Brooklyn Surrogate's Court 2005

Keep up to date with the latest Newspaper and Internet articles on this year's Brooklyn Surrogate Court race

Name: Journalist

Monday, November 07, 2005

'A NEW DAY' IN B'KLYN

By JIM HINCH - NY Post October 12, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOPEZ TORRES
Declared the winner.

October 12, 2005 -- Here comes the judge — and she's going to clean house.

In a slap to Brooklyn's Democratic machine, a Queens judge yesterday ruled that Margarita Lopez Torres will keep her 102- vote victory as a Surrogate Court judge in last month's primary election.

"Yes!" exulted Lopez Torres as she rode the elevator down from the courtroom where Judge Leslie G. Leach ordered her certified as the election winner. "It's a fresh start, a new day."

The reformist jurist said she intends to root out the "entrenched culture" of Brooklyn's patronage-ridden court.

Party loyalists had worked night and day for weeks to find enough votes to swing the election to Supreme Court Judge Diana Johnson, who attends disgraced former party boss Clarence Norman's church.

But they came up short. First, they said more than 1,000 votes should have been counted because they belonged to registered voters who simply forgot to mark that they were Democrats on the ballot.

But it emerged in court yesterday that many of those so-called "votes" were by people who didn't live in Brooklyn, weren't Democrats or were convicted felons

As a backup, Johnson's lawyer, Mitch Alter, asked to have the entire election tossed out because, he said, many voters had forged signatures at poll sites.

But many of those "forgeries" also didn't pan out, since they included votes by prominent city officials who had indeed voted.


After the ruling, Johnson said it would be "unseemly" for her to comment.

Alter said the Board of Elections didn't count questionable ballots in Brooklyn because they were trying to help mayoral candidate Freddy Ferrer avoid a runoff.


A board lawyer denied that claim.


Lopez Torres said she would end past surrogate judges' habit of doling out estates and other lucrative legal work to cronies.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New York Daily News -
Lawsuits tossed in Surrogate's recount
BY HUGH SON

Wednesday, October 12th, 2005

The Brooklyn Democratic organization was dealt another blow yesterday after a pair of lawsuits were dismissed in a nasty fight over a powerful Surrogate's Court judge job.
Margarita Lopez Torres eked out a 102-vote victory over Diana Johnson for the post last month. Johnson and the county party sued, arguing that about 1,500 disqualified ballots should be included in the final tally.

Queens Supreme Court Judge Leslie Leach ruled yesterday that Johnson couldn't object to the ballots because her campaign approved of disqualifying them when they believed she was leading the close race. Lopez Torres' victory should be certified by the Board of Elections, he ordered.

Lopez Torres - considered a key reform figure in Brooklyn's scandal-racked judiciary - said her victory sent a signal to party leaders.

"It will no longer be business as usual, and they know that," Lopez Torres told the Daily News. "People want a courthouse that serves people, not one that enriches certain individuals."

But the electoral saga isn't over. Johnson's lawyer Mitch Alter pledged to appeal, calling Leslie's decision "all screwed up."

Alter plans to charge the Board of Elections engaged in a complex scheme to help Democratic mayoral candidate Fernando Ferrer avoid a runoff election by counting certain ballots in the Bronx and not in Brooklyn.

Ballots that could have tilted the election in Johnson's favor weren't counted, Alter charged.

"For the Board of Elections to count ballots with a defect in one county and not count them in Brooklyn is outrageous," Alter said.

A Board of Elections spokesman didn't return calls for comment.

Judge: Surrogate race result stands

Judge: Surrogate race result stands
November 1, 2005

BY HUGH SON
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Surrogate Court candidate Margarita Lopez Torres finally claimed victory last night, beating the Brooklyn Democratic machine-backed candidate.
The electoral saga ended not with a bang, but a whimper: A two-sentence decision from federal Judge Raymond Dearie released yesterday dismissed a last-ditch effort to overturn the result of the Sept. 13 primary, which Lopez Torres won by 102 votes.

Lawyers for party-backed candidate Diana Johnson apparently exhausted all their legal options, said Lopez Torres' campaign manager, Gary Tilzer.

"For the first time since the election, there are no court cases pending," said Tilzer.

Lopez Torres is running unopposed in the Nov. 8 general election on the Democratic ticket.

The closeness of September's Surrogate Court election - both Lopez Torres and Johnson got about 39% of the vote - prompted fevered recounting and lawsuits alleging several hundred disqualified paper ballots should be included in the final tally.

After a Queens State Supreme Court judge dismissed a pair of lawsuits filed by Johnson and the Brooklyn Democratic organization, the Elections Board certified Lopez Torres' victory.

But Johnson's lawyer Mitch Alter convinced the state Appellate Division to force the counting of about 900 disputed paper ballots last week - which resulted in Johnson losing by twice as many votes. Lopez Torres picked up an additional 103 votes in a recount that ended Friday.

Alter agreed that Lopez Torres had won, saying that because "the federal suit was denied, as far as I can see, it's all over."

Lopez Torres is considered a key reform figure in a position that is especially vulnerable to corruption. The Surrogate Court handles the estates of the deceased and millions of dollars in lawyers' fees, making it a post the county Democratic organization desperately wanted to keep in the family.

"She didn't have as much money as the other candidates, yet she gave the voters of Brooklyn a choice of real reform, and the voters responded," Tilzer said.

Originally published on November 1, 2005

Monday, October 17, 2005

The Big House Can't Break the Clubhouse

The Big House Can't Break the Clubhouse

By JOYCE PURNICK
Published: September 29, 2005 - The New York Times
SO another political leader has been found guilty of wrongdoing, Clarence Norman Jr. He was convicted in Brooklyn on Tuesday of violating campaign finance laws, which has to have shaken the borough's clubhouse Democrats.

But make no mistake. The Norman legacy lives, however weakened. Mr. Norman, the leader of the Brooklyn Democratic organization since 1990 and an assemblyman until his conviction, is the product of an entrenched political system that, as ever, plays with ethics like a cat with the mouse.

For evidence, go back only two weeks, to the Cadman Plaza Diner, near the Brooklyn Bridge. It was there that members of Mr. Norman's Democratic Executive Committee met to select their nominee for a newly created second Brooklyn Surrogate's Court seat that legal experts say is not even needed.

Normally, voters select surrogate nominees in a primary. But thanks to a deal made in Albany, the Norman organization got to handpick the Democratic candidate.

That was quite the gift. The Surrogate's Courts are traditional bastions of patronage and cronyism where politically connected lawyers get lucrative assignments as executors, guardians and estate trustees - and where some surrogates get in trouble. Just last June, the State Court of Appeals upheld the removal of Surrogate Michael H. Feinberg of Brooklyn, for awarding $8.6 million in legal fees to an old friend.

Bypassing the primary was part of a classic agreement in Albany that benefited everyone, including Gov. George E. Pataki, the Democratic and Republican legislative leaders and Mr. Norman, who had long been assistant majority leader.

The governor, his third term winding down, wanted to expand the Court of Claims with additional judges, all of whom he appoints with routine Senate consent. This is not to say that his nominees would be unqualified, just to observe that even a lame-duck governor has his perks.

Since expanding the judiciary requires legislation, the Pataki plan was an invitation to both legislative leaders to bargain for their judges, too. The measure proved popular not only with politicians, but with court advocates as well, since the courts are always hungry for resources.

The legislation that came up for a vote on the last day of the Albany session added 21 new state judges - 14 going to the Court of Claims, the rest to other courts around the state - distributed in a way that gives Democrats and Republicans generous and probably equal shares in the largesse.

IN addition to the new Brooklyn surrogate, for instance, one new judgeship is going to Rensselaer County, home of the Senate majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno, a Republican; and one is going to Queens, whose Democratic leader, Thomas J. Manton, did the governor a favor last year by supporting a former counsel's candidacy for State Supreme Court.

Most of the state's judicial nominations are controlled by party leaders, but at least candidates for surrogate run in primaries. The Brooklyn exception was written into the legislation: the bill, approved on June 23, delayed its effective date to Aug. 1 - 18 days after the deadline for submitting primary petitions.

That put the party organization in control of the nomination, which is tantamount to election in overwhelmingly Democratic Brooklyn. The new surrogate was originally to be Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, a Brooklyn veteran whose likely designation may have helped the bill's passage, because he is well liked by colleagues. Only three lawmakers voted no - Brooklyn Democrats who objected to the erased primary - State Senator Martin Connor, and Assembly members Joan L. Millman and James F. Brennan.

Mr. Lentol decided to stay in the Legislature, raising suspicions, which he denies, that he was a stalking horse. The nomination went instead to Assemblyman Frank R. Seddio, another Brooklyn Democrat.

His selection also happened to benefit Norman allies in the prominent Thomas Jefferson Democratic Club. The club backed a Norman ally who ran against his nemesis, District Attorney Charles J. Hynes of Brooklyn. Mr. Hynes, who prosecuted Mr. Norman, won anyway.

But a favor is a favor, and soon, since Jefferson is Mr. Seddio's club, it will select another club stalwart to run for his seat.

"It's all in the family, just the way everything is in Brooklyn," said Alan Fleishman, a reform district leader and critic of the old ways. That is how it works, and why Mr. Norman's conviction, while it dusts Brooklyn's political house, does not deep-clean it.

Lopez Torres Declared the Winner

'A NEW DAY' IN B'KLYN
By JIM HINCH - NY Post October 12, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOPEZ TORRES
Declared the winner.

October 12, 2005 -- Here comes the judge — and she's going to clean house.

In a slap to Brooklyn's Democratic machine, a Queens judge yesterday ruled that Margarita Lopez Torres will keep her 102- vote victory as a Surrogate Court judge in last month's primary election.

"Yes!" exulted Lopez Torres as she rode the elevator down from the courtroom where Judge Leslie G. Leach ordered her certified as the election winner. "It's a fresh start, a new day."

The reformist jurist said she intends to root out the "entrenched culture" of Brooklyn's patronage-ridden court.

Party loyalists had worked night and day for weeks to find enough votes to swing the election to Supreme Court Judge Diana Johnson, who attends disgraced former party boss Clarence Norman's church.

But they came up short. First, they said more than 1,000 votes should have been counted because they belonged to registered voters who simply forgot to mark that they were Democrats on the ballot.

But it emerged in court yesterday that many of those so-called "votes" were by people who didn't live in Brooklyn, weren't Democrats or were convicted felons

As a backup, Johnson's lawyer, Mitch Alter, asked to have the entire election tossed out because, he said, many voters had forged signatures at poll sites.

But many of those "forgeries" also didn't pan out, since they included votes by prominent city officials who had indeed voted.


After the ruling, Johnson said it would be "unseemly" for her to comment.

Alter said the Board of Elections didn't count questionable ballots in Brooklyn because they were trying to help mayoral candidate Freddy Ferrer avoid a runoff.


A board lawyer denied that claim.


Lopez Torres said she would end past surrogate judges' habit of doling out estates and other lucrative legal work to cronies.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New York Daily News -
Lawsuits tossed in Surrogate's recount
BY HUGH SON

Wednesday, October 12th, 2005

The Brooklyn Democratic organization was dealt another blow yesterday after a pair of lawsuits were dismissed in a nasty fight over a powerful Surrogate's Court judge job.
Margarita Lopez Torres eked out a 102-vote victory over Diana Johnson for the post last month. Johnson and the county party sued, arguing that about 1,500 disqualified ballots should be included in the final tally.

Queens Supreme Court Judge Leslie Leach ruled yesterday that Johnson couldn't object to the ballots because her campaign approved of disqualifying them when they believed she was leading the close race. Lopez Torres' victory should be certified by the Board of Elections, he ordered.

Lopez Torres - considered a key reform figure in Brooklyn's scandal-racked judiciary - said her victory sent a signal to party leaders.

"It will no longer be business as usual, and they know that," Lopez Torres told the Daily News. "People want a courthouse that serves people, not one that enriches certain individuals."

But the electoral saga isn't over. Johnson's lawyer Mitch Alter pledged to appeal, calling Leslie's decision "all screwed up."

Alter plans to charge the Board of Elections engaged in a complex scheme to help Democratic mayoral candidate Fernando Ferrer avoid a runoff election by counting certain ballots in the Bronx and not in Brooklyn.

Ballots that could have tilted the election in Johnson's favor weren't counted, Alter charged.

"For the Board of Elections to count ballots with a defect in one county and not count them in Brooklyn is outrageous," Alter said.

A Board of Elections spokesman didn't return calls for comment.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





DAILY NEWS


Dem boss battle heats up
BY HUGH SON



October 12, 2005

A battle is raging among Brooklyn Democrats as the man who would fill deposed boss Clarence Norman's shoes pushes for a vote on the post - while opponents stall for time.

Assemblyman Vito Lopez (D-Bushwick), a North Brooklyn powerbroker, says he has enough support to become the next leader of one of the nation's largest Democratic organizations.

But Boerum Hill district leader Jo Anne Simon fired off a letter yesterday to other leaders charging that they were on "a collision course" with disaster if they elect Lopez after Norman was convicted for felony campaign abuses last month.

"We shouldn't rush to elect somebody who might have some of the same problems as Clarence did," said Simon, a foe of Lopez's who charged he has "ethical issues."

Simon and other self-described reformers want to choose an interim boss through a public interview process.

"Let's decide what the qualities of the leader should be, not through some backroom power play deal," said Park Slope district leader Alan Fleishman.

Brooklyn district leaders were set to vote for a new county boss last night, but dissenters succeeded in pushing back the vote until at least next Thursday, giving them a chance to find a challenger to Lopez.

Meanwhile, Lopez argued that a party leader should be elected in time to influence the mayoral election next month.

"Forestalling having leadership in place will only further reinforce the image we're totally disorganized and dysfunctional," Lopez told the Daily News.

"This is an attempt to block ... the majority of county leaders from voting in favor of my candidacy," he charged.

Simon disagreed with Lopez's rationale for electing a leader.

"Our party has been in disarray for so long, it's ridiculous to assert that," she said.

Despite the focus on the Brooklyn party after Norman's fall, it is doubtful a real reformer could be elected because entrenched party leaders would inevitably choose one of their own, said Dorothy Siegel, chairwoman of the South Brooklyn Working Families Party club.

"I don't think you'll find a reform person that will be acceptable because that person will end the machine, and they're all dependent upon it to support them in their time of need," Siegel said.

Acting party chief Freddie Hamilton said that if at least 21 district leaders want an election, it will happen. Lopez claims to have 26 supporters in his camp.

"The meeting is going to take place and I believe the election will take place," Hamilton said. "I agree we should give ourselves more time, but the majority will prevail."

Court Finds Lopez Torres To Be Brooklyn Surrogate

New York Law Hournal -
Court Finds Lopez Torres To Be Brooklyn Surrogate

Daniel Wise 10-12-2005
Civil Court Judge Margarita Lopez Torres has won the tight race for Brooklyn surrogate, a Supreme Court judge ruled yesterday.

Justice Leslie G. Leach, the administrative judge in Queens, refused to intervene to examine whether Judge Lopez Torres' thin 102-vote lead over Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Diana A. Johnson should be overturned.

Justice Johnson's lawyer, B. Mitchell Alter, vowed to appeal, saying Justice Leach was incorrect to have decided the case without conducting a formal hearing into Justice Johnson's claims that an additional 1,500 affidavit ballots should have been counted.

In an oral decision from the bench, Justice Leach ordered New York City's Board of Elections to certify Judge Lopez Torres the victor.

In the latest tally by the board, Judge Lopez Torres led Justice Johnson, 41,911 votes to 41,809. Brooklyn Justice Lawrence S. Knipel trailed with 23,296.

If the decision is upheld, Judge Lopez Torres, a Democrat, will succeed former Surrogate Michael H. Feinberg because Republicans did not nominate a candidate for the slot.

Surrogate Feinberg was removed by the Court of Appeals in June for having awarded excess compensation to the Brooklyn public administrator's counsel, who was a personal and political friend of the former surrogate.

After hearing oral argument yesterday, Justice Leach found that the Johnson campaign's failure to object to the affidavit ballots at the time they were counted was "dispositive."

He also ruled that state law requires that voters casting paper ballots disclose both their addresses and party affiliations.

Mr. Alter had argued that the Board of Elections' form instructing voters how to prepare the affidavits, which must accompany paper ballots, was hopelessly confusing.

For instance, he argued, a form instructed voters to "check" one of four boxes to indicate the reason they had not been permitted to cast a machine ballot.

Three of the four boxes were associated with reasons why a voter may not have been permitted to cast a machine ballot. The fourth, however, related to a statement as to a voter's enrollment in a political party.

To disclose that a voter was a Democrat, and therefore eligible to vote in the Sept. 13 primary, the voter would have had to check two of the four boxes, not one, Mr. Alter contended.

But Justice Leach said the form had been approved by the state Board of Elections, and any objections as to whether it was confusing would have to be "lodged with some other forum."

The judge, however, did not address Mr. Alter's most explosive allegation: that paper ballots like those excluded because they did not contain the voter's address or a declaration of enrollment as a Democrat were counted in the Bronx.

Mr. Alter submitted copies of the "affidavit oath" that was submitted by 19 such voters whose ballots were counted in the Bronx.

Justice Leach further found that Justice Johnson had failed to meet her burden of showing that, after properly excluded votes were discarded, there were enough questionable votes to change the outcome of the election.

Mr. Alter had contended that some 1,200 paper ballots were excluded because voters did not state they were Democrats in the affidavit. Another 300 were excluded because they did not contain addresses, he contended.

But Ms. Lopez Torres' lawyer, Martin E. Connor, argued that Mr. Alter's 1,200-ballot figure was too high, and the number of votes that "arguably" could be excluded was around 400. He also said that 356 ballots were properly excluded because the voters were not, in fact, registered Democrats and another 450 were excluded for other valid reasons.

Meanwhile, Cesar A. Perales, president of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, said yesterday his group is weighing whether to bring a federal suit to challenge a law that created a second surrogate seat in Brooklyn.

Democratic leaders have nominated Assemblyman Frank R. Seddio for that seat, which became effective Aug. 1, too late for the primary.

The fund had asked the U.S. Justice Department to void the legislation as a violation of minority voting rights, but last month the Justice Department "pre-cleared" the statute.

Saturday, September 24, 2005

STEALING A JUDGESHIP FROM THE VOTERS

Daily News – 9/20/05
Editorial
STEALING A JUDGESHIP FROM THE VOTERS

For sheer brass, no one in New York City politics surpasses Clarence
Norman. While standing trial on the first of four felony indictments,
the boss of the Brooklyn Democratic organization is giving a powerful
judgeship to a hack whose only judicial experience was judging the Queen
of Coney Island beauty pageant.

On Norman's say-so, Assemblyman Frank Seddio is taking a newly created
surrogate judgeship, a post he can hold for 12 years - without even one
voter having a say in the matter. And all that time, Seddio will have
free rein to dole out millions of dollars in patronage.

Surrogates - judges who handle estates of the dead - are supposed to be
elected. But Norman can install whomever he wants because this post was
created in a dark-of-the-night deal as the Legislature shut down for
business last spring.

Giving Norman say over the judgeship spared him the hassle of having the
voters select the new surrogate in a primary. Allowing the voters into
the picture would have put Norman at very real risk of watching the
surrogate's job go to an insurgent. Were that to happen, all the
politically connected lawyers and accountants who feast on Surrogate's
Court appointments would have been out of luck.

So Norman anointed Seddio, of Canarsie, a former cop who slowly moved up
the political ladder. And as Seddio's official Assembly biography says,
"He is best known for his elaborate Christmas display that surrounds his
home each year, which is visited by thousands." When Seddio [above]
becomes surrogate, there will likely be gifts year-round for the
Brooklyn machine.

It is repulsive that Norman would award, and that Seddio would accept, a
long-term post that belongs to the voters. Norman first offered the spot
to Assemblyman Joe Lentol, who wanted it badly but bowed out honorably.
Seddio should show as much class. He should step down so the governor
can appoint an acting surrogate. There would then be a primary election
next September.

Do the right thing, Mr. Seddio, quit and make your case to voters.

Crain's Insider

Crain's Insider - 9-20-05

Surrogate: Civil Court Judge Margarita López Torres will be the next
Brooklyn surrogate after a recount found that she won the Democratic primary by 90 votes out of nearly 107,000 cast. The initial count had Supreme Court Judge Diana Johnson ahead by 80 votes.

Judge Lopez Torres Takes Lead

New York Law Journal 9/20/05
Judge Lopez Torres Takes Lead in Still Incomplete Count
— Daniel Wise
In a dramatic turnabout, Civil Court Judge Margarita Lopez Torres nudged 90 votes ahead of Supreme Court Justice Diana A. Johnson in the race for the Democratic nomination for surrogate in Brooklyn, according to the latest tally by the city Board of Elections yesterday. And in the race for Civil Court from District 6 in Brooklyn, the leader Cynthia Boyce saw her lead over Michael J. Gerstein dwindle to six votes. Only absentee ballots that were received yesterday or will be received in today's mail remain to be counted, said board spokesman Christopher Riley. To be valid an absentee ballot must have been postmarked by 12 a.m. Monday, Sept. 12. In addition, should the results be challenged in court, about 150 paper ballots have been set aside for judicial review, said Steven Richman, the board's counsel. Of those 150 ballots, about 65 have not yet been counted, he added. In the unofficial tally reported last Wednesday, Justice Johnson had led Judge Lopez Torres by 80 votes. Since last Wednesday, Ms. Boyce's lead has narrowed to six votes from 123. A third candidate in District 6 which covers Park Slope, Flatbush and neighboring communities, Ingrid Joseph, trails Mr. Gerstein by 118 votes. Meanwhile, former Supreme Court Justice Kristin Booth Glen has broadened her lead over Blank Rome partner Eve Rachel Markewich by 84 votes to 2,242 in a tight race for surrogate in Manhattan.

CBID Letter

Tom Bergdall l Marty Bernstein l Ken Diamondstone l
Alan Fleishman l Susan Loeb l Warren Miner l
Jim O’Reilly l Ellen Raider
Members of Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 Contact: (347) 623-2668-Susan Loeb

Honorable Lawrence Knipel
765 East 18th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11230

Dear Justice Knipel:

As Members of Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats ("CBID"), we write
to strenuously object to the continued distribution ­ apparently by your
campaign ­ of a piece of campaign literature that blatantly
misrepresents the position of CBID with respect to your candidacy. We
call on you to direct your campaign, and those working on your behalf,
to immediately cease distribution of this campaign literature, and to
publicly state that this piece shall not be distributed.

The piece, a copy of an article in the Brooklyn Eagle from July 8, 2005,
written by Charles Otey, implies that CBID is supporting you. “Justice
Knipel’s virtues as a Surrogate were being extolled by organizations
such as the Central Brooklyn Independents, a reform-minded group ...”

This statement is false; as of July 8, 2005, CBID had not taken a
position on any of the candidates for Surrogate. Moreover, as you are
well aware, on July 21, 2005, CBID endorsed Judge Margarita Lopez Torres
for Surrogate, not you.

Notwithstanding the fact that you were denied CBID¹s endorsement, you
continued to distribute this piece. Indeed, at the August 3rd
endorsement meeting of Lambda Democrats, CBID Vice President Ken
Diamondstone spoke to you and objected your continued use of this
article as misrepresenting CBID. We understand that you assured him this
would not happen in the future.

Despite all this, we understand that this piece was distributed
door-to-door in parts of Park Slope, one month later, on September 3.
Moreover, the piece distributed omitted the author’s byline ­ making it
appear to be an editorial from the Eagle, which it apparently is not.
And the piece failed to indicate it was paid for by your campaign, or,
for that matter, who had paid for the printing and distribution of this
piece. As you should know, there are rules against anonymous campaign
leaflets.

More importantly, we believe that your campaign's continued distribution
of this piece reflects badly on your integrity as a judicial candidate.
The Judicial Conduct Rules, section 100.5 (A)(4)(d)(iii), says that a
judge shall not “Knowingly make any false statement or misrepresent the
identity, qualifications, current position or other fact concerning the
candidate or opponent.”

We ask that you immediately rectify this. You did not receive CBID's
support, and should not imply that you did.

The signers of this letter are currently active members in good standing of
The Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats. They are speaking solely for
themselves and not CBID.

Sincerely,
Susan Loeb
On behalf of:

Tom Bergdall
Martin Bernstein
Ken Diamondstone
Alan Fleishman
Warren Miner
James O’Reilly
Ellen Raider

Monday, September 05, 2005

Brooklyn Surrogate's Court: López Torres

El Diario - Sept 5, 2005
Editorial Endorsement

We go to Surrogate`s Court at some of the most stressful times in our lives – when a loved one dies, with or without a will; when a mentally retarded adult or an elderly relative needs a guardian; or when we adopt a child.

Because Brooklyn is in the midst of a judicial corruption scandal, the primary election there for the Judge of the Surrogate's Court takes on added importance. It's crucial that the next judge be a person who has demonstrated competence, integrity and independence from the political machine. That person is Margarita Lopez Torres.

She seeks to replace Michael Feinberg, who the state Court of Appeals removed in June for paying excessive fees to lawyers he appointed to deal with the estates of people who died without leaving a will. Another Surrogate's Court judgeship was created in a last-minute deal between Gov. George Pataki and the state Legislature, but it was effective Aug. 1, too late for the primary. Instead, the Brooklyn Democratic party leader gets to appoint that judge. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund has filed a lawsuit to stop it.

Lopez Torres was elected to the Civil Court in 1992 with Democratic machine backing, but she has since fallen out of favor with party leaders and they refused to endorse her in 2002. She was re-elected anyway.

Although people think only rich people with big wills end up in Surrogate's Court, Lopez Torres says most of the estates are small. She wants to ensure that lawyers' fees are appropriate. And she wants to include more Hispanics and Blacks on the list of lawyers who are assigned to handle estates and as guardians.

All this will take a judge who will pick people not because of their political connections, but because they will provide the best service for the public. We believe that person is Margarita Lopez Torres and we endorse her for Surrogate's Court judge.

Sunday, September 04, 2005

For Cleaner Courts in Brooklyn

New York Times -- Editorial Endorsement
Sept. 4, 2005
Two critical contests on the Sept. 13 Democratic primary ballot in Brooklyn - for district attorney and for a Surrogate's Court judgeship - offer voters a chance to register their disgust with the cozy clubhouse-courthouse ties that lie at the heart of the borough's judicial patronage and corruption scandal, and the undue influence of Clarence Norman's local Democratic machine. Together, these races amount to a referendum on cleaning up the local political and justice system.

Surrogate's Court

There are two Surrogate's Court seats to be filled this fall in Brooklyn. But voters in the Sept. 13 primary have been granted a say in filling only one - the vacancy created in June when the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, took the rare step of removing Surrogate Michael Feinberg, a Democratic clubhouse stalwart, for doling out excessive fees to the crony he appointed to deal with the estates of those who died without leaving a will. In a disgraceful backroom deal, Albany recently created a second judgeship and timed it so that party regulars, not voters, would get to choose the candidate who will appear on the sure-to-win Democratic line in November.

These shenanigans make it all the more important to choose a candidate of proven independence from those who have long treated the Surrogate's Court as their personal cookie jar. Of the three candidates, only one fits the bill - Margarita Lopez Torres. A veteran Civil Court judge, Ms. Torres would start on Day 1 of her tenure to reorganize the court to serve the people as it is meant to.

Her rivals in the race, Supreme Court Justices Diana Johnson and Lawrence Knipel, are smart, competent and pledge reform. But their close ties to the clubhouse do not bode well for achieving the necessary clean break. We enthusiastically endorse Ms. Lopez Torres.

Choices for surrogate

Daily News - Editorial Endorsement
Sept. 4, 2005

Democratic primary voters in Brooklyn and Manhattan have a rare opportunity to elect surrogates, the judges who oversee the estates of the dead - a mother lode of patronage spoils. The Daily News endorses Margarita Lopez Torres in Brooklyn and Kristen Booth Glen in Manhattan because they appear most likely to remain above cronyism.

Brooklyn Dems get to pick a surrogate because the Commission on Judicial Conduct bounced party hack Michael Feinberg from the bench for letting a pal siphon millions of dollars from dead people's estates - malfeasance that was exposed by this newspaper. The three contenders for the spot are Lopez Torres, a Civil Court judge, and Supreme Court Justices Larry Knipel and Diana Johnson.

Lopez Torres has demonstrated competence on the bench while warring with the Democratic organization, and she promises reforms like using either court staff or rotating private lawyers to handle probate work. So she gets the nod. Knipel, who gets high marks for legal ability, and Johnson promise to limit political influence on lucrative court appointments, but both played footsie with the party to get their judgeships. (Knipel's wife is a Democratic district leader, and his campaign is backed by two retired judges who both testified as character witnesses on behalf of the ousted Feinberg.)

In Manhattan, the decisive factor is also independence from the party. On that score, Glen, dean of the CUNY law school who has served on both the Civil and Supreme courts, tops Eve Rachel Markewich, a private estates lawyer. Until recently, Markewich was a Democratic district leader, and she is backed by party bosses.

Glen promises to bar from appointment all elected party leaders, district leaders, county committee members and club presidents. She should add judicial nominating convention delegates to the list, and, if victorious on Sept. 13, she and Lopez Torres must follow through on aggressive reforms.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Citizens Union Issues "Preference" for Lopez Torres for Surrogate

Daily News August 24, 2005
Key watchdogs OK Hynes, Lopez Torres
By Hugh Son

An influential watchdog group is backing Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes for reelection .... said Dick Dadey, executive director of the Citizens Union, a New York City political reform group founded in 1897.
...
The Citizens Union also backed Judge Margarita López Torres in her campaign to take the seat of disgraced Surrogate Court Judge Michael Feinberg, calling her the "clear reform candidate."
"Our choice is rooted in the need to sever the way in which the Surrogate Court is used as an ATM for the corrupt Brooklyn Democratic Party machine headed by Norman," Dadey said.
Lopez Torres' opponents, Justices Diana Johnson and Lawrence Knipel, both have links to Norman, Dadey said - and that could perpetuate the system of doling out legal patronage that Feinberg was fired for.
Norman couldn't be reached for comment, a spokesman said.
The Citizens Union nod is a valuable endorsement, said Baruch College public affairs professor Doug Muzzio.
"It's the original good government group in New York," Muzzio said. "Their endorsement carries weight with opinion makers who then might influence voters."

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Better to Know the Judge

As an adult home deteriorated, a veteran jurist and a lawyer shared cocktails and dinner
Village Voice
by Tom Robbins
August 9th, 2005

Another report of insider trading in the Brooklyn courts arrived in late July from the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct. This one produced more sighs than fury. Years after editorial pages had spent their wrath condemning Brooklyn's judicial politics as a school for scandal, here was another censure of another veteran judge for failing to reveal his ties to yet an other politically wired attorney practicing before him. Even the names were predictable.

Supreme Court Justice Richard Huttner, a clubhouse regular, had never told other lawyers in a case he adjudicated about his friendship with defense counsel Ravi Batra, former law partner of assemblyman and Democratic county leader Clarence Norman Jr. The panel reported that Huttner neglected to tell plaintiffs that while he was hearing their case he and his wife were having cocktails with Batra and his spouse, or that the judge had also attended a wed ding anniversary and a memorial service with the Batra family. Or that he and the attorney had shared "drinks, lunch, and dinner together on numerous occasions." Or that he thought so highly of Batra he had awarded the lawyer 11 separate fiduciary appointments.

What to do?

Huttner, 70 years old, caught a break. On the proviso that he will permanently retire on December 31, the panel "reluctantly" let him off with censure. Case closed. The report made for a four-inch wire service story in the Times; it never made it past the borough section in the Daily News.

But not since Judge Victor Barron, another clubhouse hack, was caught demanding $115,000 to fix the case of a maimed three-month-old baby has a story penetrated so near to the rotten heart of Brooklyn's judicial politics.

Batra's appearance before Huttner was on behalf of a wretchedly deteriorated adult home run by Norman's father, Re verend Clarence Norman Sr., pastor of one of Brooklyn's largest churches. In Baisden et al. v. Pacific House Residence for Adults, lawyers for the home's residents, most of them the formerly homeless with varying degrees of mental problems, were seeking to block Norman Sr.'s efforts to sell the building and evict them. At the time, Reverend Norman was trying, with Batra's help, to stay one step ahead of state regulators who were being forced to act on years of complaints of callous care and grievous conditions at the home.

When I visited Pacific House in the summer of 2000 while the case was before Huttner, residents were aimlessly roaming the streets ("A Ministry of Neglect," June 28–July 4, 2000). Several told me they were terrified about what would befall them. The most cogent understood exactly what was going on. One woman, Clara Taylor, had formed a residents' council, which had sought out legal services attorneys. Taylor had personally confronted Norman Sr. about the situation. The reverend had pled poverty. While the home collected $60,000 a month from the residents' disability checks, he said he was hobbled by a poor cash flow. Additional government grants had been denied after inspectors found rampant vermin, unsanitary bathrooms, and poor care.

Taylor had also cornered the reverend's son when the assemblyman attended a street fair near the home. She had pointed to a urine-soaked resident, sitting mumbling and untended on a nearby stoop. "I asked him if he would help. He said, 'I'm glad you're concerned,' and promised to speak to his father," Taylor told me.

But when I got Assemblyman Norman on the phone that summer he said that his only involvement was to ask his partner Batra to represent his father. Batra got results. Before Huttner, the lawyer was able to win his client sufficient breathing room to negotiate a sale of his property—minus its troubled residents, who were dispersed elsewhere in the city—to another politically tied organization. It was "a graceful exit," Batra told me then.

Later this month, after long delays, Assemblyman Norman is finally due to go to trial on the first of four indictments brought against him by Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes. The county leader stands accused of double billing for his gas receipts, failing to disclose a $2,700 in-kind contribution from a lobbyist, misfiling a $5,000 campaign check, and compelling judicial candidates to use favored vendors.

Several of the charges appear shaky. But on any moral scale, they are far outweighed by the outrage of Pacific House and the casual use of Brooklyn's Democratic judicial-political complex to defend it. Yet no law enforcement office looked to see if there were any penal code violations there. It was considered business as usual; a crassly cynical business perhaps, but not criminal. Meanwhile, conveniently for both Hynes and Norman, the first jury's verdict isn't likely to be heard until after the September 13th primary, thus sparing one or the other a major embarrassment.

That Tuesday, Hynes faces his first competitive race for re-election since he won office in 1989, with three challengers seeking his job. It is an important day for Norman as well. He's hoping his candidate for D.A., an undistinguished, clubhouse-bred state senator from east Brooklyn named John Sampson, can ride a tide of African American votes to unseat Hynes. Another important goal for the embattled leader is to try to hold on to the Surrogate's Court judgeship, the single most lucrative judicial post in the borough. The position had been held by another Norman candidate, Judge Michael Feinberg, who bizarrely won the open seat in 1996 on a reform platform. Feinberg even won the Times' endorsement that year, telling its editorial board he would have a panel "screen appointments and recommend changes in how the place was run."

Of course he did no such thing. He immediately appointed a longtime Norman ally, East Flatbush Democratic district leader Marietta Small, as public administrator, a job that calls for competence and sensitivity in the handling of estates of the deceased. Small brought neither to the job. Two separate audits have chastised Small, who still holds her $91,000-a-year post, with bungling multiple cases and losing track of assets.

For the profitable job of counsel to the public administrator, Feinberg held no interviews, instead selecting his friend and neighbor Louis Rosenthal, whose closest experience in the surrogate business was his father's service as public administrator in the early 1960s. Rosenthal promptly began to collect an 8 percent fee for every estate that crossed his desk, 2 percent more than counsels in other boroughs. He did so without filing the required affidavits describing what he'd done to earn the money. This was not a problem for Feinberg, however, who rubber-stamped more than $8 million in payments to his friend.

Such pillaging probably would have rolled merrily along had not two Daily News reporters, Nancie Katz and Larry Cohler-Esses, exposed the scheme in May 2002. In the wake of their stories, the Attorney General's Office and the Commission on Judicial Conduct each opened investigations. Rosenthal was forced out. In late June, the state Court of Appeals upheld the judicial conduct panel's ruling that Feinberg should also be removed. The judge had admitted to the commission that he had only "skimmed" the rules of office, and somehow missed the one about required affidavits. The panel found him "incredible, evasive, and unreliable."

Norman's replacement candidate for the office is a protégé, Supreme Court Justice Diana Johnson, who attends Clarence Norman Sr.'s First Baptist Church in Crown Heights. He has a backup candidate, Judge Lawrence Knipel, who has gotten good marks on the bench but whose independence has been questioned since his wife is a district leader and Norman loyalist.

The third candidate is civil court judge Margarita López Torres, who has been tilting her lance at Norman's machine ever since he refused to back her for re-election in 2002. The reason? López Torres refused to accept a political appointee as her law clerk ("The Judge Who Said No," July 31–August 6, 2002).
In the surrogate's race, López Torres has pledged to do all the things Feinberg claimed he would nine years ago, and more. "I am going to structure the court in a way it serves the people," she said under a hot noon sun at a City Hall press conference last month. "The integrity of this court has been challenged," she said. "I will change that."

Lentol cools to judgeship amid lawsuit

Daily News - Aug 9. 2005
Lentol cools to judgeship amid lawsuit

By Hugh Son

Veteran Assemblyman Joseph Lentol was picked for a powerful - and controversial - new Surrogate Court judge seat, but he may no longer want the job.

"This job as a surrogate judge is very tempting for me to take, but I'm not sure it's the right thing to do because my heart may not be in it," Lentol (D-Williamsburg) told the Daily News yesterday.

"I still feel like I have a lot to offer the state Assembly representing my district," he said.

Lentol's announcement - a reversal from remarks made earlier this year - comes after a lawsuit filed by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund that seeks to block the Nov. 8 election in which Lentol would be the Democratic candidate.

Lentol was tapped after a last-minute deal was struck between Gov. Pataki and the Legislature to give Brooklyn a second surrogate judge.

The position was created too late to schedule a primary election, leaving the choice of the candidate to the party. In overwhelmingly Democratic Brooklyn, the Democratic line in a judicial race is a virtual lock on election.

The lawsuit contends the process violates the Voting Rights Act, said Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund President Cesar Perales.

"It denies minority voters an opportunity to have a say in the election of the second surrogate in Brooklyn," Perales said.

At least one of the Democratic district leaders who joined embattled party boss Clarence Norman in picking Lentol said he thought the lawsuit had an excellent chance of succeeding.

"The creation of that seat is outrageous. Why should 42 district leaders pick the second-most important judge in the county, instead of 900,000 registered Democrats?" said Alan Fleishman, Park Slope district leader.

If the Justice Department agrees with the lawsuit, Pataki may be empowered to pick a one-year appointment and an election would be held next year.

Democratic sources said Lentol was shying away from criticism of the way the nomination was handled. "Lentol only wants it if it's handed to him on a silver platter," said a political operative who didn't want his name used.

But Lentol denied being influenced by any outside force.

"It has only to do with me, what's in my heart," Lentol said. "I've been more of a legislator than a lawyer, and I don't know if [the judgeship] is for me."

Friday, August 05, 2005

State Asks U.S. to Clear Second Brooklyn Surrogate

New York Law Journal 8-5-05

by Daniel Wise
New York state has asked the U.S. Justice Department to find that a law enacted in June creating a second Surrogate's Court seat in Brooklyn complies with the 1965 Voting Rights Act, according to the state's July 27 filing. Cesar Perales, president of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, said yesterday his group received a copy of the state's filing. Last month the group asked the Justice Department to intervene and find that the new seat compromises minority voting rights because the timing established by the law bypassed the primary process and placed the selection of a candidate in the hands of Democratic leaders in Brooklyn. In its filing, the state claimed there was no infringement of minority voters' rights because minority legislators supported the bill. Meanwhile, Assemblyman Joseph Lentol, who has been widely reported as the party's likely nominee for the slot, yesterday expressed second thoughts about running. Mr. Lentol, who had stated without qualification in June that he was interested in the nomination, said yesterday that "my heart is in a governmental job that is not finished and I don't know if I want it locked in a judge's chambers." In a reference to the Voting Rights Act challenge, he said, "We may be talking about [an election] that may not happen." Richard Emery, an expert on the act, said the defense fund's challenge is a long shot because the Justice Department has not been receptive to voting rights challenges. But he added that a claim that minority voters have been bypassed has "visceral appeal."

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Voting Wrongs Act

Daily News -- July 23, 2005
Editorial

The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund has called on the Justice Department to rule that Gov. Pataki and the Legislature violated the federal Voting Rights Act last month when they created a new Surrogate's Court judgeship in Brooklyn. The feds should take their sweet time considering the matter.

Pataki, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno established the post in the final moments of the legislative session as part of a back-room deal that doled out judgeships to political bosses. The Brooklyn beneficiary was indicted Democratic chief Clarence Norman, for whom Surrogate's Court is a patronage trough.

Albany delivered the fiefdom directly into Norman's hands by establishing the judgeship as of Aug. 1, when the state's election calendar says it's too late to conduct a primary election for the seat. That being the case, the party gets to choose which of its hacks will appear on the November ballot and thus get the 14-year berth overseeing the estates of the dead.

But the election calendar offers another possibility. If the judgeship is vacant after Aug. 8, the governor or the state's chief administrative judge would get to appoint an interim surrogate for one year. The voters would then next year select a judge in the primary and general elections. By waiting to rule until after Aug. 8, the Justice Department would put the power where it belongs - with the voters, not the bosses.

Friday, July 22, 2005

A suspicious new judgeship

El Diario - July 22, 2005

EDITORIAL

We all have good reason to be suspicious about a new Surrogate Court Judge position in Brooklyn, created by Gov. George Pataki and the state Legislature as the legislative session in Albany was drawing to a close last month.

Last Thursday, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund asked the U.S. Department of Justice to find that Pataki and the state Legislature violated the federal Voting Rights Act when they created the new judgeship. The post in Brooklyn is one of 21 new judgeships the governor and the legislature established across the state, effective Aug. 1. That makes it too late to hold a primary election, according to the state election calendar, which means political party bosses get to appoint the party candidate.

In Brooklyn, which is overwhelmingly Democratic, the Democratic candidate is virtually guaranteed to be the winner in November. And the man making the appointment will be none other than party boss Clarence Norman, who is currently under indictment on corruption charges.

Because of a history of racial discrimination, Brooklyn is covered by the Voting Rights Act. Any decision to add or remove a judgeship must be approved by the Justice Department. PRLDEF argues that the elimination of a primary election can severely reduce minority participation, and has asked the Justice Department to stop the appointment of candidates.

We agree that this process must be halted. The stakes are high. The new judge would serve for 14 years or until he turns 70, the mandatory retirement age.

People all over the state are upset about the judgeships, largely seen as patronage positions created by Pataki at a time when he is considering a run for higher office. Even if the new judgeship in Brooklyn passes Justice Department review, the system should appoint an interim judge for a year. Voters would select the judge in a primary and general election next year. And that’s as it should be.

Rights Group Fights Judgeship Creation

RIGHTS GROUP FIGHTS JUDGESHIP CREATION

BY JOE MAHONEY - NY Daily News
July 22, 2005 Friday

A new set of judicial robes destined for Brooklyn could end up in mothballs because a civil rights group is going to the feds in a bid to block the controversial creation of the Surrogate Court position.

The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund contends the Legislature violated the Voting Rights Act by ramming through a measure that shuts out voters from a chance to weigh in on judicial candidates in a primary election.

Citing the fact that Brooklyn falls under the Voting Rights Act, the group is asking the civil rights division of the U.S. Justice Department to intervene and stop the state from allowing the Nov. 8 general election for the Brooklyn surrogate judgeship to move forward.

"Clearly, the problem they are going to run up against is they violated the federal Voting Rights Act in the process of their machinations," Cesar Perales, the group's president, told the Daily News. "We certainly think that a court will agree with us."

Perales' group hopes the Justice Department will rule that the judgeship was engineered in a way that harms the ability of Hispanic and African-American voters to participate in the selection of the new judge.

State legislative insiders say the judgeship is expected to go to Assembly Codes Committee Chairman Joseph Lentol (D-Brooklyn), a key lieutenant in Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's operation at the state Capitol.

The Brooklyn judgeship was created as a part of a deal that allows Gov. Pataki to name 14 new Court of Claims judgeships and creates several other new judicial posts across the state.

In heavily Democratic Brooklyn, the judgeship was created in a way that empowers party boss Clarence Norman, an Assemblyman who works alongside Lentol in Silver's shop at the Capitol, to appoint the new surrogate.

Pataki aides said the state Board of Elections is drafting the "preclearance letter" the Justice Department needs in order to sign off on the state's effort to create the Brooklyn spot.

Justice Department officials reached in Washington last night had no immediate comment on the tempest erupting in Brooklyn.

Perales said his group was successful in delaying the city's mayoral primary in 1981 because of civil rights concerns. If the advocates get their way this time, lawmakers would be forced to go back to the drawing board - and enact legislation that paves the way for an open primary election, he said.

Group Opposes Adding Second Brooklyn Surrogate

NY Law Journal
July 22, 2005

Group Opposes Adding Second Brooklyn Surrogate
by Tom Perrotta

The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund has asked the U.S. Justice Department to intervene in the election for a newly created Surrogate's Court seat in Brooklyn. Because of the timing of the Legislature's creation of the seat, the borough's second, there will be no time for a primary. Instead, Democratic and Republican leaders will choose candidates, with the Democrat likely becoming the overwhelming favorite in the heavily Democratic borough. The group claimed yesterday that Brooklyn is covered by §5 of the federal Voting Rights Act, owing to a history of racial discrimination. It contends the borough is subject to clearance requirements from the Justice Department when creating a new judicial position, and added that the elimination of a primary could reduce the ability of minorities to partake in the election. It further said it has asked the Justice Department to deny
any clearance requests.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

No More Debasing of the Surrogate's Court

Footnotes (www.footnotesny.com)
NO MORE DEBASING OF THE SURROGATES COURT

By Maurice Gumbs. July 19, 2005


A May 21 article on our website (Surrogate Court Judges Rush In To Protect A Brother) discussed Surrogate Judge Feinberg’s appeal. We suggested that Feinberg was fortunate that his proposed punishment was no more than removal from the bench. Feinberg had given away millions of $$$ to his pal Lou Rosenthal with no bills, no justification. This was money that rightfully belonged to other people, many of whom needed it desperately.

The Court of Appeals panel expressed its disgust when it accused Feinberg of “debasing the bench.” Debasing the bench is one of the worst betrayals in a civilized society. It is an act as gross and obscene as a judge sitting on the bench and defecating in his black robes. In the days of his ancestors, Mike Feinberg would have been stoned to death, or boiled in oil, or have his eyes taken out. And this defrocked judge is fortunate that he lives in a more permissive community.

Feinberg’s predecessor, Surrogate Judge Bernard Bloom was found guilty of deception and falsehood, and similarly escaped severe punishment. Bloom was approaching 70, and the kind Court of Appeals panel allowed him to continue on the bench with the understanding that he would retire at 70. Looking at the record, it appears to us that Bloom was also guilty of perjury. Perjury in Court generally invokes severe punishment. Usually a stern lecture from the judge and a jail sentence. Bloom was fortunate, and so is Feinberg who was also accused of lying, and dishonesty.

Bloom and Feinberg are fruit of the same tree. They emerged from the culture established by the semi-mobster and County Leader Meade Esposito. Judges like Bloom and Feinberg were comfortable with the sleaziness, corruption, and wheeling/dealing of Brooklyn politics. They saw the Surrogate Court as a market where huge sums of money could be transferred from vulnerable citizens into the bank accounts of their pals.

Once again there are candidates waiting to follow in the footsteps of Bloom and Feinberg. County Leader Clarence Norman expects to organize the election of another Surrogate Judge just as he did with Feinberg in 1996. Directly or indirectly he appears to have two candidates lined up to replace Mike Feinberg. We understand that he hopes to put the Surrogate Court in the hands of a member of the First Baptist Church or in the hands of the husband of a District Leader who has been his loyal supporter.

If we didn’t know before, we should know it after Bloom and Feinberg. Putting the Surrogates Court in the hands of County-supported candidates is like sending a 7 year old kid to a sleep-away camp run by a pedophile.

The Surrogates Court used to be called the Widows and Orphans Court. It’s a Court for human beings who are in desperate need of a fair, honest, and caring judge. Instead, Brooklyn’s political leaders see it as a hunting ground for predators. The Surrogates Court has turned into a place where there is a license to steal money, homes, and other property from those who need help.

Footnotes has received dozens of letters from victims of the Surrogates Courts.

Under Bloom and Feinberg there may be hundreds of people who lost homes, money that they were supposed to inherit from relatives, and estates that were gobbled up by lawyers and receivers in the Surrogates Court. Many of these were elderly people, sick people, and children, and poor people.

Some years ago columnist Jimmy Breslin gave us a look into the Surrogates Court when he told the story of a 18 year old Mexican worker who was crushed and drowned in cement in a Williamsburg building in 2000. The builder was found guilty and the Federal Court placed the value of the young Mexican’s life at $100,000. The payment was promptly made in Federal Court in 2001, and the check sent to Mike Feinberg’s Surrogates Court from which the funds were to be sent to the family in Mexico. Breslin recalls dealing with the Public Administrator’s Office a year later trying to get them to send out a check to the young man’s family. He finally got through to Marietta Smalls and found Lou Rosenthal sitting on the $100,000 deposit. Meanwhile, the boy’s family was in desperate condition in Mexico where they had been living off the money he was sending back home while alive.

And finally Breslin described how after more than a year, Lou Rosenthal finally sent a check to the family. And Rosenthal had deducted $15,000 which he claimed was his fee. In fact, Rosenthal indicated that it was far less than his usual fee. We get the feeling that if it were not for Jimmy Breslin, it could have taken a decade for that money to get to Mexico, and by that time, Rosenthal’s fee could have increased to $50.000 Judging from the stories we hear, this was standard procedure under Surrogates Court Judges Bloom and Feinberg.

Communities are defined by the way they treat their widows, orphans, the needy, the sick, the helpless. Brooklyn will be defined by its choice of its new Surrogates Court Judge. This year’s candidates for Surrogates Court Judge will make promises about their future righteousness. That’s what Bloom did. That’s what Feinberg did. They claimed to care. They swore they would be reformers.

And then they proceeded to debase the Court.

There is a simple test by which to eliminate individuals who seek to fill the position of Surrogates Judge. It has nothing to do with glossy literature, fine speeches or the support of County Leadership, and ClubHouse politicians.

Brooklyn cannot afford to continue “debasing” its Surrogate Court with judges backed by the County Leader and other political predators. It was County Leader Clarence Norman who sponsored Mike Feinberg as his candidate for Surrogate Court Judge in 1996. Unless the goal is to put another Feinberg in office, any candidate affiliated with the County Leader should automatically be eliminated. We’ve been there…Done that.

Footnotes has been told that candidate Diane Johnson is a longstanding member of the First Baptist Church where Clarence Norman’s father is the pastor and Clarence himself is a distinguished officer. We understand that Diane is one of maybe 5 or 6 judges who are members of this church. How extraordinary!! If the information about Ms. Johnson is true, then in our view she is utterly disqualified from consideration.

District Leader Lori Knipel has been one of Clarence Norman’s faithful supporters. Not only has she worked to keep Clarence as County Leader, but Lori was instrumental in delivering the County Committee vote which gave Carl Andrews the Democratic line in the Special Election for State Senate. It appears that County Leader Clarence has already rewarded Lori for her loyalty by making her husband a judge. And now Lori seeks to put her husband in a position where he can control the wealthiest Court in Brooklyn. Another Feinberg in the making.

Clearly differentiated from the other candidates is Judge Margarita Lopez Torres. Although she is one of the most senior judges in Brooklyn, and has an impeccable reputation, Judge Margarita Lopez Torres has not been nominated to the State Supreme Court by County Leadership.

Her independence and her refusal to let politicians control her decisions in Court have made Judge Lopez Torres untouchable by the power-brokers who corrupt the Courts. There is no other judge in Brooklyn dead, half-dead or alive who has had the courage to speak out against the corrupt practices that debase the Courts of Brooklyn. In her fearless integrity, Judge Lopez Torres, a gentle, quiet mother towers above her peers. Her record qualifies her to preside over a Court where more than in any other Court, the people need the Judge to be their advocate.

New York State’s Court of Appeal is trying on its end to bring an end to corruption in Brooklyn. Within a month they have sent two strong messages. It is now up to Brooklynites and their civic leaders. To our delight, Congressman Major Owens is once again fighting for decency and against corruption just as he did three decades ago. Major, together with Congresmembers Towns and Velasquez have joined to support Judge Torres. We wonder what will keep Anthony Weiner from joining his colleagues.

And what about Mayor Mike Bloomberg? Judge Margarita Lopez Torres offers a unique opportunity for the Mayor to join the demand for the end of debasing Brooklyn’s Courts. The Mayor can use his bully pulpit to speak out against the disgrace of two new Surrogates Court judges being chosen by a County Leader who is likely to be in jail before their first year in office is over. It would be terrific if Mike Bloomberg finds a legal way to put support behind the best candidate with the least money. And even if the Mayor simply shines the spotlight on this contest and raises the awareness of the critical issues involved, he would finally demonstrate a level of moral leadership.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Congressmembers endorse a Latina Judge

El Diario 7/19/05

Congresistas respaldan a jueza latina
Eva Sanchis/EDLP

Nueva York — Tres congresistas de Brooklyn respadaron ayer a una conocida jueza latina para un puesto vacante en de la Corte de Sucesiones de Brooklyn.

Los congresistas afroamericanos Edolphus Towns y Major Owens y la congresista puertorriqueña Nydia Velázquez apoyaron a Margarita López Torres, la primera mujer latina en ser elegida a la Corte Civil de Brooklyn en 1992, por su fuerte independencia e integridad.

“Todo el que se postula a la corte de Sucesiones lo hace como un reformador”, dijo el congresista Owens, “pero sólo Margarita López Torres ha defendido consistentemente la independencia judicial, sin importarle los riesgos”.

López se postula en la primaria demócrata para el puesto que dejó Michael Feinberg, después de que una investigación interna demostrase que un amigo suyo había estafado millones de dólares a viudas y huérfanos en excesivos cobros por documentos legales.

En el 2002, López, de 53 años y originaria de Puerto Rico, fue reelegida jueza de la Corte Civil a pesar de no obtener el respaldo del Partido Demócrata de Brooklyn por negarse a contratar a personas sugeridas por el partido. De ser elegida jueza de la Corte de Sucesiones de Brooklyn, López se convertiría en la primera latina del estado y en la primera mujer de la corte de Brooklyn en lograrlo.

López reafirmó ayer su compromiso contra el nepotismo y la contratación de personas por su afiliación política. “Si salgo elegida, prometo sólo contratar a gente por sus méritos y no por sus conexiones políticas”, dijo. “Estaré segura de que tienen la preparación adecuada para el puesto”, agregó.

Friday, July 08, 2005

Race and the race for judge

Daily News 7-8-05
by Errol Louis
Race and the race for judge

As noted in this space last week, the forced removal of disgraced ex-judge Michael Feinberg for siphoning excess fees from the Brooklyn Surrogate's Court has set off a hot contest for the seat in this fall's primary. Tribal loyalties in the race for mayor could determine the winner. The best-known candidate, Civil Court Judge Margarita Lopez-Torres, will get a boost from the candidacy of Fernando Ferrer because his bid to become New York's first Puerto Rican mayor will raise turnout among Brooklyn's Latino voters. Another contender for surrogate, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Diana Johnson, who is African-American, could get a similar lift from the fact that the most fiercely contested Council races in Kings County are going on in the overwhelmingly black neighborhoods of central Brooklyn. In Brownsville, for instance, the Campaign Finance Board reports 12 challengers vying for the seat being vacated by term-limited Tracy Boyland - all of whom will be trying to get voters to the polls.

A BIPARTISAN DEAL TO CREATE 21 NEW JUDGESHIPS

New York Civic (www.nycivic.org)
Q (Quotidien) No. 62
Tuesday, July 5, 2005
by Henry Stern

A BIPARTISAN DEAL TO CREATE 21 NEW JUDGESHIPS

The Daily News editorial, LET THE VOTERS CHOOSE THE JUDGES, denounces the sweetheart deal between the major parties this year that lets the Democratic party bosses choose the next surrogate, without the primary election that the law normally requires. The News suggests that Clarence Norman, the Brooklyn county leader, names a 69-year-old to the position, who would have to retire at the end of 2006. That way the people would have an opportunity to select his successor.

An excellent idea, BUT if the legislators had wanted to give the people a chance to elect a judge, they would not have selected August 1 as the effective date for the new law.. August 1 is within the window of opportunity for the Brooklyn gang, too late for petitions to be circulated by candidates for election, but early enough for Norman & Co. to select a catspaw for the Democratic nomination for the new position of second Surrogate for Kings County. The gig is for fourteen years, at $136,700 per annum, plus staff, benefits and other emoluments.


PLACE NOT YOUR TRUST IN PRINCES
--

PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO SUP WITH THE BROOKLYN MACHINE

Since we have cited editorials from the Post and the News, it is fair that we quote from an editorial from the New York Times that is relevant nine years after it was published, on Thursday, September 6, 1996, just four days before the botched Democratic primary election on Monday, September 10. BTW, the election was so poorly managed, the courts ordered the polls reopened on October 10 for those who were unable to vote because voting machines failed to arrive at polling places. Now, we proceed to the Times' advice to Brooklynites.

"The Brooklyn Surrogate's Court has long put the needs of politicians before those of the public. All four candidates vow to clean up the place. But only State Supreme Court Justice MICHAEL FEINBERG has strong credentials.

"Justice Feinberg has promised reforms ranging from a panel to screen appointments and recommend changes in how the place is run, down to keeping the office open at lunchtime as a convenience to the public. But his ardent backing by the Democratic county organization, which wants to retain its patronage jobs and fees, is DISQUIETING. With some WARINESS we endorse Judge Feinberg on the basis of his good record, and TRUST that he will STAY TRUE to his reform pledges." (We added the emphasis.)


ALL THAT GLITTERS -- FEINBERG'S PRINCIPAL OPPONENT

To be fair to the Times, we must report that Judge Feinberg's principal opponent in the 1996 primary was Judge Lila Gold, then on the Civil Court. When she ran for Supreme Court in 2003, having made her peace with the county organization, The Village Voice mocked her in an article headlined: THE JUDGE IN THE PURPLE PLASTIC GLOVES: Clarence Norman's Latest Pick for Supreme Court.

We quote from Tom Robbins' Voice article:

"'She is my nightmare of a judge,' said a fellow jurist who has observed her in action and listened to complaints from both defense lawyers and prosecutors. 'To say she is harsh doesn't even begin to describe it. She will put defendants in jail for failing to pay as little as $15 of the mandatory surcharges imposed on those convicted.'

"Gold also has disconcerted both defendants and attorneys with her predilection for wearing colored plastic, dishwashing-style gloves while administering justice on the bench. She has explained to colleagues that she has a skin condition. But the condition only affects her in the courtroom; when she attends political dinners and functions, she doesn't wear them.

"In 1998, Jack Newfield and Maggie Haberman, writing in the New York Post, included Gold on a list of the city's worst judges, citing her 'irritability, nastiness and irrational outbursts' in court."

NY Civic recommends that you link to Robbins' absorbing column. He explores additional areas of Gold's alleged deficiencies, including her fund raising activities, and describes civil litigation in which she was a defendant. Robbins' article is a guided tour of a portion of the sewer that is Brooklyn judicial politics.

End of Quotes. Fast Forward to 2005.

Justice Michael Feinberg was ordered removed from office by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct on February 15, 2005. Their decision was unanimously upheld by the Court of Appeals on June 29. You can link to the decisions, so we need not repeat the sad story of his numerous derelictions.

A key phrase in the Court of Appeals opinion: Judge Feinberg "debased his office and eroded public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary."

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

TOP BROOKLYN LEGAL EAGLE CAGED FOR BRIBERY

New York Post

By ZACH HABERMAN
July 6, 2005 -- The corrupt former head of the Brooklyn Bar Association yesterday was sentenced to more than two years in prison.
"In the twilight of my career, I threw it all away," said Edward Reich, who pleaded guilty to accepting more than $10,000 in kickbacks. Watched by his tearful family, he admitted he was "wrong legally, ethically and morally."

Brooklyn federal court Judge John Gleeson called Reich's pocket-padding an abuse of power and a "corruption of the judicial process" before sentencing the once-prominent lawyer to 27 months in a federal prison.

Reich admitted accepting $10,500 in bribes on five different occasions in exchange for lowering foreclosure prices on properties he presided over at auction as a referee.

"I never intended to harm anyone," Reich said. "My actions are reprehensible."

Gleeson also ordered the former head of a judicial screening committee to pay a $75,000 fine as well as restitution for the bribe money he accepted. Reich also will be disbarred and have his law office closed.

He has to turn himself over to prison officials Oct. 17.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Let the voters choose the judges

New York Daily News July 5, 2005
EDITORIAL

The Court of Appeals last week booted Michael Feinberg, a Brooklyn Democratic scoundrel, from his post as the borough's surrogate judge for letting a lawyer pal siphon millions of dollars from the estates of the dead. Ah, sweet, slow justice.
The Daily News exposed Feinberg three years ago. It is satisfying that the high court has unanimously found him unfit for the bench. Now the issue arises: Who will fill Feinberg's place, as well as a second Brooklyn surrogate position just created by Gov. Pataki and the Legislature in an odious back-room deal?

Political parties use surrogate's court as a patronage trough because its judges get to appoint numerous lawyers, guardians and other estate specialists to paying positions. The Brooklyn organization is poised to keep the borough's two posts in the family.

Feinberg's spot will be filled by a primary this fall, but candidates have until only July 14 to collect signatures to get on the ballot. The party apparatus can get the job done for its favored candidate. Chairman Clarence Norman must not sabotage everyone else by challenging their petitions. The contest should be open to all comers.

Norman, who's facing trial on corruption charges, will get to handpick the second Brooklyn surrogate, thanks to Pataki, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno. In the final minutes of the just-ended legislative session, they created 21 judgeships, delivering three into the hands of party bosses.

Those spots, one controlled by Norman, one by Bruno, who doubles as the Republican strongman in upstate Rensselaer, and one in Orange County's Family Court, should have been filled by the voters. But the capital's big three headed off that inconvenience by establishing the judgeships as of Aug. 1, when the Election Law says it's too late to organize a primary. In that event, the bosses rule.

And that's not all. When Albany creates judgeships, everyone grabs for a piece of the pie. This time around, Pataki got the okay to appoint 14 new Court of Claims judges, which is the regular practice, while party organizations in the Bronx, Queens and Westchester will pick four candidates for November judicial elections.

The biggest offense committed by the Albany trio was to deny primary voters a say over the new surrogate, who will serve 14 years, at a time when Chief Judge Judith Kaye is trying to promote confidence in judicial elections. Would-be surrogates with honor will run in the primary for the Feinberg seat. Brooklyn Assemblyman Joe Lentol, who is the party's likely choice for the unelected surrogate post, should be among them rather than tarnish his three decades of public service.

As for the tainted seat, Norman's only legitimate move would be to install someone who is 69 years old and who will have to retire next year, allowing then for a real open primary

Monday, July 04, 2005

Surrogate's Court And Why It Should Go

Gotham Gazette - (www.gothamgazette.com)
July 4, 2005

Surrogate's Court And Why It Should Go
by Gary Tilzer


Last week, Brooklyn Surrogate's Court Judge Michael Feinberg was removed from the bench because he committed misconduct by improperly awarding nearly $9 million in fees to attorney Louis R. Rosenthal, his long-time friend. The fees in question were taken from the estates of Brooklyn's dead, their widows and orphans.

In a unanimous decision, the state's highest court upheld Feinberg's ouster by the Commission on Judicial Conduct and ruled that his actions "debased his office and eroded public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary."

Feinberg never denied he gave the money to his friend -- in fact he freely admits he did -- but said the payments were justified and in keeping with long-time practice in Brooklyn Surrogate's Court.

Surrogate Feinberg was among a small group of judges, lawyers and politicians who make their living from a court that for over 100 years has been at the center of judicial, legal and political corruption in New York City. Yet it has survived many attempts to eliminate it.

If anything, today's politicians are more shameless than ever. On June 24, the entire New York State government acted to ensure that the Brooklyn Surrogate's Court will continue to benefit politicians and politically connected lawyers. In the middle of the night, both houses of the legislature passed a bill to create 21 new judgeships throughout the state -- including a second Surrogate's Court judge in Brooklyn. The bill was submitted by Governor George Pataki and passed later the same day -- without any hearings or public discussion. Since the law will take effect August 1, after the filing date for the September primary, Brooklyn's political leaders -- the very same people who selected Feinberg -- will get to choose another judge.

This latest episode and the disclosure of Feinberg's abuses should serve as an impetus finally to eliminate the court that Senator Robert Kennedy called "a political toll booth exacting tribute from widows and orphans." Once informally known as "the widows and orphans court," the Surrogate's Court handles estates from people who die without a proper will. In doing this, it funnels millions of dollars a year to lawyers who serve as guardians.

The prospect of appointing lucrative guardianships has motivated generation after generation of machine politicians and establishment lawyers to capture a Surrogate spot for one of their trusted judges, who then spreads the largesse among the party faithful. Often the fees they charge eat up substantial assets. For example, reclusive tobacco heiress Doris Duke, who died in 1993, wanted her estate of $1.2 billion to go toward the improvement of humanity. But a dispute over the estate in Manhattan Surrogate's Court became what one lawyer called the "world series of litigation," with big name law firms vying for a piece of the pie.

The political establishment and media seem to have lost past generations' moral outrage at the corruption there. Even the well-informed tend to see Surrogate Feinberg's misconduct and other similar incidents as isolated problems. This year three candidates are vying for a rare open seat on Manhattan Surrogate's Court, but the campaign has not featured any debate over the way the court works.


A CULTURE OF PATRONAGE AND SYSTEMIC CORRUPTION

Earlier this year, political consultant Norman Adler told the New York Observer that politicians cherish the court for "the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks: That's where the money is."

And the well-connected ones get it. "The courts are so political that almost nothing is decided purely on the merits," wrote the late journalist Jack Newfield in 2001, one of the few consistently outraged critics of the court.

The examples establish a clear pattern.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct found that the attorney-friend appointed by Surrogate Feinberg was so entrenched that he prepared the Surrogate's decisions on fees awarded to attorneys in the form of Post-it notes.

Between 1997 and 2001, according to Newfield, the law firm of Queens Democratic Party leader Tom Manton received more than $400,000 in court patronage.

In 1987 a government investigation accused the Public Administrator for Manhattan Surrogate Renee Roth of using the court as a racketeering enterprise. The administrator resigned after he was accused of stealing $1 million from three clients. And a 1998 bar association report found that about two-thirds of Roth's guardianship appointments went to campaign contributors or to lawyers who worked for firms that contributed.

Some of the abuses have been even more blatant. In 1987, Surrogate's Court investigators were captured on videotape stealing valuables from the apartments of the deceased; they had been hired to inventory the property.

The state regulates all aspects of Surrogate's Court -- except the public administrator that every Surrogate's Court judge appoints, who is under the city's purview. This dual control has provided a convenient way out for auditors. In 2002, the Daily News reported that, during his eight-year tenure, State Comptroller Carl McCall never audited the Brooklyn Surrogate's Court's Public Administrator. McCall's office insisted he never took a look because then-city Comptroller Alan Hevesi was already auditing the Brooklyn court. Hevesi did -- but never discovered that Judge Michael Feinberg was awarding excessive fees without proper documentation to his friend Louis Rosenthal.

The problems with Surrogate's Court go beyond individual instances of corruption; they are systemic.


UNNECESSARY AND INVULNERABLE

There is absolutely no reason to maintain a separate Surrogate's Court. Under the New York State Constitution, the State Supreme Court already shares jurisdiction on anything the Surrogate's Court might handle -- estates, appointments of guardians and conservators, and adoptions. And so, abolishing the Surrogate would not leave a sudden void in our judicial system.

In Supreme Court and Family Court, cases are randomly assigned to a stable of judges. But there is only one Surrogate each for Queens, Staten Island, and the Bronx. Manhattan has two, and now so will Brooklyn. Putting the management of millions of dollars in assets under the purview of just one or two judges creates a recipe for patronage and corruption. Abolishing the court, and dispersing its functions and cases among the many Supreme Court and Family Court judges in each county would go a long way toward breaking up the patronage mill. But because of the big money involved and the powerful people who benefit from the court, every attempt to abolish or reform it in the past has ended in failure.


EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE THE COURT

In the 1930s, Mayor Fiorello La Guardia called Surrogate's Court "the most expensive undertaking establishment in the world." He believed it was control of the Surrogate's Court of New York County, more than any other factor, that kept the Tammany Hall political machine alive through the lean years when he deprived it of city jobs and President Franklin Roosevelt denied it federal jobs.

In 1938, the New York Bar Association called for the merger of the Surrogate's Court and the Supreme Court to eliminate corruption. In 1948, the Americans for Democratic Action called for a legislative campaign to reduce the patronage in the Surrogate Court. In the 1950s a commission put together to end the abuses of Tammany Hall urged the elimination of the Surrogate's Court by merging its functions with the Supreme Court. These recommendations came to naught.

The movement to abolish the court reached its peak in the 1960s. Citizens Union urged the system of appointing special guardians be abolished and replaced by a staff of salaried public officials who could act for minors, widows and incompetents. Robert Kennedy endorsed this idea, saying the salaried public guardians "would eliminate patronage from the Surrogate's Courts and dry up a major source of sustenance for the worst elements in our political parties." But, almost as soon as Kennedy made the proposal, representatives of the bar association and many of the city's Surrogate judges attacked it. And the senior Manhattan surrogate at the time, Samuel DiFalco, who had been elected with the help of the Manhattan Democratic machine, blocked reforms.

Ironically, calls for the elimination of the Surrogate's Court disappeared as reformers assumed power in the city. In 1977, Edward Koch ran for mayor, attacking the Democratic machine. Soon after his election, though, Koch did what most reform politicians do after defeating a machine: make a deal with it. Though Koch set up panels to screen candidates for judgeships, presumably based on merit, as time went on, the erstwhile reformers became more and more dependent on contributions and support from the machine politicians and the law firms that benefit from Surrogate patronage. Since then, Koch himself – along with other prominent politicians, including former Governor Mario Cuomo -- has been the beneficiary of the Surrogate's Court. Koch, for example, received $77,000 for a guardianship in 2001 and 2002, according to the New York Observer. "I'm on the list of people who are qualified," Koch told the Observer. "They're very careful to prevent [the court] from being used as a trough."

Today, every candidate who runs for Surrogate pledges to make "reforms" and end the court's patronage. Once elected, they do nothing. This is so widespread that it hardly even counts as irony that a New York Times editorial in 1996 endorsed the now-fired Surrogate Feinberg with the words: "Justice Feinberg has promised reforms ranging from a panel to screen appointments and recommend changes in how the place is run, down to keeping the office open at lunchtime as a convenience to the public."


THE BROOKLYN COURT

With Feinberg's removal, people interested in running for his seat will have two weeks to try to collect the 4,000 signatures to get on the ballot. If two or more candidates qualify as Democratic candidates, there would be a primary contest for Feinberg's seat.

But this would not be the case for the second Surrogate's post the state government created last month. Even veteran political observers were astounded by the addition of a second Surrogate's Court in Brooklyn in the middle of the removal process for the current Surrogate -- without giving citizens the right to vote in a primary.

That's right, there will be no primary for the new position. Albany in effect gave Brooklyn Democratic leader Clarence Norman a big role in picking who will select the new Surrogate for that borough. Norman awaits trial for extorting money from past judicial candidates and supported Feinberg for Surrogate's Court in 1998. And whomever Norman and his cronies choose is virtually guaranteed to win the November general election, and serve 14 years before they have to run again.

The only chance of derailing this seems to lie in Washington. Because Brooklyn comes under the federal voting rights act, the plan for a second Surrogate's judge might need Justice Department approval.

Ten years before Feinberg's removal, the same State Commission on Judicial Conduct that removed him censured his predecessor, Bernard Bloom. Bloom's censure was one step short of removal. Then the political machine that picked Bloom selected Feinberg. Now that very same machine that chose the two discredited judges is likely to select at least one—and perhaps two - more Surrogates.

In setting the stage for this, Albany once again has provided evidence that, in a legislature where almost every incumbent gets re-elected, there are no consequences for taking the low road. The government's action also sends the message that politics still trumps justice in New York.

Gary Tilzer is a political consultant whose articles have appeared in the New York Sun, the Village Voice and other local publications.

Sunday, July 03, 2005

ALBANY REPORT CARD

The New York Times - Editorial
July 3, 2005

ALBANY REPORT CARD
Last year, if you had asked us to assess New York State's legislative year, we would have found it hard to get beyond a sigh of disappointment. This year, mostly, we applaud. An impressive number of the 700 or so bills approved by the Legislature reflect a conscientious effort to reform the way Albany does business. Here is a closer look at what the legislators did and did not do.

* * *

On the downside * * * at the last minute, legislators created a number of new judicial positions, many for patronage appointments. Among these was a judgeship in Brooklyn created just in time to miss the deadline for elections. Now Democratic party leaders will choose the judge - not a good idea, especially in Brooklyn.

Bill to Alter Court Is Assailed in Brooklyn

NEW YORK TIMES

Bill to Alter Court Is Assailed in Brooklyn
By JONATHAN P. HICKS
Published: July 3, 2005

In a legislative session dominated by talk of reform, lawmakers took one quiet step that has alarmed several New York City politicians: they created a second judge seat for the Surrogate's Court in Brooklyn that many officials fear could be a vehicle for patronage.

For the last few days elected officials and political candidates have condemned the bill to establish the additional seat in Surrogate's Court, calling it an unnecessary and politically motivated move.

Last month, the Legislature passed a bill that would establish a number of new judgeships throughout the state, among them are new positions in Queens and the second surrogate position in Brooklyn.

But the Brooklyn judgeship has been widely criticized, in part because, under the bill, the position would not be officially created until August, making it too late for candidates to collect petition signatures and run in the September primary. Instead, the executives of the political parties will select the candidates to appear on the ballot. In Brooklyn, which is overwhelmingly Democratic, selection by the Democratic Party would be tantamount to election.

"It's an outrage," said Arnold Kriss, a candidate for district attorney in Brooklyn and a former lawyer and former deputy commissioner of the New York Police Department.

"The Legislature and governor created another potential patronage headache in Brooklyn," Mr. Kriss said. "I don't see that there is any need for such a court. I don't remember any public cry, either in the law circles or in the public, to create a whole new position in the judiciary."

Some politicians said they objected strongly to the fact that Brooklyn voters could not vote on the position.

"I support judges being appointed and if that can't happen, they should be elected," said City Councilman David Yassky, a Democrat in Brooklyn who was formerly a professor at the Brooklyn Law School.

"I don't think judges should be appointed by party leaders," Mr. Yassky said. "There are different ways to select judges. But the worst is selection by party leaders." Mr. Yassky said that the Legislature improved its performance this year, citing its first on-time budget agreement in years. "But this was a real example of backsliding."

Once called the Widows and Orphans Court, the Surrogate's Court is familiar to those few voters who deal with estates and adoptions. But politicians know it as a last bastion of patronage, funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to lawyers who serve as guardians and conservators in thousands of estate cases.

The move to create a new surrogate position came a week before the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, upheld the removal of Judge Michael H. Feinberg, the surrogate judge in Brooklyn, for awarding $8.6 million in legal fees to a longtime friend to handle the legal matters of people who died with no wills.

Still, several Brooklyn legislators defended the creation of a second surrogate position, saying the city's most populous borough should have two such judgeships, particularly since there were two in Manhattan.

The bill to create the new judgeship has been widely viewed in Albany as a move to create a position for Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, a Democrat who has represented Greenpoint and Williamsburg, Brooklyn, since 1972. In an interview Friday, Mr. Lentol said he planned to be a candidate for the position and said that the creation of a second surrogate position in Brooklyn was a reasonable action by the Legislature.

"I think that is something that is needed because the caseload in Brooklyn requires the attention of two judges," Mr. Lentol said. "I think this will be a good thing for the people of Brooklyn."

Mr. Lentol said that he had no discussions with either leaders of the Brooklyn Democratic organization or the Assembly about creating the position. "This was something that was done by the leadership of the two houses of the Legislature and the governor. I was not involved."

Several legislators pointed out that the bill that was passed by the Legislature had created several positions beyond the surrogate judgeship in Brooklyn. And they added that there was no reason to object to the one position in Brooklyn when there were so many others throughout the state.

The bill, which Gov. George E. Pataki intends to sign, will create four positions on the State Supreme Court, 14 on the Court of Claims, an additional county court clerk in Rensselaer County and a Family Court judgeship in Orange County, in addition to the position in Brooklyn.

Nonetheless, there was still criticism of the Brooklyn surrogate position and its selection process.

"We believe that any system that deprives the voters of the choice is problematic, legally and democratically," said Jeremy Creelan, associate counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

Mr. Creelan, who was one of the authors of a report issued by the Brennan Center that criticized how the Legislature functions in Albany, said: "The voters should decide. And we're skeptical of any other mechanism that the Legislature would put into place."

Friday, July 01, 2005

Big Mess in B'klyn Court for Estates

Daily News July 1, 2005
BIG MESS IN B'KLYN COURT FOR ESTATES
By Nancie L. Katz
A DAY AFTER a powerful Brooklyn judge was booted for lining a pal's pockets with the money of the dead, a city report said the system the judge presided over was rife with sloppy bookkeeping.

City Controller Bill Thompson called the files on estates of people who died in Brooklyn without a will "disorganized collections of documentation."

He said the office of the Brooklyn Surrogate's Public Administrator Marietta Small also was "unable to demonstrate that the fees it charged estates for administrative expenses . . . were appropriate," according to an audit released yesterday.

A probe of 25 files during 2004 found such disarray that Small closed the books on one dead Brooklyn resident's estate without distributing 48 U.S. savings bonds. The bonds later showed up in an employee's desk drawer, the report said.

On Wednesday, the state Court of Appeals bounced Surrogate Judge Michael Feinberg, finding he approved nearly $9 million in fees to his pal - Louis Rosenthal, counsel for the public administrator - without ever asking for affidavits saying what he did to earn the money.

Feinberg said he didn't know he needed to get affidavits - an excuse scoffed at by the court.

The audit also faulted Small for allowing Rosenthal to charge substantial fees without ever filing the required affidavits.

Joan of Arc

Daily News July 1, 2005
by Earl Louis

Alums make & break law

Having graduated from Brooklyn Law School a month ago, I couldn't help noticing that Michael Feinberg, the former Kings County Surrogate judge who got kicked off the bench this week by unanimous vote of New York's highest state court, is a fellow alumnus.
All Brooklyn Law students have to take an ethics class called "professional responsibility," before graduating. Like any good law school - and Brooklyn is among the best - it teaches students the law and makes clear that the choice is ours: to uphold it or break it.

Feinberg chose the dark side, funneling $2 million in excess court fees - money drained from the estates of people who died without leaving a will - to an attorney, Louis Rosenthal, described by the Court of Appeals as Feinberg's "longtime friend and law school classmate."

Feinberg and Rosenthal remind me of another pair of Brooklyn Law alums who played starring roles in a city corruption scandal.

Stanley Friedman was a Democratic boss in the Bronx who ended up spending four years in prison for conspiracy and racketeering after paying bribes to steer a $21 million city contract to a firm y he headed. Another alum, former Queens Borough President Donald Manes, committed suicide after his role in the scheme came to light.

Joining those scoundrels on the alumni rolls is a much longer list of distinguished civic leaders. Former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton graduated in the 1950s, as did former Rep. Herman Badillo, ex-Mayor David Dinkins, former Police Commissioner Benjamin Ward and current GOP mayoral candidate Tom Ognibene. Not to mention a slew of respected state and federal judges.

The school doesn't talk much about the alums who became crooks, which is a mistake. Chronicling their failed careers provides a sobering, cautionary tale for new lawyers.

Faith-based politics

Feinberg's expulsion has touched off a scramble to elect a replacement Surrogate's Court judge this fall. As is often true in Brooklyn, the path to power runs through First Baptist Church of Crown Heights, a 5,000-member congregation whose pastor is Clarence Norman Sr., the father of Assemblyman Clarence Norman Jr., the Brooklyn Democratic chairman.

The church's support - and Norman's - will likely go to Supreme Court Justice Diana Johnson, a longtime church member running for surrogate. Another Supreme Court judge in the race is Lawrence Knipel, the husband of District Leader Lori Knipel.

Meanwhile, most good-government types are lining up behind Margarita Lopez-Torres, who has run maverick races for Civil and Supreme Court against Norman's machine in recent years, and in the process turned into a kind of Joan of Arc of reform in the borough.

Originally published on July 1, 2005

Working too hard? Take a seat.

Albany Times Union - Friday, July 1, 2005
WORKING TOO HARD? TAKE A SEAT. (WE'LL EVEN CREATE ONE FOR YOU)

Friday, July 1, 2005

The hasty creation of a second Rensselaer County Court judgeship last week as the legislative session ended set jaws a-flapping across the river, where political conspiracy theories abound. The most popular hypothesis is that the post will serve as a rather transparent escape hatch for beleaguered county District Attorney Patricia DeAngelis.

DeAngelis, 36, is under fire for a series of criminal reversals that brought stinging slaps from the state Supreme Court Appellate Division. She also faces a lawsuit from an ex-colleague claiming breaches of ethical -- and possibly legal -- practices in the DA's office.

Chief among the gripes was DeAngelis' agreement to pay former employee Katrin Ellis, the niece of an ex-county chairman, $61,500 a year while she attended college across from the Troy courthouse.

A complaint listing this and other allegations will soon be filed by former Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sober, 35, according to Sober's lawyer, Cheryl Coleman.

Thanks, but who asked you?

The judgeship bill, introduced at the request of Gov. George Pataki, includes new state Supreme Court posts in New York City, family court benches in Orange County, and a new surrogate's court job in Kings County.

There are also 14 new seats on the Court of Claims, which handles cases brought against the state. These judgeships, with their nine-year terms and $136,700 paychecks, are highly sought after. They're patronage plums because Court of Claims judges are appointed and don't ever have to run for election.

Pataki spokesman Kevin Quinn said the 21 new judgeships were created based on need. He said the state Office of Court Administration was consulted. Au contraire, says Inside Politics.

"OCA and the courts always welcome additional resources, although this was not requested by OCA," OCA spokesman David Bookstaver said.

The new spot on the Rensselaer County bench doesn't exist until Aug. 1 -- past the primary petitions deadline -- so political parties will nominate candidates to run in November.

* * *

Thursday, June 30, 2005

Judge Ousted. Voters Excluded.

COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMS REMOVAL OF CROOKED BROOKLYN SURROGATE,
BUT SECOND SURROGATE IS CREATED WITH NO OPPORTUNITY FOR PRIMARY.
LENTOL IS FAVORED TO BE SELECTED.

New York Civic (www.nycivic.org)
By Henry J. Stern
June 30, 2005

Two major events have occurred in the last week relating to one of the city's most disturbing centers of official and unofficial misconduct -- the Brooklyn judiciary.

On Friday, June 24, in the waning hours of the session, the Governor and Legislature rushed through a bill creating a second surrogate for Brooklyn. They timed the effective date of the law to guarantee that the new judge will be chosen by the Brooklyn Democratic machine. Assemblyman Joseph Lentol is presumed to be the designee, which will create a vacant assembly seat. Nature abhors a vacuum.

On Monday, June 27 the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the decision of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to remove Judge Michael Feinberg from the position of Kings County Surrogate (the judge who oversees estates of the dead). The Court of Appeals decided the case twenty days after the oral argument, and may have acted promptly in order to allow an open primary to select a successor to Judge Feinberg.


HERE COMES THE JUDGE.

THE BOSSES WILL DECIDE HIS IDENTITY, SORRY YOU DON'T GET TO VOTE.

It is not yet widely known, but the New York State Legislature, as it rushed to adjourn, passed a bill drafted in concert with Governor Pataki, creating twenty-one additional judgeships in New York State, including a second Surrogate for Kings County. Of the 62 counties in the State of New York, only one (New York County) has two surrogates. All the others have one surrogate. Unless there has been a sudden increase in morbidity in Brooklyn, we see no justification for a new surrogate, except greed.

The new and superfluous position of second Surrogate, will pay $136,700 for the judge (likely to rise next year), with clerks, support staff, etc., It will cost taxpayers between $500,000 and a million dollars. Sweeter still, there will be an additional source of patronage for Brooklyn politicians and their favorites. This will provide more opportunities for jobholders to express their gratitude to those who have been helpful to them.

However, as if the waste of tax funds were not sufficiently egregious, the new law was precisely drafted to take effect August 1, 2005, which will preclude a primary election to fill the position..

Al Baker, in an article on the legislature in the June 25 Times, wrote: "Indeed, with little discussion or chance for debate, a last-minute bill was passed to create several new judgeships, including adding a second surrogate's court in Brooklyn. Critics said that the timing of the measure meant that the political parties and their leaders, including Assemblyman Clarence Norman Jr., the Brooklyn Democratic leader, would have great sway in picking the nominees."

August 1 may be a busy day for Mr. Norman, because the Post reports today, in a short piece by Zach Haberman on p21, DEM BOSS READY FOR DAY IN COURT, that jury selection is supposed to begin that day in his trial for failing to report campaign expenses paid for by a political-action committee. But even people who believe that Norman is dishonest believe that District Attorney Charles J. Hynes' case against him is weak, and he may gain strength from an acquittal, or the dismissal of the charges against him by a grateful judge, who may even be right on the merits.

The August 1 effective date prevents lawyers who would like to run for surrogate in the September 13 primary from circulating petitions. Under the 2005 political calendar, petitions are due July 7, and on that day there will be no vacancy other than the one caused by the removal of Judge Friedman. The machine will most likely have its own candidate for that position as well. The winner will serve a 14-year term, unless he turns 70 sooner.

The Albany Times Union's James M. Odato wrote last Saturday that "Pataki will be able to fill 14 new Court of Claims posts, likely rewarding loyalists in his administration and other GOP benefactors... Four new state Supreme Court posts for the greater New York City region, three new family court posts in Orange County, and a new surrogate's court job in Kings County. Brooklyn Democrat Joseph Lentol, a veteran assemblyman, already said he'll run."

Lentol was first elected in 1972 to represent Flatbush, East Flatbush, and Canarsie, in central Brooklyn, and has represented Williamsburg, in north Brooklyn, since 1983. His father, Edward, was an assemblyman and later a state senator. His grandfather, Joseph, a barber, was an assemblyman from 1919 to 1920. In those days, legislators had other occupations which were not related to politics or public relations.

Today's Joe Lentol, now in his 33rd year, is a friendly, well-liked legislator, regarded as a faithful ally of Speaker Silver, who made him chair of the Codes Committee because he knew he could count on him. Since he was born in 1943, he will only be able to serve through 2013, which will mean an eight-year term. He will no longer be required to travel to Albany to shiver in the cold or swelter in the heat.. Driving to the Capitol is time-consuming and burdensome for many legislators, although it is a source of income for a few.


HERE GOES THE JUDGE,

UNANIMOUS COURT OF APPEALS SAYS FEINBERG 'DEBASED HIS OFFICE'.

The second story was the unanimous affirmation by the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, of the removal of Kings County Surrogate Michael Feinberg for awarding a close personal friend since their Brooklyn Law School days, Louis Rosenthal, nearly $9 million in fees as counsel for the public administrator, at the rate of 8% of the estate, not the customary 6%.
These awards were made without the supporting affidavits which are required to be submitted by the attorney to show how much work he did on the matter.

The Court of Appeals cited a Daily News exposé in its opinion, which led the News to headline its story on the decision, NEWS HELPS GET DIRTY B'KLYN JUDGE AXED. The article, written by Nancie L. Katz, appeared at the bottom of page 14, which is not the most visible spot in the paper. But The News was the best of the five dailies in its coverage.

The Daily News had denounced Judge Feinberg in a June 8 editorial, with the colloquial but apt headline: BENCH THIS JUDGE PRONTO. Last year, the News ran a series on corrupt judges in Brooklyn. One went to jail, but kept his pension. Three others are embroiled with the law in one way or another outside of the fact that they hear cases.

Newsday covered the story on p18, in an article by Anthony M. DeStefano, HIGH COURT OUSTS B'KLYN JURIST OVER STATUTORY FEES. "One Brooklyn attorney ...said he believed the Court of Appeals acted quickly on the Feinberg matter -- just 20 days after oral arguments -- to make sure that primary election petitions can be filed in time. Otherwise, embattled Brooklyn Democratic party boss Clarence Norman would be able to pick the nominee..."

The Post gave the matter three long sentences at the bottom of p11, headlined B'KLYN JUDGE AXED IN $CHEME. Kenneth Lovett quoted the Court of Appeals: "The record reflects not mere lapses or errors in judgment but a wholesale failure of [Feinberg's] duty, reflecting an indifference if not cynicism toward his judicial office."

The Sun ran an Associated Press dispatch, COURT UPHOLDS BROOKLYN JUDGE'S REMOVAL FROM BENCH, under Albany in its New York Desk column on p4. "From January 1997 to May 2002, Mr. Rosenthal received more than $2 million in excessive fees despite never filing any affidavit of legal services that would have supported the fee requests, the Commission [on Judicial Conduct] said."

The Times ran the story as the fifth Metro Brief on pB6. The one-paragraph story, under Michael Cooper's byline, is headed: ALBANY: APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS JUDGE'S REMOVAL. Cooper quoted a powerful line in the court's opinion that Judge Feinberg had "debased his office and eroded public confidence" in the judiciary.

For the full story, read the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

One aspect of this case is that Judge Feinberg was not accused of taking money personally. He may or may not have received some financial reward from Rosenthal, the beneficiary of his largesse at the expense of the estates of people who had the misfortune to die in Brooklyn without leaving a will.

Judge Feinberg had been on the bench since 1982, and was elected Surrogate Judge in 1996. At the time, Rosenthal was regarded as a potential candidate for Surrogate. In the end, he actively supported Feinberg's nomination by the Democratic Party. Feinberg's chief backer was County Leader Clarence Norman, and Feinberg's victory in a sharply contested primary solidified Norman's hold on the Brooklyn Democracy (as the party organization was quaintly described years ago).

Before he was enrobed, Feinberg was a Democratic district leader in central Brooklyn. His predecessor as Surrogate, Bernard Bloom, had been district leader of the same club. Dynastic issues arise occasionally in the succession to political jobs and offices in Brooklyn.

The Democratic nomination is tantamount to election in Brooklyn, just as sixty years ago it was tantamount to election in Mississippi. That is no longer the case in Mississippi, where state offices are now largely held by Republicans. After Feinberg took office in Brooklyn, he appointed his buddy Rosenthal as Counsel to the Public Administrator, a position whose fees far exceed a judge's salary, although not necessarily his entire income.

The removal of a sitting judge is a milestone in the pursuit of judicial corruption. It is widely known that the Brooklyn judiciary, largely chosen with the concurrence of Clarence Norman, does not consist of pillars of rectitude.

Some are reported to have paid large sums to assure their nomination, ostensibly for the expenses of their campaign. They may well seek opportunities to recoup their investment in the robe. The situation clearly requires further investigation. It was the United States Attorney for the Eastern District whose office caught Councilman Angel Rodriguez as a bribe taker. He was convicted of a felony, removed from office and sent to federal prison. Our first articles, written on March 30 and April 5, 2002 were written about this case. See how the columns have evolved since then.

Rodriguez, BTW, was Clarence Norman's candidate for City Council Speaker against Gifford Miller, the Bronx-Queens leaders' candidate. Fortunately, Miller won, and the city was spared the spectacle of its Council Speaker being arrested and convicted of bribery.

The Augean stables of Brooklyn have not yet been cleaned. Will it require a Hercules to perform the labors necessary to secure equal justice and fair treatment for litigants, free and open primaries, judges chosen on merit and competence rather than clubhouse connections? Manhattan has benefited from the reform activities of the last thirty years. In Brooklyn, although reform judges have been elected, e.g., the late Ted Diamond and the late Bernard Fuchs, the battered and disreputable county organization is still a major, often controlling influence in the selection of judges.

The struggle for honest government has gone on for hundreds of years, and will continue longer than we will be here. There have been victories and defeats, and there will be many more.
This is not a conflict between the left and the right, or capitalism against socialism. It is the effort to secure integrity and transparency in public affairs, and to promote the public welfare as opposed to the personal benefit of office holders, their relatives and their bosom buddies.

Entrenched power, however, is strong and highly organized, that is how it became entrenched. There is a disciplined cadre of those who live off the system and await preferment from those whose orders they follow, cheerfully or grudgingly. Reform movements wax and wane, because when reformers get power and jobs, they often morph into regulars, although they retain a greater degree of righteousness and indignation at the sins of others. When the sinners overreach, the public will replace them. No matter what schemes are employed to perpetuate political power (gerrymandering, the complex election law, arbitrary disqualification), we maintain a possibly primitive faith in the voters' desire to do the right thing, if they only knew.

Feinberg Loses Fight to Remain on Bench

New York Law Journal - June 30, 2005
FEINBERG LOSES FIGHT TO REMAIN ON BENCH
by John Caher

ALBANY - In a harshly worded opinion, the Court of Appeals yesterday ended Brooklyn Surrogate Michael H. Feinberg's judicial career. It held that his awarding of millions of dollars in attorney's fees to a friend without demanding the affidavits required by law constituted removable misconduct.

The Court said in a unanimous per curiam opinion that in rubber-stamping - with no oversight - some $8.5 million in estate commissions, to attorney Louis R. Rosenthal, Surrogate Feinberg "demonstrate[d] a shocking disregard for the very law that imbued him with judicial authority." It rejected with apparent disdain Surrogate Feinberg's defense that he had neglected to read the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act (SCPA) and was simply ignorant of his judicial responsibilities.

"Petitioner disregarded the clear statutory mandates of his office repeatedly over the course of more than five years and 475 proceedings, educating himself on the SCPA requirements only in response to a newspaper's investigatory series," the Court said. "Petitioner's consistent disregard for fundamental statutory requirements of office demonstrates an unacceptable incompetence in the law."

Yesterday's ruling was a major victory for the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which has increasingly invoked its power to punish judges for legal error and professional incompetence. There was never an allegation that Surrogate Feinberg in any way personally benefited from his conduct, only that he had chronically ignored legal requirements in approving millions of dollars in commission for a close personal and political friend.

A key question was whether the commission overstepped its bounds in pursuing a judge for legal errors. Yesterday, the Court said it did not with a key finding that legal error and misconduct are "not necessarily mutually exclusive." The decision seemingly gives the commission license to continue its pursuit of judges whose incompetence or legal neglect crosses the line into judicial misconduct.

Matter of Feinberg v. New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct
, 125, is rooted in a newspaper expose.

The commission launched its inquiry, after the New York Daily News reported on Surrogate Feinberg's awarding of millions of dollars in commissions to Mr. Rosenthal, a law school friend and political contributor whom the judge had appointed counsel to the public administrator.

The commission found that Surrogate Feinberg appointed a marginally qualified friend to a lucrative post, signing off on about $8.5 million in commissions without ever requesting the mandatory affidavit of legal services and virtually always awarding 8 percent of the estate. That is 2 percent more than the norm in New York City's other four boroughs, and 2 percent more than the amount agreed to by the state attorney general and the predecessors of Surrogate Feinberg and Mr. Rosenthal. That extra 2 percent garnered Mr. Rosenthal about $2 million in excessive fees, according to the commission's calculations.

Typically, Mr. Rosenthal requested the extra 2 percent with nothing more than a Post-It note stuck to the final decree, court records show. In every case, the commission alleged, Surrogate Feinberg awarded the excess fee, insinuating that he directed a windfall profit to a chum while ignoring his judicial oversight responsibilities.

Surrogate's Law Skirted

Surrogate Feinberg admitted he had failed to require affidavits as mandated under the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act and, once his neglect was discovered, apologized profusely.

The surrogate claimed he was oblivious of the provision and noted that he ordered affidavits - prospectively and retroactively - as soon as the Daily News probe made him aware of the law. Additionally, Surrogate Feinberg pointed out that his manner of awarding fees was consistent with longtime Brooklyn practice.

Court records show that the firm that preceded Mr. Rosenthal as counsel to the public administrator, Hesterberg & Keller of Brooklyn, also requested the excess fee via Post-It notes and also had that request routinely honored by then-Surrogate Bernard M. Bloom. However, Surrogate Bloom required affidavits of legal service, abiding by the Surrogate's Act and making the transactions with Hesterberg & Keller more transparent.

At the Court of Appeals, the case distilled to whether Surrogate Feinberg committed misconduct and, if so, the gravity of the offense. The Court found grave misconduct, rejecting every defense advanced by the surrogate.

It criticized Surrogate Feinberg for neglecting to read the law, for funneling lucrative commissions to a friend and for neglecting to give individualized attention to the intestate matters over which, as the elected Kings County surrogate, he had assumed responsibility by looking out for the interests of potential heirs and, where there were no heirs, the state.

Strong 'Taint of Favoritism'

The Court also rejected Surrogate Feinberg's argument that the Commission on Judicial Conduct had grossly inflated the total of the alleged overpayments, observing in a footnote that the commission's calculation of an 8 percent award in most cases was on target. By that calculation, Mr. Rosenthal was overpaid by roughly $2 million.

"Petitioner's failure was made all the more egregious by his appointment, without considering other candidates, of a close personal friend and political supporter," the Court said. "While appointment of a friend does not itself convey an appearance of impropriety, when, as here, that appointment is coupled with the unsubstantiated award of several million dollars in fees from estates that, by definition, lack adversarial parties to challenge the practice, the taint of favoritism is strong."

This case, the Court said, "reflects not mere lapses or errors in judgment but a wholesale failure of petitioner's duty, reflecting an indifference if not cynicism toward his judicial office."

It added that Surrogate Feinberg's "failure to abide by the legal requirements of his office, in a manner that conveyed the appearance of impropriety and favoritism, debased his office and eroded public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary."

Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office has offered to settle any dispute with Mr. Rosenthal for $729,800, an amount the office has described as a "subset" of the overpayment.

The state Surrogate's Association supported Surrogate Feinberg as amicus curiae. It insisted the commission has no business second-guessing the discretionary actions of a judge. But in yesterday's opinion, the Court said a judge does not have discretion to ignore the law.

Commission Administrator and Counsel Robert H. Tembeckjian prosecuted the case. Henry M. Greenberg of Greenberg Traurig in Albany argued for Surrogate Feinberg.

Mr. Tembeckjian said that while "it is never pleasant or easy to remove a judge," it is occasionally necessary.

"I am gratified the Court forcefully affirmed a fundamental principle in this case - that public confidence in the integrity and competence of the judiciary is essential to the rule of law," Mr. Tembeckjian said. "One who routinely violates that principle is unworthy of being a judge."

Mr. Greenberg declined comment.

Choosing a Successor

By deciding the case yesterday, the Court ensured that Surrogate Feinberg's successor will be chosen through a Sept. 13 primary. A ruling after July 7 would have permitted Brooklyn Democratic leaders to choose the successor.

Three candidates had their hats in the ring yesterday for the Democratic nomination to fill the vacancy: Brooklyn Supreme Court Justices Diana A. Johnson and Lawrence S. Knipel, and Civil Court Judge Margarita Lopez Torres.

Aides to all three judges confirmed that they will begin the process of gathering the 4,000 petition signatures needed to qualify for the primary. The trio face a truncated petitioning period because primary candidates for other offices were legally permitted to begin circulating petitions on June 7.

Meanwhile, Brooklyn voters for the first time this November will choose two surrogates. Last week, the state Legislature created a second surrogate's position in the borough as a part of a package of 21 new judgeships enacted in the closing hours of its session (NYLJ, June 28).

The new law, if signed as expected by Governor George E. Pataki, will become effective Aug. 1, which is too late in the political calendar for a primary. Instead, the leadership of the Brooklyn Democratic Party will select the candidate.

The party is expected to select Brooklyn Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, who heads the Assembly's Codes Committee, according to sources.

B'klyn Judge Axed in $cheme

New York Post - June 30, 2005
by Kenneth Lovett
The state's top court yesterday kicked Brooklyn Surrogate Judge Michael Feinberg off the bench for rewarding a political crony with millions of dollars in court fees.

"The record reflects not mere lapses or errors in judgment but a wholesale failure of [Feinberg's] duty, reflecting an indifference if not cynicism toward his judicial office," the Court of Appeals ruled in a unanimous 14-page decision.

Feinberg's actions not only "conveyed the appearance of impropriety and favoritism," but also "debased his office and eroded public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary," the Court of Appeals ruled.

Appeals Court Upholds Judge's Removal

ALBANY: APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS JUDGE'S REMOVAL
New York Times
June 30, 2005
by Michael Cooper
The state's highest court upheld yesterday the removal of Judge Michael H. Feinberg, the Brooklyn surrogate judge, for awarding $8.6 million in legal fees to a longtime friend to handle the legal matters of people who died with no wills. The court said the judge had "debased his office and eroded public confidence" in the judiciary. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct recommended the judge's removal in February, and yesterday the appeals court unanimously upheld it, noting that he had demonstrated "a shocking disregard for the very law that imbued him with judicial authority." An intense campaign for succession is likely.

Brooklyn judge removed from office

Newsday - June 30, 2005
BROOKLYN JUDGE REMOVED FROM OFFICE
By Anthony M. Destefano

The state's highest court officially booted Brooklyn Surrogate Michael Feinberg from his job Wednesday, finding that he debased his office by awarding undocumented fees in connection with certain estates.

In kicking Feinberg out of his job immediately, the Court of Appeals confirmed a February recommendation by the Commission on Judicial Conduct that he be removed from office. The jurist was already under suspension without pay.

At that time, the judicial watchdog agency found that Feinberg's action in giving the fees to public administrator Louis Rosenthal, a friend, without proper documentation tarnished the image of the judiciary. The public administrator handles estates of people who die without wills.

If a judge challenges the commission's recommendation for removal, as Feinberg did in his case, it is up to the Court of Appeals to decide whether that extreme penalty is proper. The state's highest court has backed the commission recommendation for removal more than 87 percent of the time since 1978.

By removing Feinberg, the appeals court set the stage for a September primary fight over his successor. Feinberg had been Brooklyn surrogate since his election in 1996.

One Brooklyn attorney who asked not to be identified but who is familiar with Democratic party judicial nominating proceedings said he believed the Court of Appeals ruled quickly on the Feinberg matter -- just 20 days after oral arguments -- to make sure that primary election petitions can be filed in time. Otherwise, embattled Brooklyn Democratic party boss Clarence Norman would be able to pick the nominee, the attorney said.

In its decision Wednesday, the Court of Appeals repeated how Feinberg did not for about five years require Rosenthal to file affidavits describing the work he did on the various estates. Feinberg sometimes gave Rosenthal the maximum 8 percent statutory fee. Rosenthal, who was appointed without Feinberg considering other candidates, got more than $8.5 million in fees.

Neither Rosenthal nor Henry M. Greenberg, an Albany attorney who represented Feinberg before the Court of Appeals, could be reached for comment Wednesday.

"It is never pleasant or easy to remove a judge from office, but sometimes it is necessary," said Robert Tembeckjian, administrator of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, in a statement.

News helps get dirty B'klyn judge axed

New York Daily News - June 30, 2005
News helps get dirty B'klyn judge axed
By Nancie L. Katz

Citing a Daily News exposé, the state's highest court yesterday booted Brooklyn's most powerful judge for lining a pal's pockets.

The Court of Appeals, in a 15-page unanimous decision, slammed Surrogate Michael Feinberg for routinely awarding a former law school buddy and personal friend nearly $9 million in fees as counsel for the public administrator.

The lawyer, Louis Rosenthal, never filed the required affidavits showing what he did to earn the money.

In February, the state Commission on Judicial Conduct demanded Feinberg be removed for granting Rosenthal nearly $2 million in excessive fees between 1997 and 2002. Feinberg was suspended at that time.

The commission probe was sparked by a 2002 Daily News exposé that found Feinberg routinely gave Rosenthal 8% or more of the estates of people who died without a will, ignoring 1988 and 1994 accords that capped fees at 6% or less.

The Court of Appeals noted Feinberg appointed Rosenthal to the "lucrative" counsel position in 1996 without "any search or interview process."

"In the spring of 2002, [Feinberg] learned that the New York Daily News was about to run an exposé of the Kings County Surrogate, revealing his practice of approving [Rosenthal's] fee requests without affidavits or individualized review of the cases," the judges wrote. Only then, they said, did Feinberg start collecting the affidavits.

The court scoffed at Feinberg's assertions that he did no wrong because he had acted in ignorance after only skimming through the Surrogate Courts Procedure Act.

Neither Feinberg, his lawyers nor Rosenthal responded to calls yesterday.

Candidates were already lining up yesterday to replace Feinberg. Rebel Democratic Judge Margarita Lopez Torres announced her candidacy. Other potential contenders for the November ballot include Brooklyn Supreme Court Justices Lawrence Knipel and Diana Johnson, sources said.

Friday, June 10, 2005

Counsel in Feinberg Case Spar Hard Before Judges

New York Law Journal - June 10, 2005
Counsel in Feinberg Case Spar Hard Before Judges
by John Caher

ALBANY -- Attorneys for the Commission on Judicial Conduct and Brooklyn Surrogate Michael H. Feinberg battled ferociously at the Court of Appeals yesterday, engaging in an invigorating debate over whether a judge who awarded millions of dollars in fees to a close friend and political ally is fit to wear robes.

Commission Administrator and Counsel Robert H. Tembeckjian pushed hard for removal, claiming that Surrogate Feinberg ignored the law and ethical constraints to such an extent that nothing short of expulsion will do.

But Surrogate Feinberg's counsel, Henry M. Greenberg of Greenberg Traurig, accused the commission of misrepresenting the facts, misleading the Court and "shameless[ly]" exploiting the media to tar a judge that he said has a distinguished 24-year career on the bench.

Mr. Greenberg said the surrogate should not be punished for making honest legal errors, and if the Court insists on a sanction, it should be no more punitive than a censure.

The dispute over Surrogate Feinberg's fate drew a capacity crowd at Court of Appeals Hall, where the judges heard a solid hour of arguments that will ultimately determine whether the jurist remains in office or is barred from the judiciary. Among others, representatives of the state Surrogate's Association were present in support of Surrogate Feinberg. The Surrogate's Association appeared amicus curiae, arguing that the commission has no business second-guessing the discretionary actions of a judge.

Matter of Feinberg v. New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, 125, began when the New York Daily News reported that the judge had awarded millions of dollars in fees to a political and personal friend he had named counsel to the public administrator, Louis R. Rosenthal.

A subsequent investigation by the Commission on Judicial Conduct showed that Surrogate Feinberg had approved about $9 million in commissions for Mr. Rosenthal over a 5-1/2-year period, never requiring the attorney to file the mandatory affidavit of legal services. Routinely, records show, Surrogate Feinberg awarded Mr. Rosenthal a commission of 8 percent rather than the 6 percent customarily awarded in the other boroughs.

Evidence in the record suggests that Brooklyn judges traditionally permitted court-appointed estate attorneys to take a larger percentage because the estates there tended to be smaller than those in, say, Manhattan, yet the work and effort required was similar. The awarding of a higher commission was apparently designed to equalize compensation so that similar amounts of legal work would result in similar earnings, records suggest.

Charges of Excess

But Surrogate Feinberg went well beyond the bounds of propriety, the commission contends, by persistently ignoring the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act, which requires the filing of an affidavit to justify the appointment of and fees awarded to the counsel to the public administrator; ignoring a 6 percent cap negotiated by the attorney general and Surrogate Feinberg's predecessor; and by allowing Mr. Rosenthal to pocket at least hundreds of thousands of dollars and perhaps more than $2 million in excessive fees that the court should have protected for the heirs or the state. There is no allegation that Surrogate Feinberg personally profited.

"In awarding fees to his long-time friend whom he had appointed to the lucrative position of Counsel to the Public Administrator, [Surrogate Feinberg] had a responsibility to make sure that the fees were appropriate and untainted by an appearance of favoritism," the Commission said in calling for the judge's removal.

The position of counsel to the public administrator has long been a plum assignment in Brooklyn, court records show.

For decades, Hesterberg & Keller of Brooklyn had a lock on the position, and records indicate the firm was well compensated for its work representing the estates of people who died without wills.

Even after the compromises secured by the attorney general and general agreement to limit commissions to 6 percent, Hesterberg & Keller routinely put in for and usually received an additional 2 percent, records show. According to the briefs, the firm would bill 6 percent for its work done before the accounting, and then request via a Post-It note an additional 2 percent on the final decree. Hesterberg & Keller routinely, but not always, received the extra 2 percent.

Similar Arrangement

Mr. Rosenthal had a similar arrangement, with two main differences, according to the commission.

First, while Hesterberg & Keller was required to file the affidavit of legal service so the attorney general could monitor whether the work was necessary and appropriately billed, Mr. Rosenthal was never asked to account for his work or his billings.

Additionally, the commission says, Mr. Rosenthal virtually always received the extra 2 percent, suggesting that the bonus was automatic and had nothing to do with whether the estate required extra amounts of time or effort.

The total of the alleged overbillings is also at issue.

Initially, the commission contended that Mr. Rosenthal had received over $2 million more than he was entitled to, an amount that figured prominently in a split decision calling for Surrogate Feinberg's removal. Since then, the attorney general has written to Mr. Rosenthal indicating that its calculation of the overpayments and the amount it seeks in restitution is about $730,000.

Further, Surrogate Feinberg denies that 8 percent commissions were approved in every case and notes that in the early years Mr. Rosenthal was splitting fees with Hesterberg & Keller. The commission, while standing by its initial calculation, now says that it makes no difference if the amount is $2 million or a fraction of that since the issue is whether Surrogate Feinberg rewarded Mr. Rosenthal at the expense of the estates he is legally bound to guard.

Yesterday, Mr. Tembeckjian and Mr. Greenberg made a final and at times fervent attempt to persuade the Court. Both were peppered with questions from the bench that seemed to center on the point at which legal error becomes a matter for the Commission on Judicial Conduct rather than an appellate court.

In a number of cases in recent years--most notably Matter of Bauerlast year--the commission has taken the position that repeated legal errors can constitute misconduct. The Court has generally, albeit with some hesitation, agreed.

'I'm Sorry'

Mr. Greenberg began his presentation humbly and the first words uttered on behalf of his client were: "I'm sorry." He stressed that the surrogate erred egregiously in failing to demand affidavits of legal service, and profoundly regrets overlooking the provision in the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act requiring such documentation.

In Bauer, a judge accused of using excessive bail to coerce guilty pleas was removed in a 4-3 decision that suggested contrition would have gone a long way toward salvaging his judicial career. Mr. Greenberg was not about to make the same mistake.

"I would like to begin, as Surrogate Feinberg asked me to, with two words from him: 'I'm sorry,'" Mr. Greenberg said. "Surrogate Feinberg apologizes to this Court, to the commission and most of all to the residents of Kings County, who elected him to be their surrogate. He is sorry for having failed for several years--too long--to obtain affidavits of legal services before awarding attorneys fees to the counsel to the Kings County public administrator."

But from there on, Mr. Greenberg was on the offensive.

The Albany attorney stressed that when Surrogate Feinberg was made aware of the requirement, he not only ordered affidavits prospectively, but retroactively--requiring Mr. Rosenthal to present affidavits for every case he had handled in the past. He accused the commission of intruding in an area of judicial discretion, and of inflating the alleged overpayments to inflame public sentiment.

Mr. Greenberg told the Court that no party in any of the 475 cases at issue challenged the award of fees, and that those fees were reviewed without comment by both the New York City comptroller and the attorney general. He said that in 52 of the cases cited by the commission, the award was 6 percent or less, and in 28 cases there was no fee award.

Ignorance of Law

Mr. Greenberg stressed that Surrogate Feinberg's repeated violation of §1108(2)(c) resulted from ignorance and not willful misconduct.

"He was not aware of §1108(2)(c) of the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act?" Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye incredulously asked Mr. Greenberg, her onetime clerk.

"Chief Judge Kaye, I am sorry to say he wasn't aware of it," Mr. Greenberg said.

Mr. Tembeckjian said it is "absurd" to believe that Surrogate Feinberg was simply unaware of a "fundamental provision of the very law that he is supposed to enforce."

He said, however, that Surrogate Feinberg would deserve removal even if he was ignorant of the law because the impact of his supposed ignorance was to undermine public trust and confidence in the judiciary.

"It is absurd to suggest that any judge would hand out millions of dollars in fees...without requiring affidavits of legal services," Mr. Tembeckjian said. "It is not conceivable that the public could have confidence in a judge who awarded millions of dollars on the basis of a rubber stamp."

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Bench this judge pronto

BENCH THIS JUDGE PRONTO

NY Daily News -- Editorial
June 8, 2005

The state Court of Appeals tomorrow considers the removal from office of
Brooklyn Surrogate Judge Michael Feinberg, a Democratic Party loyalist
who allowed a lawyer pal to bilk $2 million from the estates of people
who died without wills. Feinberg must go, but the court must pay close
attention to when it lowers the ax.

Feinberg's betrayal of trust has been well documented by the Commission
on Judicial Conduct, which is seeking to have him fired. The Court of
Appeals has two choices: summarily fire Feinberg - this week - or grind
the wheels of justice for a couple of months.

The court must put the case on a super fast or a super slow track
because of the election calendar. If it were to decide the matter
routinely, say, in a few weeks, Democratic boss and alleged felon
Clarence Norman would choose the next surrogate. That must not happen.

The timetable is rigged in Norman's favor. Lawyers who want to run for
surrogate have until July 7 to collect the 12,000 signatures needed to
get on the primary ballot. Every day Feinberg remains on the bench
shortens the time to get signatures; candidates without Norman's backing
have virtually no chance of pulling off the feat.

Even worse, if the court dumps Feinberg between July 7 and Aug. 8,
Norman and his cronies get to pick the candidate who will appear on the
Democratic line, guaranteeing election. In the event of a decision after
Aug. 8, Gov. Pataki would get to appoint an interim surrogate who would
sit until an election in 2006.

The best course for the court would be to toss Feinberg now, giving
insurgents a fighting chance. Second best would be to wait until August,
so Pataki got the pick. Worst of all would be to keep Norman's hold on a
key judicial post that's abused as a patronage plum

Thursday, May 26, 2005

Brooklyn Court's Routines Play Role in Feinberg Case

Brooklyn Court's Routines Play Role in Feinberg Case

New York Law Journal May 26-2005
John Caher


ALBANY — The battle over Michael H. Feinberg's judicial career hinges on whether the Brooklyn surrogate did anything wrong in awarding millions of dollars in fees to a close friend and, if so, the magnitude of the alleged offense.

Briefs filed at the Court of Appeals reveal significant factual discrepancies over what Surrogate Feinberg did and to what extent, if any, he overpaid Louis R. Rosenthal, the former counsel to the public administrator. They also reveal a bird's-eye view of questionable Surrogate's Court practices in Brooklyn that have apparently gone on for decades.

To a large extent, the briefs deal with a fundamental issue of judicial discretion, and whether the Commission on Judicial Conduct should be second-guessing a judge's discretionary actions. But they also delve into simple arithmetic, and whether Surrogate Feinberg awarded anywhere near the "millions" in excess fees alleged by the commission.

The commission claims Surrogate Feinberg ignored both the law and the bounds of propriety in enriching Mr. Rosenthal, and that the surrogate's behavior was so egregious that no discipline short of removal would send the right message to the judiciary and the public.

But Surrogate Feinberg insists he did nothing other than follow longstanding Brooklyn practice in awarding the fees. And while he admits overlooking a "ministerial" chore in granting fee requests without mandatory affidavits, he claims the payments to Mr. Rosenthal were justifiable and only a fraction of the amount alleged by the commission.

On June 9, the Court of Appeals will attempt to sort it all out when it hears Surrogate Feinberg's appeal of a commission determination that he should be ousted from the judiciary. The matter promises to be hotly contested on both a legal and factual basis, as the Court is called upon for a relatively rare exercise of its fact-finding power in a judicial misconduct case.

The case centers largely on how lawyers who administer the estates of those who die without valid wills are paid in Brooklyn.

Records show that in the borough, the counsel to the public administrator — the office charged with managing intestate affairs — has historically received as compensation a share of the estate.

In the early 1970s, Surrogate Nathan Sobel began awarding then-counsel Hesterberg & Keller of Brooklyn a 7 percent share of the smaller estates and an 8 percent cut of those over $60,000. Surrogate Sobel's successor, Bernard M. Bloom, continued that practice, as did Surrogate Feinberg.

Traditionally, attorneys were allowed to draw off the larger estates to make up for their meager earnings on the smaller estates — a practice Surrogate Feinberg justified in his brief as the "Robin Hood effect."

Hesterberg & Keller, which held the counsel position for about 40 years, was twice asked by the attorney general to reduce its fees to 6 percent. Under compromise agreements in 1988 and 1994, the firm agreed to restructure its fee requests. Typically, the firm would initially request 6 percent of the gross estate up to the time of the accounting, and then ask for another 2 percent through a Post-It note for work done between the accounting and the final decree. It routinely — but not always — got 8 percent, according to court records.

When Surrogate Feinberg was elected in 1996, Hesterberg & Keller's procedures had been harshly criticized in a report by the New York City comptroller, according to court records. Surrogate Feinberg dismissed Hesterberg & Keller and gave the business to Mr. Rosenthal, a longtime friend from Brooklyn Law School.

Surrogate Feinberg and Mr. Rosenthal celebrated holidays and family milestones together, served together on the bench when both were Civil Court judges and were political allies, records show.

Between 1997 and 2002, Mr. Rosenthal handled hundreds of estates for Surrogate Feinberg. Like Hesterberg & Keller, Mr. Rosenthal normally requested 6 percent at the outset and then put in for the additional 2 percent on a Post-It note on the final decree. And, like Hesterberg & Keller, Mr. Rosenthal's requests were routinely approved.

A potentially critical difference, however, is that Hesterberg & Keller was required by the court to submit the mandatory affidavits. Mr. Rosenthal, who collected roughly $8.6 million in fees, was not.

List of Allegations

The case against Surrogate Feinberg rests on several allegations. The commission contends that he:

• Fired the well-qualified firm of Hesterberg & Keller in order to give the work to Mr. Rosenthal, who, according to the commission, got a position for which he was unqualified because he and Surrogate Feinberg had been friends since the early 1960s. That, according to the commission, conveyed the impression that the surrogate was favoring a friend.

• Persistently violated the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act, which requires filing an affidavit of legal services justifying the appointment of counsel and fees to be paid. Mr. Rosenthal was never required to filed such an affidavit in the 5-1/2 years at issue and Surrogate Feinberg made no effort to determine if the work and billings were justified, according to the commission.

• Ignored the 6 percent cap negotiated by the attorney general and Surrogate Bloom as well as a 5 percent cap on estates over $300,000.

• Ultimately permitted Mr. Rosenthal to divert more than $2 million in excessive fees — funds the court should have protected for the heirs or, where there were no heirs, the state.

Distilled to their essence, there are basically two broad questions before the Court of Appeals. One deals with Surrogate Feinberg's practice in awarding fees; the other deals with the strongly disputed computation of the alleged overpayments to Mr. Rosenthal.

On the first issue, the commission portrays Surrogate Feinberg as a judge who "unceremoniously and summarily" dropped Hesterberg & Keller to give a "plum appointment" to a friend and political ally, "with no search, no interview and no semblance of merit selection."

Commission Administrator and Counsel Robert H. Tembeckjian, in a brief filed last week, dismisses as "preposterous" Surrogate Feinberg's argument that his award of an 8 percent flat fee was a legitimate exercise of judicial discretion. He suggests there was no exercise of discretion, just a rubber-stamp approval of whatever Mr. Rosenthal requested.

"In petitioner's court, a simple calculator, not an independent judge, was all that was necessary to dispense millions of dollars," Mr. Tembeckjian argues.

Mr. Tembeckjian also suggests that Surrogate Feinberg's awarding of those fees without the required affidavit effectively concealed his generosity and made it difficult for the attorney general, which is served with all estate fee requests, to fulfill its watchdog role.

"Petitioner's argument that the affidavit requirement is 'ministerial' completely misses the point," Mr. Tembeckjian said. "Without affidavits, there would be no reliable way to determine what legal work Counsel had done and whether a fee was earned or deserved. . . . That the Attorney General did not put a stop to it may be explained by the limited nature of the Attorney General's role in these estates, and the manner in which the records were sent to the Attorney General by Rosenthal."

Amount of Fees

The commission's allegation that Mr. Rosenthal collected about $2 million more than he was due is based on the charge that Mr. Rosenthal received an 8 percent commission on all 475 cases at issue. Repeatedly, the commission — which split 6-3 in deciding Surrogate Feinberg should be removed rather than censured — referred to the "millions" it contends were wrongly paid to Mr. Rosenthal as justification for the surrogate's removal.

Since then, however, the attorney general has sent a letter to Mr. Rosenthal stating that "we are not adopting the $2 million figure that appeared in the [Commission on Judicial Conduct] Opinion" and instead are willing to settle for restitution of $729,800.

After the Law Journal reported on that letter (NYLJ, May 18), the attorney general's press aide wrote a letter to the newspaper (NYLJ, May 20) explaining that the figure cited in the letter was based on some "subset" and was not necessarily reflective of the entire alleged overpayment.

Mr. Tembeckjian stands by his calculation, but says in his brief that the exact amount of the alleged overpayment is not the heart of the issue — despite the commission's emphasis on the $2 million figure in its call for removal.

"Any judge who would dispense millions of dollars in funds entrusted to the court, without regard to explicit statutory criteria and on the basis of Post-It notes in lieu of affidavits, is guilty of egregious misconduct and should be removed from office, without regard to whether the total overpayment to a particular person was $2 million or $1 million or half a million," Mr. Tembeckjian wrote.

Surrogate Feinberg's attorney, Henry M. Greenberg of Greenberg Traurig, counters that the amount is vitally important, especially since the commission seemingly relied on what he contends is a wildly inflated number in calling for the judge's removal.

Mr. Greenberg suggests that Mr. Tembeckjian is guilty of the same offense he accuses Surrogate Feinberg of: making a judgment on the propriety of fees without any determination of whether they were justified in any particular case.

"Not once was a question raised about the Counsel's fees by the New York State Attorney General, whose office knew precisely how much Surrogate Feinberg awarded in every case," Mr. Greenberg wrote in his brief. "Not once was a complaint uttered by the New York City comptroller, whose office twice issued audit reports on the operations of the Kings County [public administrator]."

According to Mr. Greenberg, the commission's assumption that Mr. Rosenthal collected an 8 percent commission in all 475 cases is factually and demonstrably wrong.

Mr. Greenberg notes that during the early years, Mr. Rosenthal split his fee with Hesterberg & Keller. Also, Mr. Greenberg contends, an 8 percent commission was not awarded in all cases. And, the attorney claims, after the Administrative Board of the Courts in October 2002 adopted a sliding fee scale for Surrogate's Court matters — before Surrogate Feinberg was targeted by the commission — Surrogate Feinberg applied that new scale not only prospectively, but retroactively. The attorney said Surrogate Feinberg recognizes he erred in failing to demand affidavits of legal service and regrets what amounts to oversight but not misconduct.

Additionally, Mr. Greenberg accused the commission of attempting to "destroy" the "distinguished career" of a judge because it thinks 8 percent is excessive, notwithstanding the fact that "no statute, court rule, regulation or appellate decision precluded an 8 percent fee." He added that since Surrogate Feinberg indisputably had the discretion to award higher fees in appropriate cases, it is not up to the commission to decide if those fees were appropriate.

Claims of Overreach

Surrogate Feinberg's case has attracted the attention of judges who complain that the commission has strayed too far into the realm of judicial discretion.

In recent years, some members of the commission, several judges and even some Court of Appeals judges have expressed concern over the panel's reach. Last year, for instance, when a 4-3 Court removed Troy City Judge Henry Bauer for setting excessive bails, a dissenter said a review of a judge's bail decisions was well "outside the commission's scope of authority."

A surrogates' group makes a similar argument with regard to the awarding of counsel fees in estate matters.

"The implications of the Commission sanctioning a judge on errors allegedly committed solely in discharging the responsibilities of his judicial office are . . . both far reaching and ominous," wrote retired Court of Appeals Judge Howard A. Levine, now of Whiteman Osterman & Hanna in Albany and counsel to the Surrogate's Association, which is supporting Surrogate Feinberg in an amicus brief.

"Calling a judge to answer for purely legal error to a non-judicial commission having the power to prosecute, determine and enforce even the ultimate sanction of removal inevitably will have a chilling effect on the independence of the entire judiciary as they make rulings in the cases before them," argued Mr. Levine and James B. Ayers, also of the Whiteman firm.

Feinberg v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct is first on the June 9 calendar, slated for argument at 2 p.m. in Albany. The Court of Appeals is likely to decide the case by early July.

Saturday, May 21, 2005

Surrrogate Court Judges Rush in to Protect a Brother

Footnotes (www.footnotesny.com)
SURRROGATE COURT JUDGES RUSH IN TO PROTECT A BROTHER
By Maurice Gumbs. May 21,2005

From time to time we have commented on the extreme loyalty that Brooklyn judges have to each other. The Brooklyn Judiciary Wall of Silence is more solid and impenetrable than that of the Police. We do not recall even the hint of any sitting judge who has broken that Wall and volunteered information about the wrongdoing of another judge.

In fact, apart from Judge Margarita Lopez Torres, not a single Brooklyn judge has had the courage to reject the sleazy, corrupt actions of Brooklyn’s County bosses. Former Judges Yellen and Sikowitz have now accused County Bosses Norman and Feldman of criminal extortion.. But we find no honor or courage in the protest of these ladies. They made their allegations only after their deal with the Bosses went sour.

The attitude of these Judges is bothersome. If there is any citizen who should shine the light on the dark corners of corruption we expect it would be the judge who stands in the place of God.

But even long after they have retired from the bench, so-called “righteous” oldtimers like Comptroller Billy Thompson’s father maintain a prosperous silence and decline to comment on sordid transactions which they should have been in a position to observe. So far, only Judge Jones, now preparing to be confronted by the celestial video-tapes, has suggested that judgeships were being bought and sold as a matter of custom. However, even Judge Jones has mentioned no names, and may be sitting on a best-selling auto-biography...JUDGE JONES AND THE DEVIL.

In keeping with the shabby fraternity rules, suspended Surrogate Court Judge Mike Feinberg now has powerful and wealthy friends coming to his rescue. The May 9 edition of the Brooklyn Law Journal announced that the State Association of Surrogate Court Judges had filed an “Amicus” brief in defense of their brother, Mike.

The image of judges brazenly banding together to support one of their number who has been found guilty of misconduct is a disturbing one. It is reflective of the depth to which New York State’s judiciary system has sunk(or stunk) during Chief Justice Kaye’s watch. And it may be a signal for her to increase scrutiny of the state's Surrogate Courts. Better yet..get out and let someone else try to clean up the shameful obscenity that has developed under her watch.

Surrogate Judges are the “blue bloods” and the princes of the New York State Judicial system. Their Courts control more money than any other Courts. So Feinberg’s brother judges will be able to provide him with the best legal expertise that money and status can buy..

Howard Levine, the attorney who presented the Amicus brief in Feinberg’s support, was once a Court of Appeals Judge. Levine is now the distinguished senior counsel at one of the nation’s most prestigious law firms, Whiteman, Osterman, and Hanna. His Law firm does lobbying for companies like Johnson and Johnson, American Express, Hertz, MCI and a bunch of other major corporation. Get the picture of the $$$$ involved here.

Having a former Court of Appeals judge on their staff must be a great asset for firms which specialize in lobbying. And if you have a case before the Court of Appeals it sure doesn’t hurt, to have a member of the Old Boys Club working with you, does it? And who knows whether Howie might be willing or able to pull a few strings for his low-paid brothers and sisters when they leave the bench.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct voted to remove Feinberg from office after finding that he had given his close friend Lou Rosenthal excessive commissions which amounted to millions of dollars within just a few years. We estimate that Rosenthal collected as much as $10,000,000 in fees and payments within the space of 4 or 5 years. And Lucky Lou seemed on track to rake in maybe $40,000,000 by the time Judge Feinberg’s term in office ended.

Attorney Howard Levine’s brief now offers two major arguments in defense of Feinberg:

1. That the action of the Judicial Commission was illegal since only the Court of Appeals had the right to review “judicial decisions” made by Feinberg.

2. That the office of the Attorney General Elliott Spitzer was “party to the proceedings” and Spitzer never appealed.. Suggesting that the Attorney General essentially approved of the excessive fees that Feinberg was giving to Rosenthal. In effect, Levine claims that the Attorney General’s Office had determined Feinberg’s actions to be legal.

The written rules mandate that the Surrogate Court comply with the established schedule of fees and the requisite reporting mechanism. . Lou Rosenthal was required to submit an affidavit of legal services. Judge Feinberg was required to review Rosenthal’s reports before he signed off on payments. In addition, fees were restricted to a maximum of 6% of the Surrogate estate unless extraordinary services had been substantiated. And of course, Judge Feinberg was required to demand the proof of this extraordinary service rendered before authorizing payment.

None of Judge Feinberg’s required duties in these matters constituted protected “judicial decisions.” Judge Feinberg did not have the discretionary power to ignore the limitation on fees or the requirement for submission of affidavits of service. Feinberg did not have the prerogative to sign checks for whatever amount Rosenthal instructed him to pay….without even asking what they were for, or reviewing the documents submitted.

The Judicial Commission is empowered to conduct Hearings to determine whether judges have violated the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct. The investigation which took about 3 years resulted in a finding that Feinberg was guilty of gross violation of these rules. The Commission confirmed that Rosenthal automatically billed Surrogate estates the 6% maximum no matter how little work he did. They cited at least one example of Rosenthal getting paid more than the heirs of an estate actually collected for themselves.

The report suggests that in many of these cases Rosenthal actually had very little work to do. Yet he still extorted the maximum percentage from the estates of many poor people who needed every penny that was left to them.. In addition, Rosenthal automatically added 2% to each bill suggesting that he had done extraordinary work on every one of his cases. The Judicial Commission found that for several years Rosenthal never submitted affidavits of work done and Feinberg never asked for them. The testimony indicated that Rosenthal simply submitted bills with post-its on them for Feinberg’s signature, and Feinberg just rubber-stamped away millions of dollars.

Feinberg was found to be grossly derelict in his duty as Surrogate Judge. But even worse, most, if not all members of the panel condemned the judge as being “evasive, unreliable and incredible.” That language appears to be just a euphemism for the more serious crime of perjury. And Feinberg should consider himself fortunate not to be facing criminal charges in these days when a guy can be convicted and face a jail sentence for voting from the wrong address.

This whole situation smelled of corruption and “rip-off” from the very beginning.

Lou Rosenthal had been Feinberg’s personal friend and “family” since college. When Feinberg was elected to Surrogate Judge in 1997, Rosenthal promptly requested the position of Surrogate Counsel. Feinberg immediately dumped the incumbent counsel and gave Rosenthal that job. And it is easy to imagine that this was a plot created by Feinberg’s sponsors even before he took office.

It seems impossible to believe that the County Leaders who are now on trial for shaking down judges would allow Lou Rosenthal to walk away with unshared millions of Surrogate dollars when they were responsible for putting his boss, Surrogate Court Judge Feinberg in office.

Sunday, May 15, 2005

Getting Rid of Bad Judges

NY TIMES
Editorials
May 15, 2005

GETTING RID OF BAD JUDGES

While there are many good judges in New York State, there are a few bad judges, and getting rid of them is not easy. Very rarely does the Commission on Judicial Conduct decide to remove a jurist from the bench.

One of those rare cases involved Michael Feinberg, a Surrogate's Court judge in Brooklyn, who was suspended earlier this year. Now, because of a strange quirk in the law, the choice of Mr. Feinberg's successor could be left to the same Brooklyn Democratic Party boss who picked Judge Feinberg to run for the post in the first place, Assemblyman Clarence Norman Jr.

The commission held that Judge Feinberg awarded millions of dollars in "excessive" legal fees to a friend he had appointed to deal with the estates of those who died without leaving a will. Judge Feinberg has appealed, and the New York Court of Appeals has agreed to hear arguments on June 9.

The timing of the court's decision is important, especially because this is an election year. If it rules against Judge Feinberg, but does so between July 7 and Aug. 8, the power to choose his successor essentially remains with Brooklyn's party leaders. During that one month, Mr. Norman's party can pick a candidate to run for the surrogate's seat in November as a Democrat, and because it is a Democratic area, that person will almost certainly be elected.

If the decision comes before midnight July 7, there would be time to organize a primary with, conceivably, more than one candidate. After Aug. 8, the governor chooses the successor, who would serve until elections next year.

The commission's decision to remove Judge Feinberg sent the right message to patronage judges in Brooklyn and elsewhere: you can no longer hire your friends and cheat the system and expect the political powers to shield you.

But if the appeals court turns around and hands the power to choose a judge back to the very people who appointed Judge Feinberg in the first place, it will send exactly the opposite message: that politics, once again, trumps justice in New York State.

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Fate of Surrogate's Position May Be Decided in Summer

New York Law Journal - April 26, 2005

By Daniel Wise

THE NEW York Court of Appeals has set June 9 as the date it will hear oral argument on Brooklyn Surrogate Michael H. Feinberg's appeal to overturn the recommendation of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct that he be removed from the bench.

The date is several months earlier than many experts anticipated and makes it likely that if Surrogate Feinberg loses his appeal, and his job, his replacement will be chosen this year.

Court watchers had anticipated that the Court of Appeals would not have heard the case until September and no replacement could have been selected until the 2006 election.

But Surrogate Feinberg's new lawyer, Henry M. Greenberg of the Albany office of Greenberg Traurig, asked the Court of Appeals to schedule the argument in June, and the Court agreed.

Mr. Greenberg declined to comment.

In February, the commission voted 6-3 to recommend that Surrogate Feinberg be removed for routinely approving excessive fees for Louis R. Rosenthal, a longtime friend and counsel to the public administrator in Brooklyn.

Pending its determination, the Court of Appeals has suspended Surrogate Feinberg with pay.

There are several potential contenders to succeed the surrogate should the Court sustain his removal, political sources say. They are Brooklyn Justices Bruce Balter and Lawrence S. Knipel; Brooklyn Civil Court Judge Margarita Lopez Torrez; and Helene E. Blank, a Brooklyn-based practitioner.

Should the Court sustain his removal before Aug. 8, under state law, Surrogate Feinberg's successor will be chosen this year, according to Lee Daghlian, spokesman for the State Board of Elections.

The Court is likely to issue its ruling before it goes into summer recess, which would be about July 15, according to Gary Spencer, the Court's spokesman.

If the ruling goes against Surrogate Feinberg, there are two possibilities depending upon the timing of the decision.

A ruling before July 7 means candidates would be required to submit the required number of petition signatures and to compete in the Sept. 13 primary for the nomination. The primary petition period starts on June 7 and ends July 14.

Should the Court rule after July 7, but before Aug. 8, party leaders would be authorized to select their party's candidates to run in the Nov. 8 general election. Independent candidates could also run in the general election. The petitioning period for independent candidates runs from July 12 to Aug. 23.

The conduct commission recommended Surrogate Feinberg's removal on the strength of its finding that he routinely approved fees for Mr. Rosenthal of more than 6 percent of the value of the estates of persons who died without wills. The commission found that a 6 percent ceiling on fees was used in other boroughs and agreed to under a pact negotiated for Brooklyn between Surrogate Feinberg's predecessor and the state Attorney General's Office.

Mr. Rosenthal, as counsel to Brooklyn Public Administrator Marietta Smalls, was responsible for processing the estates of persons who die without wills and have no close relative to wind up their affairs.

The commission found that Mr. Rosenthal received a total of $9 million, which was $2 million more than he would otherwise have been paid.

Justice Albert Tomei, who in March was appointed interim Surrogate by Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman, has removed Mr. Rosethal, but allowed him to finish any cases he was working on.

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

B'klyn scandal lawyer gets ax

NY DAILY NEWS 3-2-05
BY NANCIE L. KATZ
A veteran judge was tapped yesterday to take over as acting Brooklyn surrogate - and he promptly fired the lawyer at the center of the corruption scandal that rocked the court.

State Supreme Court Justice Albert Tomei replaces Judge Michael Feinberg, who was suspended from the surrogate's bench last week.

Feinberg was ousted on the recommendation of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct.

The commission confirmed a Daily News investigation that found Feinberg regularly approved excessive fees for pal Louis Rosenthal, whom he appointed in 1997 to help handle the estates of Brooklynites who died without leaving wills.

Tomei, a Democrat whose niece is actress Marisa Tomei, said his first move was to meet with Rosenthal, Feinberg's former law school classmate.

"I informed him that ... he would not be getting any more future assignments," Albert Tomei said.

As for cases Rosenthal is already handling, Tomei said, "He'll maintain those he has and we'll scrutinize them."

The commission found Feinberg routinely allowed Rosenthal to bill estates for exorbitant legal fees without filing legally required documents explaining what he did to earn them.

Tomei, a judge for nearly three decades, was named acting surrogate by state Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman.

Lippman said he was trying "to promote public confidence" in the battered Brooklyn courts, where two judges have been charged in bribery cases and state and federal prosecutors continue to probe other allegations of wrongdoing.

Feinberg has appealed to the state Court of Appeals in Albany in an attempt to save his job.

If the court rules against him, the surrogate's post will be permanently filled in a November election

Monday, February 28, 2005

Attorney Rosenthal a Major Contributor

Crain's New York Business - Feb. 28, 2005

Attorney Louis Rosenthal, whose bloated fees led to the suspension last week of Brooklyn Surrogate Michael Feinberg, donates heavily to political campaigns.

Mr. Rosenthal's donations oiled the Democratic machine that in 1996 helped elect Mr. Feinberg, who approved $9 million in legal fees for Mr. Rosenthal from 1997 to 2002. Of that, $2 million was ruled excessive by a state commission.

Beneficiaries of Mr. Rosenthal's largesse include the Brooklyn Democrats' political action committee ($2,450); county Assemblyman Clarence Norman, the Democratic Party leader ($1,525); and state Sen. Carl Andrews and Councilwoman Tish James ($1,000 each). Mr. Rosenthal even gave $500 each to candidates who ran against each other for Brooklyn borough president. His largest contribution, $7,500, went to Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's 2002 campaign.

Sunday, February 27, 2005

Friends of the Court

New York Times - Editorial

FRIENDS OF THE COURT

February 27, 2005

The problem of courthouse patronage is practically hard-wired into New York State's system of electing judges. Party leaders have disproportionate influence over who gets to be a judge. Judges, in turn, dispense lucrative legal assignments - even, in egregious cases, favorable verdicts - to party leaders and to the well-connected lawyers who helped elect them.

New York's chief judge, Judith Kaye, has struggled heroically to control favoritism through administrative reforms. These reforms have been useful, and there is room for more. But the main responsibility for breaking the clubhouse-courthouse nexus, and giving New Yorkers the impartial judicial system they deserve, belongs to the State Legislature in Albany, which should replace the existing patronage-based system of electing judges with a system of appointing them by merit. That, in turn, will require a constitutional amendment.

Two continuing investigations into judicial and political corruption in Brooklyn demonstrate how important it is for Albany to move forward. In one case, a State Supreme Court justice, Gerald Garson, has been suspended from the bench and is awaiting trial on bribery charges. A key witness in that case admitted last week to passing thousands of dollars to a politically connected lawyer to arrange preferential treatment in cases before Justice Garson. The investigation into the judge's rulings is also seeking to establish links between him and the Brooklyn Democratic machine.

The other case involves allegations by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct that a Surrogate's Court in Brooklyn may have fleeced widows and other heirs out of millions of dollars. On Feb. 14, the commission found that Michael Feinberg, a Kings County surrogate judge, had named a friend and law school classmate, Louis Rosenthal, to handle the legal matters of people who died without wills and then rubber-stamped Mr. Rosenthal's legal fees of $9 million. The commission described $2 million of these charges as "excessive."

Judge Feinberg, who has also been suspended, had been supported in his campaign for the surrogate judgeship by the local political boss, Clarence Norman Jr., as well as by Mr. Rosenthal. Shortly after becoming a surrogate, Judge Feinberg gave Mr. Rosenthal the responsibility to wind down the estates of people who die without wills. This is a lucrative business - in Kings County alone last year, there were some 1,200 such estates, with a total worth of more than $57 million.

Earlier this month a special commission appointed by Judge Kaye recommended a series of reforms dealing in particular with the lawyers who, like Mr. Rosenthal, handle these estates. The reforms would apply the same rules that now prevent the court from awarding fiduciary appointments - like guardianships - to relatives, friends and others with questionable ties and would require a cap on fees. Judge Kaye is also seeking broader, systemic reforms that among other things would blend Surrogates' Courts into the rest of the system. But nothing would better serve the judicial system than minimizing the clubby relationship among judges, politicians and lawyers by basing judicial selections on merit alone.

In recent months, of course, Albany has been preoccupied - and properly so - with reforming its own institutions. But as legislators fix their own house, they should not ignore the needs of this other ailing branch of government.

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Scandal-plagued Brooklyn Judge Benched

NY POST February 23, 2005
SCANDAL-PLAGUED BROOKLYN JUDGE BENCHED

Brooklyn Judge Michael Feinberg was ordered off the bench yesterday by the state's highest court.

The Surrogate Court judge, long accused of rewarding political pals with lucrative court appointments, was suspended by the Court of Appeals.

The judges said the suspension will be in effect pending "disposition of his request for review . . . by the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct."

Feinberg had appointed a lawyer named Louis Rosenthal guardian of estates of several people who died without leaving wills.

The 61-year-old judge is accused of allowing Rosenthal to collect $2 million more from the estates that he was entitled to.

Rosenthal was permited by law to award himself up to 6 percent of an estate, but Feinberg allegedly would allow him to take up to 8 percent.

Brooklyn Judge Suspended

NY Times - Metro briefs
ALBANY: BROOKLYN JUDGE SUSPENDED
The New York State Court of Appeals yesterday suspended Michael H. Feinberg, the Surrogate Court judge in Brooklyn, until it can review whether he should be permanently removed from the bench. Last week, the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct voted to remove Judge Feinberg, contending that he had improperly awarded millions of dollars in fees to a longtime friend. The judge, who was suspended with pay, asked the appeals court to review that decision, which it is not expected to do before September. In the meantime, a replacement for Judge Feinberg may be named by the chief administrative judge, Jonathan Lippman; the acting surrogate judge is Justice Ira B. Harkavy of the State Supreme Court.

Monday, February 21, 2005

Excavation Time at Brooklyn's Surrogate Court

Footnotes (www.FootnotesNY.com)

EXCAVATION TIME AT BROOKLYN SURROGATE’S COURT
by Maurice Gumbs
February 21, 2005

And now it looks very much like the end of a judicial career, or any career for Brooklyn Surrogate’s Court Judge Michael Feinberg.

There is a lesson in this story which we place here at the very beginning. Several persons have already proposed themselves as replacements for Judge Feinberg. Some of them have resumes which guarantee that the sleaziness, the patronage, and predatory nature of the Surrogate’s Court will continue. Footnotes believes that no sitting judge, and no attorney who is identified as part of, or a supporter of, the current County Leadership should be considered as either a temporary or permanent replacement as Judge of the Surrogate’s Court. The opportunity for cheating and self-enrichment is too great to be put into the hands of individuals of this caliber. There is a likelihood of temporary appointment from Governor Pataki. This scandal should prompt the Governor to appoint someone who has a demonstrated history of fearless independence, integrity, and willingness to be an advocate for those who are not empowered by politics and wealth. The Governor’s record of past appointments does not encourage optimism, and voters may have to wait until there is an election to have the right thing done.

Meanwhile, Judge Feinberg has appealed for mercy to the Court of Appeals. The judge’s attorney, Harvey Greenberg, has tearfully admitted to the State Court of Appeals that his client was guilty of serious errors in his conduct. But Harvey pleads that Feinberg should not be removed from the bench because none of his actions were out of greed or the desire to enrich himself.

We know some very righteous people who agree with Harvey that Michael Feinberg is a basically fair, decent and honest guy. But this does not alter the fact that people who depended on the Surrogate’s Court to protect their rights were cheated and harmed under his watch, and that wrong cannot be set aside.

Before the Judicial Panel, Feinberg admitted that the $2,000,000 overpayment to his close friend, the Surrogate’s counsel, had occurred because he (Judge Feinberg) had merely “skimmed through” the rules governing the fees to be paid. In other words, Feinberg had been given the duty of protecting the rights of the heirs of deceased individuals, but really didn’t give a damn about how much was taken out of their estates illegally.

In proposing the “no venial wrong” alibi for his client, Mr. Greenberg ignores the fact that the primary basis for firing most employees, including police officers, teachers, transit workers, nurses, plumbers, and even lawyers, is not venial conduct, but always because of failure to perform their jobs adequately. It is absurd to propose that Judges, who have in their hands the power to destroy the lives of citizens by their incompetence should be held to a lesser standard. Moreover, had Mr. Feinberg’s actions been clearly identified as “venial” by the Judicial Commission, he would already be facing not merely dismissal but criminal charges leading to imprisonment. And the truth is that the judge who served as referee found that Mike Feinberg’s testimony was evasive, and not credible. And so did the 9 panel members who reviewed the referee’s report and listened to Feinberg’s responses. Put bluntly…everybody concluded that Feinberg was lying, and was trying to cover up what he had done. And contrary to Mr. Greenberg’s theory, that finding carries the serious implication of venial behavior.

Judge Feinberg, like many other Brooklyn judges, surely underestimated the fearful responsibility and consequences of violating the posted assurance in Courtrooms which indicates that judges stand in the place of God. Too many of Brooklyn’s shabby so-called “judges” on a daily basis make a mockery of their role as they dispense “bribe-justice,” and ignorant, sloppy decisions to citizens who come before them in good faith, trusting their carefulness, righteousness, and wisdom. In the days of the Old Testament these rogues would be thrown out the windows of their courtrooms and their carcasses left on the sidewalk for dogs and vultures to feed upon or to rot in their stinking black robes. Upon review it is not surprising that this attitude informs the thinking and behavior of Brooklyn’s judges when we see them running for office with sponsors who exhibit the qualities of God’s counterpart.

The immutable rule in this life for all human beings is that when we rob or cheat or harm or hurt children, widows, orphans, the poor, the sick, the disabled, the unempowered, and the innocent, we will not escape ultimate and severe punishment.

There is sometimes the perception among judges, elected officials, and other powerful men that they may commit these deeds with impunity. That is no more than an illusion. The infinite symmetry and justice of the Universe will not allow it. And in the end it may be better off for those who perpetrate or condone injustice to receive the prompt, harsh strokes on their own backs rather than have the fierce punishment fall heavily on the bodies of their innocent children or grandchildren who are guilty only by virtue of their kinship. So, for Mike Feinberg, being dumped from the bench may be a blessing to his family and loved ones which he should accept with humility and without protest.

A Footnotes article reflected on all of this several years ago when the seamy side of the Surrogate’s Court first appeared. We knew that State Senator Carl Andrews had spent most of his political career as nothing more than a puppet of Clarence Norman. In fact, Carl cannot deny that this writer warned him on many occasions of the consequence of this relationship. And in 1997, when we saw that Carl had been appointed auctioneer of the Surrogate’s Court we knew exactly what was about to happen. We also reminded Brooklynites of the importance of making a will if they did not want their estates to fall into the hands of ambitious and predatory politicians

Later on, we believe that it was Jack Newfield (or was it Jimmy Breslin) who told one story of how shabbily the Brooklyn Surrogate’s Court Administration had dealt with money due to the poor family of a deceased Mexican immigrant. The anecdote described how, in spite of a federal judge’s order, funds belonging to the dead man’s family had been callously tied up in the Brooklyn Surrogate’s Court possibly with the intent of churning more fees and adding more charges. Newfield recounted his frustrating and fruitless attempts to get the Public Administrator and her counsel to move on the matter. It appeared to be the norm rather than the exception in Surrogat’se Court. And we understood that such stories were legion.

It took a painfully long 3 years for the referee and the Judicial Panel to determine that Michael Feinberg was guilty of serious dereliction of duty. The Judicial Panel of the Universe also proceeds at its own leisurely pace. But the outcome is far more certain, and infinitely more severe in its punishment. And besides, there will be no connected appointees from Governor Pataki or Speaker Sheldon Silver on that panel to intervene on behalf of the guilty or make excuses for their misconduct.

We believe that the New York Court of Appeals will have no choice but to sustain the decision to bounce Feinberg. The stench of corruption in Brooklyn’s Courts is too nauseating to be tolerated any longer. The filth has risen to mouth-level. For several years Chief Justice Kaye’s face has gagged impotently on this diet of dishonor. Moreover, the Court of Appeals cannot in good conscience give Judge Feinberg a reprieve and keep him on the bench when the fact-finders who reviewed the records over 3 years and listened to his testimony determined that he was not only incompetent, and irresponsible, but evasive, not credible, unreliable, and unconvincing. They pretty much called him a “damn liar.” For its own sake, and as a small step towards restoring the integrity and credibility of the New York State Judiciary system, the Court of Appeals will feel obliged to sustain the recommendation to dismiss Mr. Feinberg.

The removal of Marietta Smalls, the Surrogate Court Public Administrator, and of course Louis Rosenthal, her counsel, will automatically follow. In fact, these two are likely to be dismissed long before the final ruling on Judge Feinberg…if they have not been fired already. Moreover, Rosenthal is likely to be required to refund to the estates of heirs over 2 million dollars improperly paid to him from Surrogate’s accounts. Shed no tears for Lou Rosenthal. He gets to keep 8 million dollars and probably much more. Not bad for 5 years of work. We should all be that lucky.

But Footnotes suspects that the decision of the Judicial Commission has exposed only the bare tip of a massive larcenous iceberg. It takes little more than a quick look at the Lou Rosenthal get-rich-quick story to smell something fishy going on, and to realize that the money trail needs to be followed.
A quick summary. In 5 years Lou Rosenthal made an easy $10,000,000 as counsel to the Public Administrator of the Brooklyn Surrogate’s Court. That’s United States dollars. Not Confederate money or Guyanese dollars or Mexican pesos.
Most of Lou’s fortune came from money that belonged to orphans, widows, and people who were desperately in need of every penny of the money Lou was handling. The Surrogate’s Counsel made his money by getting a cut of all the estates and money of people who had died without a will. 6% of the money left to these poor people was enough to make him a multi-millionaire in a few years. But in addition Lou finessed Justice Feinberg into adding on an extra 2% for friendship and for old-time’s sake. The Judicial Panel found no other just reason for this generosity from Mike Feinberg. So no matter how little time Lou spent on a case he got 8% on them all. It was estimated that this gave Lou a bonus of at least $2,000,000 over 5 years. That’s what buddies do for each other.
On top of this, Lou routinely collected extra fees for handling real estate closings on Surrogate’s property and was known to get as much as $33,000 just for referring a wrongful death matter to another attorney. This means that the final income of the Surrogate’s counsel in those 5 years was probably a lot more than the $10,000,000 estimate mentioned above. Keep in mind that the position of counsel to the Public Administrator was just a part-time job for Mr. Rosenthal. Oh Yes. Lou Rosenthal had his own private practice, thank you.

The fact that attorney Lou Rosenthal could make about $10,000,000 on a part time job in five years is very, very strange. In fact it’s awesome. In a New York minute you could have 10,000 topnotch, qualified lawyers willing to wait in line for days to apply for such a job. In freezing rain. But Lou Rosenthal was on Feinberg’s short list of One.

So even stranger and more awesome is the fact that a certain logical question hasn’t been raised as yet by the District Attorney and the State Attorney General.

Is it really possible that an attorney in a position of political patronage could earn 10 million bucks from a part-time job without sharing some of this bonanza with the bosses who made it possible for him to get it? Especially when these political bosses were quite aware that part of this income was being enhanced with at least 2 million bucks more than he was entitled to.

Frankly, we believe that there is not even a question about whether or not Lou Rosenthal shared his bankroll. We take that for granted. Here, the only question is how much of his wealth he shared, what the mechanism was for sharing, and who the individuals were with whom he shared?

Even if the Brooklyn Democratic Party leadership had a reputation for impeccable honesty, it would still be difficult to believe that lucky Lou would get to keep all that cash for himself. No way! No how! But here we’re looking at a situation where both County leader Clarence Norman and his executive director Jeff Feldman have been indicted and are being tried on several charges including Grand Larceny, Bribery, Extortion and Fraud. Let’s face it. We’re not dealing with Mother Teresa. We’re dealing with people who are currently on trial because of greed.

What are we supposed to think? That Clarence and Jeff would put the arm on former Judges Karen Yellen and Marcia Sikowitz for a few thousand dollars and let Lou Rosenthal walk away with 10 million? Never in a million years could we be convinced that these characters would let this goose with 10 million golden eggs escape from their hands untouched.

Let’s back up and put this entire story into some perspective. Mike Feinberg had been a Civil Court judge from 1981 to 1990. He became a State Supreme Court judge in 1991. Generally, only loyal, obedient soldiers of the Democratic Party get to be the Party’s nominees for State Supreme Court. Ask Margarita Lopez Torres. So it’s fair to assume that Mike was a company man who knew the rules of engagement.

In 1996, Mike went to the County bosses Clarence Norman, Jeff Feldman and others for endorsement, just like candidates Karen Yellen and Marcia Sikowitz did when they were running for Civil Court judgeships in 2002. All of them were willing to pay a certain price with the expectation of getting an edge over their opponents.
In the past, County candidates could expect substantial benefits from this endorsement. There was the promise of support in collecting and submitting signatures. They looked forward to the County’s legal hacks knocking off other candidates from the ballot. (Desmond Green and Fern Goldstein were knocked off in 1996. County knocked off 2 candidates in 2002, putting a third Garson (Robin) on the bench with a free ride.) County candidates anticipated sympathetic treatment by “contract” judges in Election Court. They trusted that County employees at the Brooklyn Board of Elections would pass information on to the County’s legal hacks. They felt confident that loyal County employees at the polling sites and machines would be aware that they were “part of the team” and would do what was needed to assist them.

Why else would judges like Karen Yellen and Marcia Sikowitz have gone to Clarence Norman and Jeff Feldman when they were aware of the sleaze factor, and saw the red sign flashing: CAVEAT EMPTOR.
Feinberg’s problems today can probably be traced back to his compliance with what County bosses Norman and Feldman refer to as Party Discipline.

To begin with, we were hearing during that 1996 campaign that candidate Feinberg was being squeezed like a squeegee. We have no idea how much money he put out, but we are assured that it was an all-time record for a Surrogate Court race. The candidate’s supporters complained at the time that the County bosses were using Feinberg like an ATM machine, and that much of the cash was going to Clarence’s inner circle and the Thurgood Marshall Democratic Club.

(As a side note, Judge Martin Marcus was in error when he dated this club’s existence at 2001. That may be the official date of registration with the State Board of Elections, but Thurgood Marshall operated as an “occasional club” receiving money from candidates and other contributors maybe as early as 1988).

One friend of Feinberg described to us recently how the candidate was told 3 days before election day that he had to come up with $80,000 for a Thurgood Marshall club “bring-out-the-vote” operation. When Feinberg protested that he was “tapped out,” he was pushed to borrow the money with a promise that it would be refunded to him immediately after the election. Feinberg reportedly borrowed the money from relatives and friends, and the word is that he is still waiting for that refund check to come to him in the mail.

Once elected, Judge Feinberg, again the loyal soldier, evidently complied with what we think of as paragraph #2 of the unwritten, but time-honored County contract (referred to as the MLT clause). Paragraph # 2 apparently gives the County leader and/or a District leader the option of putting one or two key appointees on a judge’s staff. In this case, Clarence’s best friend, Carl Andrews was selected as the auctioneer for property in the Feinberg Surrogate Court. Marietta Smalls, one of Carl’s dearest friends and a member of Clarence’s inner circle since 1984 was selected as Feinberg’s Public Administrator of the Surrogate’s Court.

For sure, Marietta’s promotion from some humble job was shocking, and we imagine she got a 25 or 35 thousand increase in salary. But $25,000 a year was hardly the reason why County leader Clarence wanted his friend Marietta in what was potentially the most powerful position in the Brooklyn Surrogate Court. There were bigger fish to fry.
In testimony given to the Judicial Panel, Judge Feinberg claimed that attorney Rosenthal was entitled to a 2% increase over the regular Surrogate counsel fee because he was doing the work which the government-funded Public Administrator’s office should have been doing but was not. We interpret this statement to mean that Judge Feinberg considered the office of the Public Administrator under Marietta Smalls to be a sham and that Marietta and maybe others in that office were being paid a salary out of government funds while not doing the job for which they were paid. In giving this testimony, Judge Feinberg has surely invited District Attorney Hynes and State Attorney General Elliot Spitzer to begin an investigation.
But while her counsel, Lou Rosenthal, may have picked up the actual work tab of her office, Marietta Smalls as the official public administrator of record was privy to all business matters and records in the Surrogate’s Court. She was positioned to report back to the County leadership every transaction that were took place. Marietta would know exactly how much money was passing through the hands of her counsel, Lou Rosenthal. She would know what receiverships were available, when lawyers were needed to handle lucrative cases, which estates required administrators, and what real estate properties were to be auctioned or sold. She also knew that Michael Feinberg was giving his pal Lou the extra 2% (2 million bucks) without even requiring paper work. Finally Marietta was in a position to project for the County leadership that by the end of Mike Feinberg’s first term in office, Lou Rosenthal would have make over 30 million dollars in his part time job as her counsel.

We recall at that time that people from the Ed Towns and Genovese camps complained that Clarence had first hijacked Feinberg, and had then hogged all the patronage in the Surrogate’s Court for themselves. But it was a done deed, and their grumbling was of no consequence. Clarence had got his fingers deep into the sweetest pie in New York City and had a broad smile on his face.

Marietta Smalls and Lou Rosenthal have some questions to answer, and it would be truly shocking if they have not had friendly conversations with the District Attorney’s office already. State Senator Carl Andrews should also be able to share some information about how he developed the skills, and where he found the time to become the Surrogate’s Court auctioneer in addition to handling his job working with State Senator Marty Connor in Albany. The list of receivers, administrators and lawyers who worked for the Surrogate’s Court in the years that Lou Rosenthal made his 10 million bucks should also be of interest.

If Brooklyn District Attorney Hynes truly wanted to provide an example of the manipulation of Brooklyn’s courts, the Feinberg situation could be the quintessential example. State Attorney General Elliot Spitzer also has a vested interest in this case, sine the State could have been robbed of substantial amounts accruing from unclaimed estates. But considering the presence of Carl Andrews among the Surrogate’s Court players, and his strange relationship with Spitzer, this is unlikely to be on Elliot’s front-burner.

We may be looking at another job for the guys who were digging up the Mafia graves on Ruby Street. It looks like they have shut down the operation where they were recently keeping an eye on the entire class of Brooklyn State Supreme Court judges having meals at the Torah Club for Judges and Lawyers under the patronage of a lawyer being investigated for bribery. They could be ready to start excavation in Brooklyn’s Surrogate Court.

We did predict several months ago that the Feds would soon move from digging up the mafia corpses in East New York to digging up the mobsters on Court Street. It already looks like we’ve called it correctly, and we have a hunch that the downtown excavation has only just begun.

Friday, February 18, 2005

Embattled judge begs for mercy

New York Daily News -
Friday, February 18th, 2005

by Nancie L. Katz

An embattled Brooklyn judge has asked New York's highest court not to suspend him while he appeals a recommendation to boot him from the bench.

On Monday, the state Commission on Judicial Conduct called for the ouster of Brooklyn Surrogate Judge Michael Feinberg, who routinely approved excessive fees given to a lawyer pal.

In a letter to the Court of Appeals, Feinberg challenged the commission's findings, which backed a Daily News probe that found he gave oversize estate fees to his buddy Louis Rosenthal.

Rosenthal was the counsel to the public administrator who handles the assets of Brooklyn residents who die without a will.

"There is not and never has been the slightest intimation that anything he has been charged with involved corruption or venality," Feinberg's lawyer, Harvey Greenberg, wrote the appeals court. "It is clear that [Feinberg] has mended his ways."

Thursday, February 17, 2005

Judges Line up for Brooklyn Surrogate Post

Crains Insider 2-17-05

JUDGES LINE UP FOR B'KLYN SURROGATE POST

Anticipating the removal of Michael Feinberg as Brooklyn's surrogate judge, several judges are pondering an effort to run for the post, which awards millions of dollars worth of legal work annually.

Civil Court Judge Margarita Lopez Torres is interested, and believes that her independence from the Brooklyn political establishment gives her the inside trackt for endorsements from newspaper editorial boards and political reformers. Supreme Court Judge Theodore Jones, Jr. is being mentioned as well. If he declines, another African-American judge would run. Supreme Court Judges Bruce Balter and Lawrence Knipel also may be candidates.

The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct said Monday that Feinberg should be removed for approving a friend's excessive fees. Feinberg will appeal, but he will likely be suspended soon. Gov George Pataki would then name an interim surrogate, perhaps Supreme Court Judge Ira Harkavy, who is over 70 and thus not eligible to run for the seat.

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Fiduciary System Remedies Proposed;

New York Law Journal - Feb. 9, 2005

By Daniel Wise

Sunshine is the best antidote to counter the "great concern" that "politically connected lawyers" are reaping hundreds of thousands of dollars to handle estates of those who die without wills, a blue-ribbon commission appointed by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye said in a report issued Monday.

The 14-member commission, headed by Sheila Birnbaum of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, also called for legislation that would make mandatory existing guidelines for compensating counsel to public administrators. The administrators have overall responsibility for winding down the affairs of those who die without wills.

The spur to the commission's recommendations was a disciplinary proceeding against Brooklyn Surrogate Michael H. Feinberg for routinely awarding the counsel to the Brooklyn public administrator, Louis R. Rosenthal, fees that equal 8 percent of the estates he handled, an amount two percentage points higher than the ceiling in the guidelines.

The Commission on Fiduciary Appointments also noted that several surrogates had "candidly admitted to political and personal ties with appointees they had selected." That testimony "gives rise to a public perception of an opaque system that operates on the basis of connections and cronyism," the report said.

Oral argument in the state Commission on Judicial Conduct case against Surrogate Feinberg took place in September [NYLJ, Sept. 24], and a decision is pending. The judicial conduct commission also charged Surrogate Feinberg with approving Mr. Rosenthal's fees without required documentation.

The Birnbaum commission also proposed remedies for a problem that surfaced since its first report was issued in December 2001.

In April 2004, a Queens grand jury reported on its investigation into systemic weaknesses that allowed a guardian to steal $272,000 from his ward. The grand jury found a key problem was a lack of oversight of the guardian, lawyer Robert B. Kress, who has been disbarred.

The remedy proposed by the Birnbaum commission was greater supervision of court examiners, who are appointed by judges to oversee the work of guardians. Judges are also responsible for appointing guardians to handle the affairs of persons unable to care for themselves.

As a result of the Birnbaum commission's earlier report, any fiduciary appointed by a judge was barred from receiving additional appointments for a year after earning $50,000 within a 12-month period. State and county leaders also were prohibited from accepting appointment as were members of their law firms.

The earnings disqualification could not be applied to counsel for public administrators whose fees varied, depending on the county, from a low of $87,000 to a high of $1 million. To do so, the commission concluded, would impair the surrogates' statutory authority to appoint a sole counsel to the public administrator in their county. The statute also gives the surrogate authority to appoint more than one counsel.

Instead, the commission recommended counsel to public administrators be brought within a court system rule requiring judges to file a report of any fee awarded in excess of $500. Those reports should be made available on the Internet, the commission urged.

Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman said that the court system would move to make the rule changes recommended by the commission.

He praised the commission for "focusing on the remaining vulnerabilities in the fiduciary system" and producing recommendations that will insure that "all appointments are what they should be, a public trust."

Finding that employing court staff or outside groups to act as court examiners would be too expensive, the Birnbaum commission urged courts to assign staff to supervise the existing court examiners.

The commission, though, encouraged more projects like one under way in Westchester and another planned for Brooklyn, where non-profit groups are being appointed to act as court examiners.

The commission also noted that many examiners depend on a high volume of assignments because the fees in individual cases are low. In the Appellate Division, Second Department, for instance, an examiner overseeing a situation involving assets of $175,000 would receive a $600 fee.

To prevent the disqualification of talented examiners, the commission recommended that the $50,000 restriction on yearly earnings be raised to $75,000 for court examiners.

The commission recognized that since the system for the appointment of counsel to public administrators is not uniform statewide, achieving legislative changes is a daunting prospect. In New York City, the surrogates appoint counsel, but elsewhere the public administrators appoint their counsel with the surrogate's approval.

Nonetheless, the commission urged the passage of legislation that would make mandatory a 6 percent guideline adopted by the Administrative Board of the Public Administrator, a body created by statute, in 2002.

The board's guidelines do not have the force of law, and the commission noted that several surrogates have continued "to deviate from the schedule" and that one such instance "even led to judicial disciplinary proceedings."

The commission also urged that public administrators' counsel be subject to the same restriction as other fiduciaries barring the appointments of judges' relatives, political leaders and members of their firms.

The extension of those rules would lead to the disqualification of "several current [public administrators'] counsel," the commission said.

Bench Judge: Panel

NY POST - February 15, 2005

By Zach Haberman and Dareh Gregorian

A Brooklyn judge who lined his buddy's pockets with millions in dead people's money should be booted from the bench, a state disciplinary panel has ruled.

Surrogate Court Judge Michael Feinberg "irredeemably damaged public confidence in the integrity of his court" and "engaged in misconduct that cannot be countenanced," the state Commission on Judicial Conduct found in a decision made public yesterday.

"A public sanction less than removal for such egregious misconduct would be wholly inadequate," it said.

The commission recommended the removal after finding Feinberg, 61, had awarded "excessive and overly generous" fees — more than $2 million — to longtime friend and former judge, Louis Rosenthal.

The action comes seven years after The Post first reported that Feinberg was rewarding political pals with lucrative court appointments.

Rosenthal had worked on and given money to Feinberg's campaign, The Post reported.

After getting that donation, Feinberg appointed Rosenthal as counsel to the public administrator, a post that does legal work for estates of people who died without wills or heirs.


As counsel, Rosenthal was legally entitled to collect up to 6 percent of the gross value of a person's estate, but the commission found Feinberg routinely allowed Rosenthal to collect 8 percent.

"These excessive fees came from the pockets of beneficiaries of estates that [Feinberg] had a duty to protect," said the report, which also blasted his "incredible, evasive and unreliable" testimony before the commission last year.

Feinberg maintained he wasn't familiar with the rules over Rosenthal's pay because he'd just "skimmed" the judicial guidelines. The commission called his account "unconvincing and, if true, inexcusable."

Feinberg's lawyer refused comment.

Neither Feinberg nor Rosenthal has been charged criminally and the Brooklyn DA's office refused comment.

Oust judge in fee flap: watchdog

Daily News - February 15th, 2005
By Nancie L. Katz

The state's top judicial watchdog recommended yesterday booting a Brooklyn judge who routinely approved excessive fees to a lawyer pal.

In a scathing report, the Commission on Judicial Conduct said Brooklyn Surrogate Judge Michael Feinberg effectively deprived the heirs of Brooklyn residents who died without wills of $2 million.

The money was diverted to Louis Rosenthal, the counsel for Public Administrator Marietta Small, in the form of sky-high fees, said the panel.

A Daily News probe revealed the arrangement between Feinberg and Rosenthal.

Feinberg could be suspended by the state's highest court as early as Friday pending an appeal.

Rosenthal, a former law school buddy appointed by Feinberg, raked in about $9 million in legal fees between January 1997 and May 2002. The panel found that at least $2 million of that was excessive, and also found that Rosenthal never filed the required documents showing what he did to earn his fee.

"For a surrogate, entrusted with enormous power over the lives and fortunes of many, the ethical transgressions revealed ... are simply intolerable," it said. "A public sanction less than removal for such egregious conduct would be wholly inadequate."

The commission noted its two-year inquiry was sparked by a 2002 News' exposé that found Feinberg routinely gave Rosenthal 8% or more of an estate's worth. That was despite a 6% cap Feinberg's predecessors had agreed to under pressure from the state attorney general's office.

It said Feinberg's excuse that he was unaware of the limits as "not credible ... and evasive."

The commission's findings could shape how much Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who is conducting a separate probe, would demand Rosenthal pay back.

Neither Feinberg, his lawyer nor Rosenthal returned calls yesterday. Rosenthal's lawyer declined to comment.

Surrogate Feinberg, RIP

Daily News - Editorial
February 15, 2005

Brooklyn Surrogate Judge Michael Feinberg allowed an old pal to engage in court-sanctioned graverobbing, the state Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded yesterday in calling on the state's highest court to bounce Feinberg from the bench. We concur.

Feinberg's unfitness for office has been clear since Daily News reporters Larry Cohler-Esses and Nancie Katz disclosed in 2002 that he had allowed lawyer Louis Rosenthal to charge exorbitant fees for overseeing the estates of Brooklynites who died without wills. The commission tallied the ripoff at $2 million.

For clubhouse pols, being named surrogate is like dying and going to patronage heaven. Surrogates preside over the disposition of estates and get to hand out thousands of assignments to lawyers. Feinberg did such a favor for Rosenthal, with whom he's been chummy since law school, and then let him take 8% out of estates, rather than the 6% legal max - without even filing the required paperwork.

According to the commission, Feinberg defended himself by pleading ignorance of the law (which should be a firing offense) and was otherwise "incredible, evasive and unreliable." Which means the Court of Appeals should also render him unemployed.

Monday, February 14, 2005

Panel: B'klyn judge should be booted

Newsday - February 14, 2005

By Anthony M. Destefano

A state judicial oversight body has recommended that Brooklyn Surrogate Judge Michael Feinberg be removed from the bench because he gave overly generous fees to a longtime friend without having the proper documentation filed.

Nine members of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct found that Feinberg, who was elected Brooklyn surrogate judge in 1996, committed misconduct in awarding millions of dollars in fees to attorney Louis R. Rosenthal.

Six members voted for his removal while three dissented and argued the appropriate sanction was public censure.

The commission has 11 members chosen by a combination of legislative, gubernatorial and judicial appointments. Two members didn't take part in the Feinberg matter.

The commission's ruling will likely be appealed by Feinberg to the Court of Appeals, which has the final say. The state's high court will also decide if Feinberg should be suspended without pay if he appeals the commission ruling.

According to evidence presented during seven days of hearings before a referee, Feinberg allowed Rosenthal, a longtime friend whom he appointed as counsel to the public administrator in 1997, to submit fee requests without required affidavits detailing the work done and why the fees were justified.

Public administrators handle estates of people who die without wills and they require assistance by a counsel appointed by the Brooklyn surrogate.

From January 1997 to May 2002, Feinberg awared fees to Rosenthal totaling about $9 million which were paid from estate being handled by the Public Administrator.

"In awarding fees to his long-time friend whom he had appointed to the lucrative position of Counsel to the Public Administrator (Feinberg) had a responsibility to make sure that the fees were appropriate and untainted by the appearance of favoritism," the commission said. "By violating those duties, respondent committed a gross dereliction of his duties to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it."

By his actions, Feinberg conveyed the appearance that his actions were affected by favoritism and friendship, the commission stated.

The commission said about $ 2 million in fees paid to Rosenthal were excessive, often amounting to 8 percent of the assets of a large estate. That percentage was two points above the normal maximum allowed, the commission stated.

Feinberg had told the commission that he had been unfamiliar when he took his job that he had to require detailed fee affidavits, an explantion the commission rejected as "incredible and unconvincing."

The commission was also troubled by what they claimed was Feinberg's "lack of candor" during his testimony. Commissioner Lawrence Goldman agreed that Feinberg committed misconduct by not requiring Rosenthal to file the required documentation.

But he said that he disagreed that the evidence showed Feinberg committed misconduct with excessive fees. Goldman voted to censure Feinberg, as did commissioners Raoul Felder and Justice Daniel F. Luciano.

Neither Feinberg's attorney Harvey L. Greenberg nor Rosenthal returned telephone calls for comment.

Friday, September 24, 2004

Brooklyn Judge's Fate in Balance

NY POST - September 24, 2004

By DAREH GREGORIAN

The verdict is in on whether an embattled Brooklyn Surrogate Court judge can keep his job — but it won't be revealed until November.

That's when the state Commission on Judicial Conduct will forward the results of yesterday's vote on Judge Michael Feinberg to the Court of Appeals.

The action comes a mere seven years after The Post first reported that Feinberg was rewarding his political pals with lucrative court appointments.

One of those pals was lawyer Louis Rosenthal, whom Feinberg appointed in 1997 as counsel to the public administrator, which represents estates of people who die without leaving wills.

In that post, Rosenthal was legally entitled to collect up to 6 percent of the value of a person's estate — but a report presented to the commission charged that Feinberg routinely awarded Rosenthal much more than the statutory amount, even though he'd failed to fill out the proper paperwork, a source said.

That meant a bonanza for Rosenthal, who collected more than $8 million between 1997 and 2002.

After several months of hearings, a referee found Feinberg had committed misconduct by signing off on the fees, and recommended he be removed from the bench. Their votes will be taken down as official reports between now and November, and then forwarded to the Court of Appeals.

If they decide Feinberg, 61, should be disciplined, the Court of Appeals has three options available — reprimand him privately, censure him publicly or remove him from office.

Prober wants B'klyn judge out

New York Daily News - September 24th, 2004

BY NANCIE L. KATZ

The attorney for the state's judicial watchdog agency called for the ouster of a top Brooklyn judge accused of lining the pockets of a law school pal, the Daily News has learned.

Alan Friedberg, head lawyer for the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, recommended that the 11-member panel boot Brooklyn Surrogate Judge Michael Feinberg, a source outside the commission said. Friedberg's call came as the commission reviewed a scathing report accusing Feinberg of routinely violating judicial codes by approving excessive fees to a crony.

"He [Friedberg] asked for him to be fired," said the source.

Feinberg, who left the closed-door meeting at the commission's lower Manhattan office smiling, declined to comment. Commission Administrator Robert Tembeckjian refused to discuss the hearing.

A Daily News probe in 2002 found that Feinberg regularly approved excessive fees for longtime pal Louis Rosenthal, whom he appointed in 1997 to help handle the estates of Brooklynites who died without leaving wills.

Between 1997 and 2002, Feinberg signed off on more than $8 million in fees to Rosenthal, even though the attorney never filed the required affidavits saying what he did to earn them. Yesterday, Feinberg told the panel he did nothing wrong, the source said.

"He explained...that he did it because others before him did it," said the source.

The commission is expected to issue its recommendation to the Court of Appeals by the end of the year.

Friday, September 06, 1996

Surrogate's Court Primaries (endorsements)

New York Times - Editorial - September 6, 1996

Surrogate's Court Primaries

Next Tuesday's Democratic primary elections for the obscure but powerful post of Surrogate's Court judge in Manhattan and Brooklyn have sparked intense competition and bitter debates over personality and patronage. Voters need to decide which of the candidates have the best mix of integrity, expertise, judicial temperament and administrative skills for a job that entails overseeing wills, estates and adoptions and dispensing millions of dollars in fees to lawyers acting as executors, guardians and estate trustees.

***

The Brooklyn Surrogate's Court has long put the needs of politicians before those of the public. All four candidates vow to clean up the place. But only State Supreme Court Justice Michael Feinberg has strong credentials. Justice Feinberg had extensive experience as a private lawyer in the Surrogate's Court before becoming a Civil Court judge and Supreme Court justice. He has a clear grasp of the court's problems and could do a better job than his three opponents -- Howard Lasher, who capped his lackluster career in the State Assembly by becoming a lackluster member of the City Council, and two undistinguished Civil Court judges, Lila Gold and Ferne Goldstein.

Justice Feinberg has promised reforms ranging from a panel to screen appointments and recommend changes in how the place is run, down to keeping the office open at lunchtime as a convenience to the public. But his ardent backing by the Democratic county organization, which wants to retain its patronage jobs and fees, is disquieting. With some wariness we endorse Justice Feinberg on the basis of his good record, and trust that he will stay true to his reform pledges.