappings of the father's $500,000 income: exotic vacations, a luxury apartment on East End Avenue, a $1.2 million home in East Hampton and private school for the kids. But the seeds of the family's unraveling were sown years earlier, according to the father, Gary Jacobs, 51, a coats merchandiser. He says his divorce from Linda in 1999 ruined him. Her parents Conservative Jews and country club golfers from Rockville Centre, L.I. were so concerned with appearances that they never told Linda or her brother that both were adopted, he says. The siblings didn't find out until they were in their 20s, he says, when they learned the truth from a childhood friend of Linda's. "Linda says to her mother, 'I was just told that I was adopted. Is that true?' " said Gary. "She says yes, and then she turns around and goes back to washing the dishes." Linda's father, Irving Pauker, who worked in the family knitwear business, tried to make it up to the kids by giving them each $10,000 so they could buy whatever they wanted, Gary says. Her parents also had trouble dealing with the premature deaths of Gary's entire family his parents and brother Jason all died within eight years of each other a tragic turn that left him battling depression, he says. His mother-in-law, Elsa Pauker, blamed Gary for how the deaths hurt Linda, who has battled depression most of her adult life, he says. Gary said he was friendly with Irving, but the Paukers pressured him to do things their way. When he and Linda reached their mid-30s and hadn't conceived, he discovered he had a vascular problem that prevented her from getting pregnant. The parents told him to have surgery. "I said what the hell. I'm not even in charge of my own life," said Gary, who went through with the procedure. After the children were born, Gary was making a six-figure income, and the family moved into a $1 million apartment on East End Avenue. But problems soon came up. A resident of the building recalled seeing the mother spank one of the kids on the elevator. "He was crying and screaming, and she looked totally out of it. She always looked frazzled," the resident said. Gary said his wife's main interest was shopping. The divorce was nasty and bizarre. The kids accused their mom of beating and abusing them, submitting photos of Jason's bruised legs and a tape of her allegedly berating them. They also told a court-appointed shrink that they wanted to live with their father. But the judge gave custody to Linda, and Gary believes he never had a chance in court he says he lost every decision, even though he used three attorneys and spent $160,000. At one point, the judge, Marylin Diamond, threatened to sanction his lawyer for his "sexual posturing" in court. He believes her family's intention was to force him to go back to his wife. The divorce began to undermine his business and he went bankrupt in 2001. In the end, Gary agreed to pay $3,500 a month in spousal maintenance but no child support. Whoever is with the kids is supposed to pick up the tab. She walked away with $1 million in stocks and the sales of their homes in the Hamptons and the Upper East Side, he says, a figure her brother did not dispute. But afterward, Gary met with judicial activist Anthony DeRosa and together they found evidence, they claim, that Diamond and Linda knew each other. "I was set up and the kids paid the price," he said. So he stopped writing her monthly checks but still gave her about $65,000 since 2001, he says. Linda went to court this summer to ask for child support and was turned down, a Family Court judge ruling that she brought no proof she was owed money. Samuel calls Gary a deadbeat and says the boys' harassment of their mother "left her so discombobulated she didn't bring the right paperwork." She went on public assistance after Con Ed shut off the electricity to the family's apartment on East 85th Street, he said. Meanwhile police have been called to the apartment at least half a dozen times in the last six months to complain that they shout at her and argue over money and were there again last week after The Post's story appeared, questioning Jason about the bank and welfare documents, they said. Now the two are avoiding going home. Jeffrey is staying at a friend's house. The split-up of the family "really messed up my life," he said. Said Jason: "The last seven years have been hell." Arrest Our Mom By Brad Hamilton Two teen sons of an Upper East Side heiress say they are so desperate to get away from their abusive mom, they've asked the state attorney general to bust her for welfare fraud. Jason Jacobs, 17, and his brother Jeffrey, 16, say their mom, Linda, pockets benefits while refusing to buy them food or pay the electric bill at their $4,000-a-month apartment. The prep-school kids accustomed to a privileged life of Hawaiian vacations and East Hampton summers claim they're abused, neglected and were recently offered a dinner of half an apple. So they've become amateur sleuths collecting bank statements and benefits records and delivering the documents to their father, Gary Jacobs, who passed them to welfare-fraud investigators last week. Going on welfare, they say, is a despicable ploy to convince a judge to slap new child-support payments on their financially beleaguered father. The boys believe their mom who they say hasn't worked in 25 years has long relied on her family fortune. But that changed in November, they said, when she lost a court bid to impose child support on her ex-husband. She's appealing the decision. Instead of funneling upward of $15,000 a month into her bank account, her family began paying her rent directly, the boys suspect. The goal of the cut-off, Jason said, was to "create an image" of poverty and "put financial pressure on my father." Gary Jacobs was never required to pay child support under the divorce settlement but was ordered to give Linda $3,500 a month in spousal maintenance, which he did until three years ago. But his ex-wife never complained after he stopped making the payments, he said. "All these years, she never asked me for any money," he said. "And there's a reason. Her family is wealthy. Plus she walked away from the marriage with close to a million dollars." Jason, a senior at a private Manhattan school that charges $23,000 a year in tuition, says he buys his own food and staples with money he saved from after-school jobs and summer work as a camp counselor. As for school, Gary paid the tuition up until three years ago, when Linda agreed to take over. This year, the kids said, the school is giving them substantial aid. The state attorney general's office is looking at seven monthly bank statements the boys grabbed that show she's received at least $59,900 this year from a mysterious source. The last statement is from October; she allegedly began receiving benefits in November. According to the state's welfare rules, a family of three would need to show an annual income of $15,670 or less and have $2,000 or less in assets or cash to qualify for assistance. Cash gifts or loans from a family member count as income. A spokesman for the state agency that runs welfare would not comment on what benefits, if any, Jacobs may be receiving. "But I cannot envision a situation where a person paying $4,000 a month in rent would be eligible for benefits," said spokesman Michael Hayes. Linda Jacobs' late father, Irving Pauker, who died in September, amassed a multimillion-dollar fortune in apparel manufacturing and real estate. Still, even Gary isn't sure what money his ex-wife might have. She did receive about $500,000 in the divorce settlement and had stocks, bonds and other funds that pushed the total to $1 million, he says. She's also left a $25,000 deposit on the East 85th Street apartment where she lives with the boys, records show. The kids said they discovered their mom was on welfare after Con Ed shut the lights off for three months of non-payment. She went to a welfare office in Brooklyn to get help with the electrical bill, they said. They believe she gets about $600 a month in benefits. All while making their lives a living hell, they said. She's twice called cops on them for allegedly taking her welfare card and arguing with her about money, they said. The squalor and conflict is a far cry from the worry-free life the boys once led, living in a million-dollar apartment on East End Avenue, taking vacations to Hong Kong and eating at The Palm and Chin Chin. When they weren't vacationing abroad, the family headed out to their $1.2 million beach house in East Hampton. And Linda benefited as well: full-time household help, shopping sprees at Bloomingdale's, a gym membership at Equinox. But that was before the couple's 18-year marriage dissolved. The bitter breakup in 1999 ended with a judge awarding custody to the mother, despite allegations by both kids that she beat them. Jason submitted photos of his bruised legs to the court. "She used to throw textbooks at me," Jeffrey said. Both boys want to live with their father, a fashion-industry consultant. He now resides in New Jersey with his girlfriend of five years and her two kids. "The last seven years have been hell," Jason said. Linda Jacobs, reached on her cellphone, hung up when a reporter identified himself. She did not answer follow-up calls. Additional reporting by Sam Smith Sex-by-the-numbers Prenup Quashed By Helen Peterson It was a prenuptial agreement even The Donald would envy. Gail Koff, a co-founder of the Jacoby & Meyers law firm, signed a bizarre prenuptial pact that, among other things, stipulated "particular sex acts," even "specifying their frequency." Sounds wacky? A panel of judges, splitting 3 to 2, thought so. The Appellate Division decision invalidated the October 1978 prenup, signed a week before Koff married Ralph Brill. The couple has since been embroiled in a nasty, four-year divorce fight in the courts. Brill told the Daily News that the 20-page agreement covered many aspects of their lives, including children, residences, anniversary trips, sex and divorce. He would not specify what the sex acts were or how often the couple engaged in them, but insisted they were not kinky. "We put it in there because it is part of life," Brill said of the sex clause. "They are normal sexual things that husbands and wives do with each other, nothing strange." The agreement also mandated the couple would live apart - he in the country, she in the city. One of the more conventional aspects of the agreement dealt with divorce: It called for the couple to split the assets 50-50. But the split panel agreed with a lower-court decision and awarded Koff 65% of the couple's assets. "The evidence unquestionably establishes that the wife undertook the herculean combined roles of full-time lawyer, primary homemaker and primary parent of the three children, all with, at best, marginal help and support from their father," according to an Appellate Division decision written by Justice George Marlow. Writing for the majority of the split panel, Marlow slammed Brill for cruel and inhuman treatment of Koff, saying there was "sufficient proof" of marital rape. He also cited instances where Brill wiretapped and monitored Koff's phone calls, yelled at her, demeaned her and berated her. Brill denied he was cruel to his wife, or that he ever raped her. He also said he encouraged her to take a year off from work and move in with him. Brill, who said he will appeal, still contends he's entitled to 50% of the couple's assets, including a piece of the law firm. The only problem: The judges found that her law firm, as of April 2000, had debt exceeding $8million and a valuation of zero. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond ordered Koff and Brill to split the debt. "Everybody who hears about Jacoby & Meyers being worth zero laughs," Brill said. The law firm pioneered the use of television commercials to promote itself. Justice David Saxe, who wrote a 25-page dissent, found that the agreement was valid and said Brill could not be blamed for following it. The judges also found no ethical violation by Diamond, the lower-court judge, who had been accused of bias toward Koff's attorney, Bernard Clair, because he made a $777 donation to her campaign and hired her former legal clerk. (The following was not part of the above article but, is noted here as to what the dissent stated: Judges Saxe and Gonzalez, in a 25 page dissent,
said the following, which are precise NY Partner's Hard-Fought Divorce Comes to a Messy Close By Mark Fass A split panel of the Appellate Division, First Department, has upheld embattled Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond's decision to award Jacoby & Meyers owner Gail Koff 65 percent of the marital assets in her contentious divorce. The court offered its explicit support of the judge, who has been at the center of an ethical controversy regarding the case. Justice Diamond's 2000 reelection campaign received a $777 contribution from Ms. Koff's attorney, Bernard Clair. Mr. Clair had also hired the judge's former legal clerk, Jad Greifer, while arguing the case. Ms. Koff's husband alleged that the contribution and hiring contributed to judicial bias. "[T]he judge violated no controlling ethics opinion or rule," Justice George D. Marlow wrote for the panel, which split 3-2. "Moreover, not only does the credible evidence overwhelmingly support the results, but, indeed, in some respects, the court's economic determinations are generous to the husband," he said in K v. B, 2365-2365A. Mr. Clair, a founding partner at Clair, Greifer, said in an interview that he views the decision as both "personal and professional vindication." At the center of the appeal was a premarital agreement rife with unusual clauses that was signed by Ms. Koff and her ex-husband, Ralph Brill, the week before their October 1978 marriage. At the time, Ms. Koff worked as an associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, and Mr. Brill was an architect and real estate broker. The agreement provided for an equal division of marital property upon divorce. Justice Diamond ruled the agreement invalid, and the appellate court agreed. "Although the parties signed the 'agreement,' it was not acknowledged or proven in the manner required to entitle a deed to be recorded," wrote Justice Marlow. "Therefore, the agreement is unenforceable, and the trial court properly rejected it as evidence." With the agreement thrown out, the court relied on the state Equitable Distribution Law, "designed so that the experience a couple endures and the contributions each spouse makes foretell the character of a marriage's end" to determine the financial allocation. The court listed as salient categories financial contributions, "homemaking, raising children and providing the emotional and moral support necessary to sustain the other spouse in coping with the vicissitudes of life outside the home," citing Brennan v. Brennan, 103 A.D. 2d 48 (1984). And because the "evidence is abundant that the wife contributed significantly in every single category and the husband hardly at all," the court upheld the lower court's 65 percent to 35 percent split in favor of Ms. Koff. The premarital agreement codified the couple's lives to an unusual degree. Each spouse would maintain a separate residence Ms. Koff in New York City, Mr. Brill in Putnam County. The agreement set forth a schedule for weekends together, in one or the other location, depending on the season. Another provision promised "particular sex acts . . . specifying their frequency," according to the decision. Cruel, Inhuman Treatment The court upheld, among other holdings, the basis of the divorce, Justice Diamond's finding of cruel and inhuman treatment by Mr. Brill. In his appeal, Mr. Brill argued that Ms. Koff "could not establish cruel and inhuman treatment as a ground for divorce since the parties did not cohabit." The court, however, stated that in adducing whether cruel and inhuman treatment occurred, "the fact-finder should focus primary attention on the nature of the interaction between a husband and wife, rather than on the type of living arrangement." The court found plenty of evidence supporting Ms. Koff's claim of cruelty, including "sufficient proof" that Mr. Brill committed marital rape multiple times. He also tapped and recorded his wife's phone calls, "threatened to ruin the wife's business," "suggested to the wife that she was mentally unstable," "wrote a manipulative and intimidating letter to the wife's therapist" and "yelled at," "demeaned" and "berated" her, among other things, according to the court. "These incidents, evincing a long-standing pattern of emotional neglect and abuse, are amply supported by the record and they well establish the wife's cause of action for cruel and inhuman treatment," wrote Justice Marlow. Presiding Justice John T. Buckley and Justice Betty Weinberg Ellerin concurred with Justice Marlow. The Dissent A 25-page dissent written by Justice David B. Saxe disputed the majority's central findings and "highly skewed equitable distribution award." The pre-marital agreement was valid, Justice Saxe contended. "Because the document pre-dated the Equitable Distribution Law, having been executed on October 2, 1978, the absence of the formalities specified by Domestic Relations Law Sec. 236(B)(3) does not invalidate it," he wrote, citing Bloomfield v. Bloomfield, 97 N.Y. 2d 188 (2001). Furthermore, even if the court did not uphold the terms of the agreement, it should have relied on its probative value, Justice Saxe argued. "The court should have taken into account, rather than rejecting out of hand, the established fact that the parties agreed to an 'unconventional' marriage in which the spouses would reside apart, even in the event they had children, and it should not have so severely punished defendant for conduct that both parties had defined as the foundation of the marriage," he wrote. Justice Luis A. Gonzalez concurred with the dissent. Mr. Clair, Ms. Koff's attorney, said that the litigation may not be over. Using the name originally assigned to Mr. Brill by Justice Diamond to protect the anonymity of the parties, Mr. Clair said, "Mr. B, who apparently felt what I would consider overconfidence in his appeal, has not paid any child support for at least two years. One of the things that we will be considering is an immediate enforcement hearing." Mr. Brill had been ordered to pay $1,450 per month to help support the couple's three children. The attorney for Mr. Brill, Ronald Cohen, could not be located for comment by press time. Justice Diamond also recently faced, but was cleared of, accusations of ethical violations in a case she heard involving Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., a bank in which she owned stock. An Appellate Division, First Department, panel first ruled she should have recused herself, then reversed itself, holding that she did not have to. http://www.nylawyer.com/news/04/11/111004a.html Judge's $$ Offer in 'Ripoff' By Brad Hamilton Embattled Manhattan Supreme Court judge Marylin Diamond has made a multimillion-dollar settlement offer to an Israeli research center that claims she and her ex-law partner ripped off millions it stood to inherit, sources close to the deal said. Diamond made the offer last week even as she and ex-partner Janet Neschis were battling to get the center's 3-year-old lawsuit tossed out of Manhattan federal court. The center is "going away with quite a bit," said one source. The renowned Weizmann Institute of Science claims in court papers that it was due to inherit about $8 million from wealthy art collector Natasha Gelman upon her death in 1998. But the institute claims it lost out after Diamond and Neschis got their hands on the elderly woman's vast fortune. Gelman's film-producer husband, Jacques, amassed millions in the movie business, investments in Mexico, and artworks by modern masters. When he died in 1986, he left his fortune to his wife. It's unclear what happened to the various Gelman holdings, estimated to have been worth between $450 million and $2 billion when the widow died. An Alzheimer's-addled Natasha Gelman rewrote the bylaws of one family foundation in 1992, cutting out Weizmann and others. The new bylaws of the $40 million Anturia Foundation named Diamond a 3 percent beneficiary — worth $1.2 million for the judge. Institute lawyer Dr. Gad Kober refused to comment about the settlement offer. Calls to Diamond and her lawyer were not returned. Judges Slap Back By Dareh Gregorian An appeals court wants two lawyers to pay literally for representing a man who exposed judicial conflicts of interest. The state Appellate Division has informed lawyers Tom Shanahan and David Cohen that it is "considering an imposition of sanctions against you for frivolous conduct in prosecuting [Anthony DeRosa's] appeal." The sanctions threat which gives both lawyers the right to defend themselves before they're slapped with possible fines or disciplinary action was blasted by one of the court's own judges, Richard Andreas. DeRosa who discovered that several Manhattan jurists were ignoring a law requiring them to divulge any financial interest, "however small," in cases before them called the threat "a clear abuse of judicial powers." It's the latest in a string of bizarre and contradictory moves by the Appellate Division in the case including establishing a new law making it harder for litigants to get an impartial judge. DeRosa, a financial analyst, discovered that Judge Marylin Diamond had failed to disclose that she owned stock in JP Morgan Chase and bonds from Chase Bank before ruling against him in his suit against Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. DeRosa then appealed her decision that he lose his apartment. The Appellate Division agreed earlier this year and voided her ruling. But instead of sending DeRosa's foreclosure case to another judge, the court did something it hadn't done since 1928: rule on the case itself. And the five-judge panel came to the same conclusion Diamond had. The lone dissenter was Andrias, who asked the judges to reconsider. They reinstated all of Diamond's rulings, saying she may not have known JP Morgan Chase and Chase Manhattan Mortgage are related. The ruling did not mention her Chase bonds. The decision said it's too "onerous a burden" for judges to know about companies they have holdings in, even though they submit that information to the state every year. In another blistering dissent, Andrias argued the relationship between JPMorgan Chase and Chase Manhattan is "obvious" and Diamond has an obligation "to inform herself about her personal financial interests." The issue won't come up in the future. The chief administrative judge changed the law last week to allow judges themselves to decide if they have a conflict. Judges Get New Leeway on Stocks Until now, state ethics rules said judges must disqualify themselves for owning any amount of stock, "however small," in businesses appearing before them. Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman, who handed down the new rules, also ordered new computer software installed to let judges screen incoming cases for conflicts of interest. Each judge would have to maintain a database of his or her stock portfolio. "We feel that the old rule was out of step with modern reality," Lippman said. "Large numbers of our citizens have stock holdings, as do judges." "What we tried to do was create a rule with a more common-sense approach," Lippman said. "It puts the burden on the judge to comply. "Now, there are no excuses," the chief judge said. The new rules let a judge overlook a financial conflict if it is "an insignificant interest that could not raise reasonable questions as to a judge's impartiality." The judge is trusted to interpret what is "insignificant." The change was prompted in large part by a Daily News report in February that revealed 16 Manhattan justices had ruled in civil lawsuits without disclosing conflicts of interest. Robert Tembeckjian, staff director of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which disciplines judges, said the panel would apply the new rules to cases under investigation. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Helen Freedman, who sold her stock after The News articles appeared, cheered the new rule. "It's consistent with the economy that we live in," she said. "People own very tiny amounts of stock in very large corporations." NY Judges See Rules on Stock Ownership Eased By Daniel Wise The Office of Court Administration yesterday relaxed a rule that had required judges to disqualify themselves whenever they own stock in companies involved in cases before them, "no matter how small" the amount. Instead, the amended rule, issued by Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman, requires judges to use their discretion and disqualify themselves if their stock interest is "more than de minimis." Judge Lippman described the change as "a common sense approach designed to comport with the modern realities of stock ownership." The new rule defines "de minimis" as "an insignificant interest that could not raise reasonable questions as to a judge's impartiality." He announced that new voluntary procedures will be put in place in Manhattan Supreme Court, starting in October, which will allow judges to use a computer program to determine whether they have a potential conflict. The amended rule, §§100.0(D) of the Rules of the Chief Administrator, uses the test for disqualification adopted in 1991 by the American Bar Association and by more than half the states since then. The federal courts have the stricter standard, requiring disqualification for any amount of stock. The federal rule is tougher than either iteration of the New York rule because it does not permit the parties to consent to a judge's handling of a case despite stock ownership. Under both versions of New York's rule, a judge could continue to handle a lawsuit as long as the parties consented. The old rule created problems for judges. The requirement of disclosure of even a single share of stock, coupled with the lack of an effective screening mechanism, led to lapses in required disclosures. Ruling's a Gem for Diamond By Bob Port Controversial Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond got a legal decision in her favor yesterday. The Appellate Division reversed itself and said there was no need for her to step down from hearing a lawsuit that involved a subsidiary of a company in which she owns stock. In March, the court declared that Diamond had a conflict of interest when she dismissed a 2001 challenge to a Chase Manhattan Mortgage Co. foreclosure. Diamond should have disclosed that she and her husband owned stock in JPMorgan Chase & Co. and disqualified herself, the appeals panel said. But yesterday, several judges changed their mind - without anyone asking them to. They said that because Chase Manhattan Mortgage Co., which is entirely owned by JPMorgan Chase, is technically a different company with a different name, Diamond had no conflict of interest. In a scathing six-page dissent, Judge Richard Andrias disagreed. "There is no doubt that Chase, in whatever guise, has a financial interest in this litigation," he said. In 2003, the NYPD investigated Diamond on charges she penned threats to herself, but she was never charged. However, her around-the-clock security protection was dropped. (To read appellate opinion click here.) Case With Ethical Overtones for NY Judges Takes Bizarre Turn By Tom Perrotta A case at the center of a debate over judicial ethics took a bizarre turn yesterday, when an appeals court vacated one of its prior rulings that said a judge should have recused herself from a suit involving a bank in which she owned stock. A divided panel of the Appellate Division, First Department, said that Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond in fact did not have to disqualify herself, largely because the suit named Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. as a defendant, not JP Morgan Chase. Justice Diamond and her husband own stock in JP Morgan Chase. The suit was brought by Anthony DeRosa, who sought to annul the sale of his Upper West Side apartment, which Chase Manhattan Mortgage foreclosed on and sold at auction. Mr. DeRosa has alleged defects in the notification process and claims he never received notice of the foreclosure. So far, courts have ruled against him. In March, a majority panel of the First Department ruled that Justice Diamond should have disclosed her interest in JP Morgan Chase before accepting the suit. Though the court said the judge's error made her ruling against Mr. DeRosa null and void, it then took the rare step of deciding the case on its own -- against Mr. DeRosa. He moved for reargument, and yesterday the same majority of four justices changed their minds. This time they found that Justice Diamond did not have to disqualify herself and affirmed her decision. The majority said that there was "no indication" that Justice Diamond "was aware of any affiliation between that company and JP Morgan Chase." Given that the two companies were separate corporate entities, the appeals court said, Justice Diamond was not statutorily disqualified from the suit. The court relied in part on an advisory ethics opinion, Judicial Ethics Op 04-17, from April 2004 (NYLJ May 10). The opinion said that judges should not bear the burden of investigating their interests in corporate entities that could be related to a party to a lawsuit. The majority also faulted Mr. DeRosa for failing to make a motion for disqualification before Justice Diamond. Dissenting Opinion In a dissenting opinion, Justice Richard T. Andrias said Justice Diamond should have disclosed her interest and did not have the power to hear the suit. He wrote a similar dissent to the court's prior opinion. "There is no doubt that Chase, in whatever guise, has a financial interest in this litigation, however small, and that Justice Diamond's undisputed ownership of JP Morgan Chase stock, of which we may take judicial notice, disqualified her pursuant to Judiciary Law §§14 and deprived her of jurisdiction, an issue that can be raised for the first time on appeal," Justice Andrias wrote. He went on to criticize the majority's reliance on the advisory ethics opinion, which was written almost two years after Justice Diamond made her initial decision and five months after the appeals were argued. He said the opinion was based on the Rules of the Chief Administrator, rather than Judiciary Law, and was non-binding. Its logic was "questionable," the judge said, and seemingly would not apply to a wholly owned subsidiary like Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. "Completely ignored by the majority is the obligation of a judge to 'inform' herself about her personal financial interests and to make a 'reasonable effort to keep informed' about the financial interests of her spouse . . . as well as the age-old stricture to avoid even an appearance of impartiality," Justice Andrias wrote. (See Canon 3[C][2] of the Code of Judicial Conduct; Rules of Chief Administrator, Judicial Conduct, §§ 100.3[E][2].) Mr. DeRosa, responding to the ruling, said, "It's intellectually insulting to say that there is a difference between JP Morgan Chase and Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation." His appellate attorney, Thomas D. Shanahan of Shanahan & Associates, said he was pleased that the appeals court had vacated its attempt to decide the case on its merits as a trial court, which he said set a bad precedent. But he disagreed with the ruling over Justice Diamond's ethical obligations. "If you were to take a survey on the street of a 100 people and ask whether JP Morgan Chase and Chase Manhattan Mortgage were related entities, all 100 would say yes," he said. Jeffrey M. Eilender of Schlam Stone & Dolan, who represents the man who purchased Mr. DeRosa's apartment, said, "We view this as even more of a win than the prior opinion. Not only has the court again found on the merits that the foreclosure was proper, but it did so without the taint of the conflict of interest or disqualification." He added: "I don't think anybody believes that [Justice Diamond] was biased because of these stock holdings." 'Terror Tactics' In the last two years Mr. DeRosa has accused Justice Diamond and other judges of having conflicts of interest. He has been interviewed by the Commission on Judicial Conduct about Justice Diamond and says he has aided the FBI in an investigation into the judge. In another suit over his apartment, five Supreme Court justices recused themselves before a sixth judge finally took Mr. DeRosa's case [NYLJ Feb. 4, 2004]. Mr. Eilender has said that the tactics of Mr. DeRosa and his trial attorney, David B. Cohen, have intimidated the judiciary and caused judges to steer clear of their cases. "I think everyone is familiar with the terror tactics employed by Mr. DeRosa and his counsel," he said. "Throughout this case, both Cohen and DeRosa have tried to intimidate the judiciary, and I believe the First Department was aware of it." Mr. Shanahan, however, said, "Even unpopular litigants have a right to their day in court, and even unpopular litigants have a right to counsel." He said he was troubled by the fact that the majority might be contemplating sanctions against Mr. DeRosa or Mr. Cohen, as suggested by Justice Andrias' dissent. Justice Andrias wrote that "there is no basis for sua sponte directing plaintiff and his counsel to show cause why a sanction should not be imposed upon them," even though the majority did not mention any sanctions in its opinion. "When they talk about sanctions and hearings, that has a chilling effect on lawyers," Mr. Shanahan said. "I'm doing my job." Mr. Eilender said that he too was confused by Justice Andrias' reference to sanctions. "I don't get it," he said. Justices Angela M. Mazzarelli, Betty Weinberg Ellerin, David Friedman and Luis A. Gonzalez were in the majority.
Divorce Expert Eyed for Covering His Assets By Brad Hamilton Numbers cruncher John R. Johnson whom Donna Hanover hired in her divorce from Rudy Giuliani also failed to disclose to litigants his involvement in an Internet venture with other divorce experts, spurring conflict-of-interest complaints, documents show. State Chief Judge Judith Kaye this month named Johnson to the Matrimonial Commission, a 27-member group charged with recommending reforms in divorce and custody proceedings. The commission was formed following accusations of bias against purportedly neutral experts appointed to divorce cases. The feds are looking into complaints about Johnson stemming from divorce squabbles in which he evaluated marital assets. The cases in Diamond's court include the divorces of millionaire lawyer Gail Koff, head of the Jacoby & Meyers law firm, and fashion designer Cathy Hardwick. Johnson determined that Jacoby & Meyers had zero net worth a finding that supported Diamond's ruling. She had ruled that Koff's husband, architect Ralph Brill, was responsible for half of the firm's $8 million debt from tax problems. "I got socked," Brill said. Johnson also said that Hardwick's name had no value. But Hardwick's ex-husband, Tom Snowdon, said that within months of Johnson's zero-value report on the designer's name, she went on QVC hawking her wares. "There was a fix in, simple as that," said Snowdon. He added: "My ex-wife was worth $4 million, and I've been left bankrupt." Court spokesman David
Bookstaver declined to comment, and Johnson could not be reached.
By Brad Hamilton Gays hailed the ruling as a
major victory for same-sex couples, but the boy has since become a
troubled kid who punches his teachers and repeatedly says he wants
to kill The mother says she was never a surrogate and that she, the father - once a close friend who worked for her - and his live-in lover intended to raise the child as a parental trio. "I just hadn't met the right guy yet," said Courtney St. Clement, 52, who had never been identified in the press or spoken out about her experiences. "They held out that they had a lot of money, and at the time, I felt like I was marrying a doctor. They said, 'We're a family.' We were supposed to all live together, but we didn't get that far." St. Clement, who runs her own marketing and consulting firm and lives on the Upper West Side, had no inkling of how badly things would go for her son, whose name is being withheld by The Post. He punches and kicks his teachers, hits and bites himself, curses and says he wants to kill himself as often as twice a month, according to the new report, completed in January by NYU's Child Study Center. It also says he repeatedly kisses and touches classmates inappropriately and once ran around naked. "[He] is exhibiting significant behavioral problems at school," said the report, which was based on a personal evaluation of the boy by two experts, along with interviews with his teachers and both parents and their spouses. It blames his unruliness in part on the "hostility" between his parents. "His mother and father have always lived apart and have had remarkably significant disputes regarding custody and visitation from very early on," said the report, which recommended that the boy be appointed a law guardian. He was previously kicked out of PS 116 as a kindergartner in 2002 after just two weeks there and placed in a private special-needs school on the Upper East Side. St. Clement says the family arrangement broke down after the father, part-time substitute teacher Gerald Casale, 47, and his partner, a trusts and estates lawyer, Ernest Londa, 46, stopped her from seeing the 6-month-old infant in April 1998. She then sued for custody. The partners claimed they struck a deal with St. Clement in which she agreed to carry Casale's child to term, then step back and allow them to be sole parents. "I think Ms. Clement has a certain bent," said Phyllis Levitas, Casale's lawyer. "My client and I have given this some very careful consideration, and we believe that it's not in the child's best interest to discuss this case with the media." Last December, St. Clement challenged the custody ruling - made by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond - in light of the boy's disturbing behavior at school, and the boy's pediatrician requested a follow-up evaluation by a court-appointed specialist. In March, an appeals court ruled that the new judge in the case, Supreme Court Justice Joan Lobis, reconsider the custody question. But Lobis refused to take up the custody issue, denied the evaluation request and rejected the recommendation for a child guardian, spurring a motion in which the mother slammed Lobis for "abdicating her role as judge." Lobis' office did not respond to The Post's request for comment. The mother is part of the Alliance for Judicial Justice, a group of 200 litigants who suspect their cases were tainted by judges' personal interests, led by activist Anthony DeRosa. Law Giant and Judge Are in Cahoots: Lawsuit By Brad Hamilton A former Columbia University professor who now publishes the oldest newspaper in Puerto Rico claims a powerful Manhattan law firm bilked him for $170,000 in bogus legal fees - then got a ruling allowing the tab from a judge with ties to the firm. Gerard Angulo, publisher of The San Juan Star, filed a federal malpractice suit against Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, seeking $1.2 million in damages. He says the firm ripped him off with trumped-up bills following a 1996 civil case that he won. Last year, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled Angulo could conduct discovery in his bid to show the firm had no record of the work it claimed it had done. But then Skadden refiled the case in Manhattan Supreme Court, and it was assigned to Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich, who awarded Skadden Arps $800,000 plus interest in a summary judgment in November, despite Angulo's protests over her connections to the firm. Two of the judge's friends, Helene Kaplan and Sheila Birnbaum, are senior attorneys at Skadden Arps - the largest and most profitable legal firm in the city, according to figures it supplied to the New York Law Journal. Kornreich is also co-president of a charity, Judges and Lawyers Breast Cancer Alert, that holds its monthly meetings at the firm's Midtown offices. Birnbaum is a past president. The publisher said he asked Kornreich to recuse herself, but "she said she didn't feel she was conflicted," he said. Under state law, "a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Angulo, a former business prof at Columbia and NYU, has paid Skadden Arps more than $1 million, but owes an additional $1.2 million following Kornreich's ruling. "Skadden fought like cats and dogs to get it moved from federal court to state court, because in federal court, you have automatic discovery," he said. The judge did recuse herself in another case involving Skadden Arps in January after The Post reported that the FBI was investigating charges she and two other Manhattan judges doled out judicial favors to friends and associates. Angulo was interviewed by an FBI agent working on the case. Skadden Arps is by far the largest private firm in New York, with 873 attorneys at its Times Square headquarters. Kornreich and Skadden Arps did not return calls seeking comment. http://www.nypost.com/cgi-bin/printfriendly.pl "Anthony DeRosa's legal battle against JP
Morgan/Chase, was decided in front of both Judge Marylin Diamond and
Judge Shirley Kornreich. Helen Kaplan from Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Megan and Flom, sits on the Board of Directors to JP Morgan/Chase,
and lucrative legal work for JPMorgan/Chase is undertaken by Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Megan and Flom"] Shake-up at Judicial Watchdog By Brad Hamilton The Commission on Judicial Conduct, which dismissed 30 complaints against embattled Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Marylin Diamond, has a new chairman and vice chair, along with three new members and three staff attorneys. New member Richard Emery, a noted civil rights lawyer, said he may push the panel to take a tougher approach. "If I feel like the CJC is focusing on the wrong things, I'm certainly going to let that be known," said Emery. "It's important to uphold the integrity of the system, and there have been examples where that's not been the case." The commission itself has been pushing for reforms in recent weeks, looking to add three additional lawyers and take on a more investigative role, CJC sources said. Veteran white-collar defense lawyer Lawrence Goldman, former head of the New York Criminal Bar Association, has been appointed chairman, taking over from Henry Berger. Upstate town justice Frances Ciardullo is the new vice chair. Raoul Felder, the high-profile attorney who has been sharply critical of certain judges, has also been added to the 11-person panel, along with businesswoman Colleen DiPirro, who was appointed by Gov. Pataki on Thursday. The CJC has drawn fire recently for dismissing complaints about Diamond, the target of an FBI probe over alleged conflicts of interest and other matters, and for not acting against Brooklyn judge Gerald Garson, who has been charged with taking bribes to fix divorce cases. Ammon Judge in a Co-author 'Conflict'
Surrogate Court Judge Eve Preminger has not disclosed her close ties with bank lawyer Susan Frunzi, a lawyer with Schulte, Roth & Zabel, the white-shoe firm that has billed the estate $3.8 million for 19 months of work. Preminger and Frunzi are
co-authors of "Trusts and Estates
EVE PREMINGER
Practice in New
York," a $240 manual put out by
Frunzi's firm represents co-executor JPMorgan Chase, which filed an estate accounting with the court last month requesting Preminger's thumbs-up on a whopping $6.8 million in lawyer fees, bank commissions and other expenses. Frunzi handled key aspects of the Ammon estate. Preminger and Frunzi did not return calls for comment. JPMorgan Chase's accounting was officially challenged Friday by lawyers for Danny Pelosi, the electrician who's been charged in Ammon's death and who married Ammon's widow, Generosa, three months after the mogul was slain in 2001. Meanwhile, Preminger, who
also happens to be a stockholder in Chase, faces another
controversy. $6.8m Bite on Ammon Estate By Brad Hamilton Two and a half years after financier Ted Ammon was found bludgeoned to death in his East Hampton home, his estate is being pummeled by legal fees and other costs, court records show. More than $6.8 million of a $55 million estate has been drained by the mounting bills - $4.8 million for lawyers, $1 million for accountants and another $1 million in bank fees, according to JP Morgan Chase Bank, co-executor of his estate. The bank, which filed a comprehensive accounting March 17, is itself a major beneficiary, an analysis by The Post found. It's billed the estate for $911,182.03 in commissions and has transferred millions in Ammon assets into its own money-market funds. Chase also approved a jaw-dropping $3,844,089.10 for bank lawyers Schulte Roth & Zabel, despite the estate facing only one modest legal challenge. The bulk of the Schulte bills - $3.6 million - covers 17 months of work through last July. That works out to $213,632 per month for the firm, or $9,710 per weekday, the equivalent of three full-time attorneys at $400 per hour working every day since February 2002. To what use was the money put? "I would love to know that answer," said Edward Burke Jr., a lawyer for Danny Pelosi, the electrician who married Ammon's late widow, Generosa, and has been charged with killing the millionaire business whiz. Pelosi's legal team is expected to challenge the accounting in Surrogate Court, but they have only until next Friday to do so. Ammon's adopted 14-year-old twins, Grego and Alexa, don't have a lawyer to represent them in the matter. Their court-assigned guardian, Arza Feldman, handles only the custody fight involving nanny Kathryn Ann Mayne and Ammon's sister, Sandi Williams. Feldman did not return calls seeking comment. Meanwhile, lawyers for Pelosi and any other interested parties, including Mayne and the two lawyers who represent the estate of Generosa Ammon, could ask Surrogate Court Judge Eve Preminger to step aside. Preminger has presided over key aspects of the case despite being a stockholder in JP Morgan Chase, records show. She has not revealed her ties to the bank, which include owning securities in both JP Morgan Chase & Co. and Chase Manhattan Bank, her 2001 and 2002 financial-disclosure forms show. The Ammon accounting shows Chase has been busy selling off the mogul's assets - everything from a 2001 Aston Martin Vantage Volante ($100,000) to his two sailboats ($4,000). Other liquidated assets range from Ammon's $9.4 million Fifth Avenue pad to his various business holdings, to the $6.53 subscription refund his estate got back from BusinessWeek magazine. A bank spokeswoman declined
comment, citing client confidentiality. Court Tosses Judge's Rulings Dareh Gregorian A state appeals court yesterday tossed all of embattled Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond's rulings in a civil case involving JPMorgan Chase, finding she failed to disclose her financial ties to the banking giant. "Justice Diamond should have recused herself from the case, or else at a minimum, disclosed her interest to the parties in order to give them an opportunity to waive her disqualification," the Appellate Division ruling says. "Because Justice Diamond failed to follow this course . . . the orders appealed are null and void." The case involved a suit by Anthony DeRosa, who uncovered Diamond's ties to the bank - including stock ownership - after she ruled
Court Cuts into Diamond, Cites Conflict |
An
ugly tug of war is raging over the fate of a 6-year-old boy being
raised by a gay couple who won custody of the child in a landmark
decision in 2000. 
The judge who's been asked
to approve millions in legal fees from the estate of slain financier
Ted Ammon has co-authored a book with a lawyer whose firm wants the
big payout, The Post has learned.