Diaphragm bill found unconstitutional

From the NY Times:

In a victory for the city’s powerful police unions, a state Supreme Court judge struck down a city law banning police officers’ use of chokeholds and other physical restraints on Tuesday, saying the wording of the law was “unconstitutionally vague.”

The law, passed last summer, had been met with fierce resistance from police unions, who sued the city last fall over its passage. The language of the statute — which forbids officers from compressing a suspect’s diaphragm — was overly broad, the suit said, and made it nearly impossible for officers to physically engage suspects, even if the use of force was in good faith.

Justice Laurence L. Love agreed: “The phrase ‘compresses the diaphragm’ cannot be adequately defined as written,” he wrote in his ruling in State Supreme Court in Manhattan.

The judge encouraged the city to revise its law, and Mayor Bill de Blasio, at his daily news conference on Wednesday, urged lawmakers to move quickly to do so.

Let's hear it for Rory Lancman and company for not knowing how to pass a bill that doesn't violate the Constitution.

Voters 1, Tweeders 0

From NY1: A Manhattan State Supreme Court judge on Wednesday refused to halt the rollout of ranked-choice voting in New York City, a major victory for advocates of the new system of voting that is set to be part of city elections next year. With military and overseas ballots set to go out on Friday for a Feb. 2 City Council special election, Justice Carol Edmead declined to issue a temporary restraining order or to set an expedited hearing schedule in the case which was brought by six City Council members and several organizations. “This Court is disinclined to take any action that may result in the disenfranchisement of even one voter or take any action that may result in even one voter’s ballot being nullified,” Edmead wrote in her decision.

Just say NO on June 23rd!

Hi folks,

Crapper here. If you've been following the blog for all these years, you are aware that John Ciafone has been somewhat of a problem, and has been in the news for his corruption as late as last December. I just wanted to call your attention to the fact that he is on the Democratic primary ballot, running for a judgeship.

So before you mail in your ballot, early vote or head to the polls on the 23rd, I thought I'd give you the heads up, so you can be prepared to Vote ABC: Anyone but Ciafone!

Better know your civil court judge candidates

Patch

 The Democratic primary election for Queens district attorney isn't the only race coming up this month. Queens Democrats will also get to vote for civil court judge — for the first time in decades.

Typically the Queens County Democratic Party chooses candidates for judicial openings and they run unopposed. This year, one of the four open seats is contested: Attorney Lumarie Maldonado Cruz is running against the party's pick, defense lawyer Wyatt Gibbons.


The election is countywide, meaning that anyone in Queens who is registered as a Democrat can vote in this particular race.

The New York City Bar Association, which evaluates candidates in contested primary elections, recently rated Gibbons approved and Maldonado Cruz not approved. But a campaign staffer told 
 Patch that Maldonado Cruz chose not to participate in the bar association's interview.


"Candidates rated Approved have affirmatively demonstrated qualifications necessary for the performance of the duties of the position for which they are being considered," the bar association's website says of its ratings.

 The city's civil courts deal with "everyday legal problems," mainly cases involving less than $25,000. The relatively informal small claims court, which deals with matters involving under $5,000, is also part of civil court.


Civil court judges serve 10-year terms, during which they're assigned to different court divisions, known as "parts," or to do miscellaneous court work. Assignments may include family or criminal courts.

The Kings County consiglieres

NY Daily News

Brooklyn lawyers who decide who can get the crucial Democratic ballot line to run for prized judicial seats are getting jobs as legal guardians and referees from the very judges they’re charged with reviewing — and their law firms are appearing before those same judges in active cases.

Of the 25 attorneys listed as serving on the Brooklyn Democratic Party’s judicial screening panel in 2019, at least five have been given jobs as court-appointed lawyers by the judges they’re tasked with reviewing, the Daily News has learned.

Judicial screening panel members Helene Blank, Mark Longo, Betty Lugo, Melissa Bonaldes and Steven Finkelstein all took work in the last year from judges they’ve reviewed or could review in the future, an analysis of state court records shows.

Alex Camarda, a senior policy analyst at the good-government group Reinvent Albany, described that dynamic as problematic.

 “That certainly creates the perception of a conflict of interest,” he said. “The public should have confidence that judges are being selected on the merits rather than their position on cases involving party officials.”

Since 2018, Finkelstein has received 20 court-appointed referee assignments from Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge Mark Partnow and six from Judge Lawrence Knipel, court records show.

From 2008 to the present, Finkelstein has raked in at least $271,000 from those and similar appointments, records show. He joined the panel in 2016.

Veteran lawyer Martin Edelman has served as the judicial panel’s chairman since 2004. He noted that several bar associations appoint its members and about one-third of the panel’s members are selected by Democratic Party district leaders.

Edelman, the former president of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association, said since state Supreme Court judges serve 14-year terms, members of the panel usually only review them once.

“The idea that we get to see the same judge year after year is simply not the case,” he said, arguing that if judges were trying to sway attorneys through doling out appointments, they would have to influence more than five lawyers to secure a majority of votes on the panel.

The panel’s judicial screenings take place the same year judges run for election or re-election. Partnow was re-elected to serve in Brooklyn Supreme Court in 2016, the same year Finkelstein joined the panel. Judge Noach Dear was elected in 2015, and Knipel was re-elected in 2012.

In the last two years, the three judges have directed 28 referee appointments to Lugo, 44 to Longo and 30 to Blank, records show. Blank and Longo have both served on the panel since around 2005, about 14 years, according to Edelman.

Lugo, who’s running for Queens district attorney, served on it in 2015 and 2017. She said she’s not serving on the panel this year, despite the fact that she’s listed on its roster. She said she’s “almost positive” she didn’t review Dear or Partnow as a member of the panel.

 Longo, an ethics lawyer and former president of the Brooklyn Bar Association, acknowledged he could see how observers might perceive the potential for a conflict, but said, “In this situation, it’s not the case.”

Judge says "no deal" on public housing plan

From the NY Times:

A federal judge rejected a sweeping settlement on Wednesday that would have appointed a monitor to oversee the troubled New York City Housing Authority and required the city to pump at least $1.2 billion into repairs.

The judge, William H. Pauley III, also strongly suggested that the federal government should take over the authority instead.

In a scathing opinion, Judge Pauley deplored the “breathtaking scope” of the squalid living conditions in the city’s public housing complexes. He rebuked the city for its mismanagement of the agency, and said the federal government had abdicated its legal responsibility to overhaul the nation’s largest stock of public housing that is home to about 400,000 vulnerable New Yorkers.

The unexpected ruling threw the future of the Housing Authority into doubt and unraveled a deal that Mayor Bill de Blasio had staked his reputation on as a champion of public housing tenants.

Would you like a massage with that gift card, too?

From the Daily News:

At Manhattan Criminal Court, judges are being urged to watch their language — avoiding legal jargon, calling people by their name rather than “the defendant,” and greeting people when they enter.

Defendants will be surveyed on their experience at court — and get a $15 Dunkin Donuts gift card for filling out the questionnaire.

The city is picking up the tab for the program, which totals $800,000.

The gift cards are being given out because research ethics boards frown on having people participate in research without compensation, Mansky said.

I could go off on this in the textbook QC way, but Impunity City already did a fine job of it.

Jury sides with 5 Pointz

From Curbed:

A jury has concluded that 5 Pointz developer Jerry Wolkoff violated the law when he whitewashed that buildings without warning, erasing graffiti from dozens of artists. The jury’s findings will serve as a recommendation to the lawsuit’s presiding judge, who will then render a final verdict, reports the New York Times.

“The jury sided strongly with the rights of the artists. This is a clear message from the people that the whitewashing of the buildings by its owner was a clear and willful act,” said lawyer Eric Baum, who represents the artists that filed the suit.

The judge will ultimately determine the repercussions of Wolkoff’s actions, which could include making him pay the artists for destroying their artwork.

Weiner sentenced to 21 months in the clink

From Daily Intelligencer:

When U.S. District Judge Denise Cote gave him an opportunity to make a statement, Weiner sounded remorseful: “I was a very sick man for a very long time,” Weiner said, his voice breaking as he read from a written statement that made no excuses for the pain he caused. “I stand before you because I victimized a young person who deserved better.” He hoped that a sentence in the community rather than behind bars would be good for his son, Jordan, whom he called his “salvation,” as well as others who may be struggling and needing counsel for the same ills that destroyed him.

The federal government wanted between 21 and 27 months. Cote chose the low end of that recommendation.

When Cote imposed her sentence, Weiner’s head fell and he placed his left hand over his head. The courtroom cleared quickly, and several reporters ran outside to recover their electronic devices and report the news. The usual throng of television crews and cameras swarmed the outside of the federal courthouse on Worth Street, awaiting the defendant’s exit.

Brown's use of witness warrants comes under fire

From the NY Times:

It is one of law enforcement’s most expansive powers: If the authorities believe that someone has knowledge of a crime, they can — under threat of arrest — force the person to testify in court by obtaining what is known as a material witness warrant.

Unlike normal subpoenas, many, if not most, of which are issued to those directly involved in criminal proceedings, material witness warrants are typically handed out to people who are not under suspicion and are merely in possession of information that the police or prosecutors want.

While the warrants are ostensibly meant to seek the truth and quicken the search for justice, court papers recently filed in a federal lawsuit claim that the Queens district attorney’s office misused a warrant while pursuing a prosecution — a practice that, according to the papers, prosecutors in both Brooklyn and Manhattan have also engaged in occasionally in the last several years.

A sort of legal fail-safe, material witness warrants, which must be signed by judges, are designed to be used in extraordinary circumstances — say, when prosecutors are concerned that a witness might flee or resists taking the stand. Strict rules govern their use: material witnesses can be arrested on a warrant only if they first ignore an order to appear in court, and those detained are required to be presented to a judge and provided with a lawyer. Hearings are supposed to be held to determine what these witnesses know and why they are reluctant to reveal it.

But the court papers say that does not always happen and that the mishandling of the warrants has led to dire consequences for the witnesses themselves, some of whom have been unlawfully held in custody for having done no more than attracted the attention of investigators. The court papers also claim that the misuse of the warrants has harmed defendants, as witnesses compelled by them to testify have at times been coerced into offering false accounts in court.

Summer Friday caption contest

From the NY Post:

​Disgraced​ former​ ​Queens city councilman Ruben Wills cried like a baby as he was sentenced to two to six years in prison Thursday for looting public coffers​, pleading for leniency and maintaining his innocence to the end.

Wills, who was stripped of his title at sentencing, was ordered to pay almost $33,000 in res​​titution after a jury found him guilty of pocketing some $30,000 in city funds.

The normally well-heeled politician arrived in court in jogging duds and blue sneakers–and bawled as he begging the judge for leniency, claiming he’d done nothing wrong.

“Do not incarcerate me,” Wills begged. “I maintain my innocence and disagree with the verdict.”

“I did those things to enrich the community,” the typically cocky man said through sobs, at times crying so hard he was unintelligible. “I cannot justify that I did something wrong.”

“In my entire life I’ve never taken anything from anyone,” he blubbered. “My purpose from birth is I am an advocate.”

The still-teary pol then turned to his wife, and apologized for not spending more time with her “because I was out in the streets helping people and praying for people.”

Defense attorney Kevin O’Donnell also asked the judge for mercy, saying “very few people have given more to the community than Ruben Wills.”

“Show him some mercy, some compassion,” the lawyer implored, adding that jail would bankrupt his client and leave him unable to pay restitution. “I’m just asking you, judge, that you do the right thing and let him do community service. Nobody wins by him going to jail.”

“I have no doubt that you have done some good things in the community,” Queens Supreme Court Judge Ira Margulis told the whimpering lawmaker. “However you are convicted for stealing from state and city agencies.”

Margulis then slapped the disgraced pol with a $5,000 fine on top of everything else, and ordered him cuffed.

So there you have it. Now caption that photo!

Trial not going well for Wills

From the NY Post:

Queens Councilman Ruben Wills flew into a rage in court Monday — slamming his fists on the table and yelling at the top of his lungs — as a judge all but threw out his defense in his ongoing corruption trial.

The pol grew infuriated when Queens Supreme Court Judge Ira Margulis barred his lawyer from calling five witnesses, saying they were irrelevant to the case.

The two then continued bickering out of the presence of the jury, which has been hearing evidence since the beginning of this month that Wills allegedly misspent $30,000 in taxpayer funds by blowing it on personal expenses.

“You cannot speak. You have an attorney to speak for you,” Margulis told the fuming Democrat.

Wills retorted, “But you are preventing my attorney from making a case!”

Margulis then issued a stern warning, “One more outburst and I will hold you in contempt!”

“I’m not going to allow these witnesses,” Margulis said before he was interrupted by Wills, who bellowed, “How can do you do that?!” while banging his hands on the defense table.

Wills was admonished a second time for slamming a giant stack of papers on the table and muttering loudly after Margulis refused to postpone the trial so that defense could call witnesses who were unavailable Monday.

The judge eventually allowed one witness — Kim Newsom — to testify Monday afternoon but told O’Donnell, “You’re asking to produce witnesses to testify as to what is in your client’s mind. How can they do that?”

I googled Ruben Wills and this came up first:

Hacked? Or just run by a hack?

Silver skates but will be retried

From NY1:

Former state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's conviction on fraud, money laundering, and extortion was overturned Thursday.

The judge used a Supreme Court precedent involving former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, which more clearly defined the kind of conduct that could be considered corrupt while in office.

"The court talks about certain acts that Silver was shown to have taken that no longer can be considered official acts, such as having a meeting," attorney Joshua Colangelo-Bryan said.

"It is not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have reached the same conclusion if properly instructed, as is required by the law for the verdict to stand," Jose Cabranes of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision said in his decision.

In a statement, acting U.S. Attorney Joon Kim says he will re-try the case.

City, Wilpons suffer devastating court defeat

From the Village Voice:

After eight years, two lawsuits, countless delays, & three city reversals, the plan for a mall at Willets Point has finally been defeated. And much like the Mets these days, it lost badly.

In a 5-1 decision, the Appeals Court upheld a lower court ruling that held the owners of the Mets could not build a mall on city-owned parkland. The land in question, the former site of Shea Stadium, which was demolished in 2008, is currently the Mets parking lot. A 1961 law allowed that parkland to be used for stadium purposes, a cut-out that a mall would not have satisfied, the court found.

“There is no dispute that the Willets West development is proposed to be constructed entirely on city parkland,” the judges wrote, continuing that the “public trust doctrine,” which dictates the uses for public lands “is ancient and firmly established in our precedent.” Nowhere in the Mets owners arguments, was a mall found to be in line with the public trust doctrine, the court found.

The Mets owners were arguing that by using the mall to fund the remediation of Willets Point (a parcel of land on the other side of their current stadium), and eventually the construction of both affordable housing and a school, the mall was fulfilling the public trust doctrine. The court found that too to be unconvincing, and also didn’t believe the Mets owners were actually going to build the housing or schools.

But wait...these tweeders may not yet be finished! From NY1:

Although the ruling does block the developer from moving forward, the legislature can still step in and intervene.

The legislature would have to vote to use the land for Willets West for non-park purposes. It would also have to find a replacement property to designate as parkland.

Judges skeptical of mall on parkland

From the Daily News:

The state's highest court tossed a curveball to the city and a Queens developer hoping to build a $1 billion mall near Citi Field.

At least four judges on the six-judge panel of the Court of Appeals appeared skeptical of arguments by the city, state and developer, Queens Development Group, that the mall could be built on a parking lot designated as parkland.

“The primary purpose of this activity is a private purpose: to lease space and set up a shopping mall so people will spend money in the context of going to a sports event,” Justice Eugene Fahey said Tuesday. “Aren’t we required . . . that this particular development be approved by the Legislature?”

The oral arguments, which took place in a special session in White Plains, revolved around the 1961 law allowing the construction of Shea Stadium in Flushing Meadows Park. The mall and movie theater, dubbed Willets West, would be built on the 30-acre site where the stadium once stood.

Assistant Solicitor General Anisha Dasgupta argued for the state that the proposed mall does have a public benefit because it will include public spaces and free attractions that go beyond a standard retail center. She noted a rooftop garden would be open to kids.

City attorney Michael Pastor echoed that argument.

“This is a public attraction. . . It’s a large public space. There’s public programming there,” he said.

But those public benefits didn’t override the project’s overall purpose, which seemed to conflict with the law’s original intent to allow a ballpark in the park, Fahey said.

“We can clearly see the economic viability of the project,” he said. "(The law) was aiming to provide a home for the Mets . . . now how far can you go askew of that?”

The Crowley court suspension is over

From the Observer:

Relatives of Congressman Joseph Crowley, chairman of Queens Democratic Party, are once again picking up appointments and payments from the borough’s Supreme Court—six years after anti-nepotism rules banned members of the clan from profiting off the system.

A minor scandal broke out in 2011 when reports arose that jurists in the borough had handed out lucrative temporary work to Bernadette and Theresa Crowley, cousins of the party boss and sisters to Queens Councilman Elizabeth Crowley, at the same time that their other sister Margaret held a six-figure clerking gig under Supreme Court Justice Darrell Gavrin. State strictures forbid lawyers from getting court-ordered assignments in a judicial district where a member of their nuclear family holds any moderately well-compensated position.

And so began a four year hiatus for the Crowleys from Queens Supreme Court. But state payroll records indicate that Margaret Crowley left her job a few months into 2015, and her family members began scooping up appointments from Supreme Court judges almost immediately afterward.

Daily News exposes the Queens Machine

From the Daily News:

For 30 years, the same three men have effectively controlled one of the largest Democratic organizations in America.

They are Gerard Sweeney, Michael Reich and Frank Bolz, the powerful attorneys who serve Rep. Joe Crowley, the chairman of the Queens County Democratic Party. Reich is the executive secretary of the party, a spokesperson and wrangler of district leaders. Bolz is the law chairman, entrusted with keeping county-approved candidates on the ballot and knocking their rivals off.

Sweeney wears no official hat within the party infrastructure. But Queens insiders say he is arguably its most important strategist, helping guide the party’s political machinations on the homefront as it jousts for influence in City Hall and Albany.

He is also the one who gets to be very rich.

As the appointed counsel to the Queens public administrator, a job he has held without interruption since 1992, the 63-year-old Sweeney raked in just over $2 million last year administering in Surrogate’s Court the estates of people who died without leaving wills. Over the past decade, his haul is even more stunning: $30 million since 2006, according to an analysis of court records.

It’s impossible to know how many millions Sweeney received in his first 14 years on the job because the state’s Office of Court Administration, which oversees Surrogate’s Court, says it doesn't keep those figures.

The three men, with Crowley’s blessing, still determine what type of justice is served in Queens County. No Queens judge rises through the ranks without the party’s blessing and regular donations to its housekeeping account.

Brooklyn folks get court order to stop shelter

From NY1:

The halls of Brooklyn Supreme Court were crowded on Tuesday.

Crown Heights residents were there to plea their case in front of a judge, hoping she would continue to block the opening of a men's homeless shelter in their neighborhood.

The judge agreed. She blocked the opening of the shelter at least temporarily. She is not likely to revisit the decision for 10 days.

At issue is whether the neighborhood has its fair share of these facilities.

The city was supposed to open the shelter last week. It is slated to house 104 single men over the age of 62.

Residents oppose the facility because they say their community is already oversaturated with homeless shelters. They argue the city did not do the proper review before it picked the site and prepared it to open.

Bolstering their argument, in court on Tuesday, officials revealed the city had just finished this formal analysis the day before. In it, the city examines all of the facilities in the surrounding community.

According to this analysis, there are six facilities within a half mile of the new site, including a shelter for singles, for adult families and four facilities for families with children.

All about de Blasio

Lots of links about the mayor's malfeasance this morning:

EXCLUSIVE: Mayor de Blasio donor raised nearly $200G for political favors, prosecutors say - Daily News

Judge orders Mayor Bill de Blasio to release consultant emails - AM-NY

De Blasio Says He’ll Fight to Hide From the Public His Correspondence With a High-Powered Real Estate Consultant - Observer

Critics Slam De Blasio After He Refuses To Take Questions About Midtown Stabbing - CBS

Judges fed up with some jury duty attendees

The last time I served jury duty, the judges were quite perturbed by the excuses the jurors came up with for not serving.

If you know you can't hear well, you should have brought your hearing aid.

Being a chiropractor is not a life or death profession that requires your attendance at work.

If you can't understand English, then how did you figure out what the judge was asking you?