Daily News Editorial, September 6th 2008
Here's a question for you: Would you spend $270,000 of your own money on a campaign for a judgeship that pays $136,700?
No, you wouldn't.
And would you borrow an additional $225,000 for the same campaign, bringing your total potential outlay to half a million dollars, approaching four times the salary?
No again.
But that is what Manhattan lawyer Nora Anderson is doing in a series of financial transactions that should disqualify her as surrogate judge, a powerful post that hands out millions in patronage assignments to connected lawyers and accountants.
Anderson's campaign finances shout conflict of interest and raise an odor. She works for trusts and estates kingpin lawyer Seth Rubenstein, who gave her the $225,000 loan, on top of a $25,000 donation. His son is also a top trusts and estates lawyer.
Further, she is on the verge of violating the law. Her own campaign consultant says she will not repay the loan by Tuesday's primary. Yet state election law clearly states that all loans not fully repaid by the primary become donations - putting her gift from Rubenstein at seven times the legal limit.
Voters should reject her because if she wins, this will be a clear case for the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which would have the power to remove her from office.
The other two candidates are lawyer John Reddy and Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling. Reddy is an insider with three decades in Surrogate Court, who like Anderson raised an unseemly amount of money. His cash came from numerous lawyers with interests before the court, putting him a cut above Anderson.
Tingling is backed by the Harlem Democratic clubhouse, which is a drawback, but at least he hasn't gone overboard in collecting money. In a weak field, go with Tingling.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Nora Anderson gives grounds for investigation on Election Law violation
Daily News Editorial,September 14th 2008
Judge Nora Anderson
Barring an extraordinarily unlikely turn of events, lawyer Nora Anderson will be sworn in as a Manhattan surrogate judge on New Year's Day. The next morning, she must be the subject of investigation by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Talk about getting off to a bad start - one that could result in Anderson's removal from office.
Anderson ran a big-money campaign to get the Democratic nod for surrogate in last week's primary. A surrogate presides over the estates of the dead - and gets to award millions of dollars in assignments to lawyers and accountants.
So badly did Anderson want to win the $137,600-a-year post that she put $270,000 of her own money into the race. She also took a $25,000 donation and a $225,000 campaign fund loan from her boss, who happens to be Seth Rubinstein, who happens to be an active trusts and estates lawyer.
All that was okay under New York's lax campaign finance laws until Anderson reached primary day without repaying Rubinstein's loan. That day, Rubinstein's unpaid loan converted to a gift under the Election Law - Article 14, section 114, paragraph 6a, if you are interested.
Big problem. A contribution of that size is barred by law - Article 14, section 126, paragraph 3 - and under willful circumstances can amount to a misdemeanor.
Depending on how the accounting is done, Anderson may have exceeded the contribution limit by $165,000.
And that's not the end of Anderson's, er, sloppiness.
Under court rules, judicial candidates must file a financial disclosure statement with the court system's Ethics Commission within 20 days of becoming a candidate. Anderson got her document in almost two months late and then failed to include the most important information requested on the form: her income.
Anderson campaign manager Michael Oliva says Anderson believed she had until Nov. 4, Election Day, to repay the loan before it became a gift. "We tried to find the answers," Oliva said, pleading that the law was confusing.
To a would-be judge? To a would-be judge who was warned that ignorance of the law would be no excuse when, in April, she attended a mandatory training course on judicial campaigning.
There, Supreme Court Justice George Marlow, head of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, told the assembled candidates, "You, and you alone, as the candidate, [are] ultimately responsible for what you and your committee say and do."
Anderson's violations are no small matter. She blew away two opponents by running a high-visibility campaign paid for by money that, all evidence indicates, she was not entitled to spend. And she cavalierly disregarded the law that entitled the public to inspect her personal finances.
Judge Nora Anderson
Barring an extraordinarily unlikely turn of events, lawyer Nora Anderson will be sworn in as a Manhattan surrogate judge on New Year's Day. The next morning, she must be the subject of investigation by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Talk about getting off to a bad start - one that could result in Anderson's removal from office.
Anderson ran a big-money campaign to get the Democratic nod for surrogate in last week's primary. A surrogate presides over the estates of the dead - and gets to award millions of dollars in assignments to lawyers and accountants.
So badly did Anderson want to win the $137,600-a-year post that she put $270,000 of her own money into the race. She also took a $25,000 donation and a $225,000 campaign fund loan from her boss, who happens to be Seth Rubinstein, who happens to be an active trusts and estates lawyer.
All that was okay under New York's lax campaign finance laws until Anderson reached primary day without repaying Rubinstein's loan. That day, Rubinstein's unpaid loan converted to a gift under the Election Law - Article 14, section 114, paragraph 6a, if you are interested.
Big problem. A contribution of that size is barred by law - Article 14, section 126, paragraph 3 - and under willful circumstances can amount to a misdemeanor.
Depending on how the accounting is done, Anderson may have exceeded the contribution limit by $165,000.
And that's not the end of Anderson's, er, sloppiness.
Under court rules, judicial candidates must file a financial disclosure statement with the court system's Ethics Commission within 20 days of becoming a candidate. Anderson got her document in almost two months late and then failed to include the most important information requested on the form: her income.
Anderson campaign manager Michael Oliva says Anderson believed she had until Nov. 4, Election Day, to repay the loan before it became a gift. "We tried to find the answers," Oliva said, pleading that the law was confusing.
To a would-be judge? To a would-be judge who was warned that ignorance of the law would be no excuse when, in April, she attended a mandatory training course on judicial campaigning.
There, Supreme Court Justice George Marlow, head of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, told the assembled candidates, "You, and you alone, as the candidate, [are] ultimately responsible for what you and your committee say and do."
Anderson's violations are no small matter. She blew away two opponents by running a high-visibility campaign paid for by money that, all evidence indicates, she was not entitled to spend. And she cavalierly disregarded the law that entitled the public to inspect her personal finances.
A Lowdown, Dirty Race
By Errol Lewis, Thursday, September 4th 2008
The hard-fought Democratic primary contest for Manhattan Surrogate heads into its final lap - the election is Tuesday - with the three candidates for the powerful judicial post acting like, well, politicians.
Nobody's throwing mud in the open, which would violate legal prohibitions on negative campaigning for judgeships.
But aides and supporters of John Reddy, Milton Tingling and Nora Anderson, the candidates for the specialized court which handles messy or contested wills and estates, have quietly pointed reporters toward the faults and defects of their rivals.
The portrait offers a look at an important public institution in desperate need of reform.
For decades, various courthouse or political clubhouse cliques have been bent on controlling - and perverting - the Surrogate's Courts, plundering the estates of the dead so that a handful of connected lawyers can rake in big fees.
The technique is simple. The elected surrogates in each county designate private attorneys to oversee the settling of wills and estates, and those lawyers can end up reaping handsome fees.
On average, attorney fees eat up about 15% of an estate, and the court in Manhattan handles about $1 billion worth of estates in any given year, creating an annual pool of $150 million in fees.
But problems arise when the lawyers aren't closely supervised. As the old courthouse joke goes, the client paying the bills is dead so nobody's complaining about excessive fees.
So one scandal after another has plagued the courts.
Former Brooklyn Surrogate Michael Feinberg got bounced from the bench for allowing a close friend to charge extra-high fees from the estates of the dead. One of Feinberg's successors, former Assemblyman Frank Seddio, resigned under a cloud last year shortly after taking office, when the Commission on Judicial Conduct raised questions about Seddio's use of campaign funds.
Bronx Surrogate Lee Holzman is being criticized for allowing attorneys to snap up $2 million in fees from an estate whose rightful heirs have been waiting more than a decade to receive what is rightfully theirs. With that in mind, here's how the race in Manhattan is shaping up.
The leading candidate, Nora Anderson, is backed by a batch of political clubs and snared a nod from The New York Times (the Daily News Editorial Board, of which I am a member, has yet to make an endorsement).
Anderson has borrowed $225,000 from her longtime employer, trust lawyer Seth Rubenstein, who is the grandson of a surrogate and the father of Manhattan lawyer Joshua Rubenstein, who heads the trust and estate section of a major law firm.
That's almost certainly a violation of Article 14, Section 114 of New York State election law, which specifies that a campaign loan "shall be deemed, to the extent not repaid by the date of the primary, general or special election, as the case may be, a contribution."
The $225,000 is far above the legal contribution limit. So Anderson, if she wins, will likely be in violation of the law.
John Reddy, another candidate, has worked in the Manhattan Surrogate's Court for 30 years. During that tenure, Reddy has seen two former law partners criticized in a state report for allegedly using unauthorized bank accounts to distribute estate money to other lawyers.
The third candidate, Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling, has no ties to the wills and estate business, but is backed by the Manhattan Democratic organization and Harlem powerbrokers like ex-Mayor David Dinkins and Rep. Charlie Rangel.
So it looks like the party favorite - the Tammany Hall candidate - just might be the one with the fewest ties to the clubby lawyers who feast on wills and estates year after year.
Go figure.
The hard-fought Democratic primary contest for Manhattan Surrogate heads into its final lap - the election is Tuesday - with the three candidates for the powerful judicial post acting like, well, politicians.
Nobody's throwing mud in the open, which would violate legal prohibitions on negative campaigning for judgeships.
But aides and supporters of John Reddy, Milton Tingling and Nora Anderson, the candidates for the specialized court which handles messy or contested wills and estates, have quietly pointed reporters toward the faults and defects of their rivals.
The portrait offers a look at an important public institution in desperate need of reform.
For decades, various courthouse or political clubhouse cliques have been bent on controlling - and perverting - the Surrogate's Courts, plundering the estates of the dead so that a handful of connected lawyers can rake in big fees.
The technique is simple. The elected surrogates in each county designate private attorneys to oversee the settling of wills and estates, and those lawyers can end up reaping handsome fees.
On average, attorney fees eat up about 15% of an estate, and the court in Manhattan handles about $1 billion worth of estates in any given year, creating an annual pool of $150 million in fees.
But problems arise when the lawyers aren't closely supervised. As the old courthouse joke goes, the client paying the bills is dead so nobody's complaining about excessive fees.
So one scandal after another has plagued the courts.
Former Brooklyn Surrogate Michael Feinberg got bounced from the bench for allowing a close friend to charge extra-high fees from the estates of the dead. One of Feinberg's successors, former Assemblyman Frank Seddio, resigned under a cloud last year shortly after taking office, when the Commission on Judicial Conduct raised questions about Seddio's use of campaign funds.
Bronx Surrogate Lee Holzman is being criticized for allowing attorneys to snap up $2 million in fees from an estate whose rightful heirs have been waiting more than a decade to receive what is rightfully theirs. With that in mind, here's how the race in Manhattan is shaping up.
The leading candidate, Nora Anderson, is backed by a batch of political clubs and snared a nod from The New York Times (the Daily News Editorial Board, of which I am a member, has yet to make an endorsement).
Anderson has borrowed $225,000 from her longtime employer, trust lawyer Seth Rubenstein, who is the grandson of a surrogate and the father of Manhattan lawyer Joshua Rubenstein, who heads the trust and estate section of a major law firm.
That's almost certainly a violation of Article 14, Section 114 of New York State election law, which specifies that a campaign loan "shall be deemed, to the extent not repaid by the date of the primary, general or special election, as the case may be, a contribution."
The $225,000 is far above the legal contribution limit. So Anderson, if she wins, will likely be in violation of the law.
John Reddy, another candidate, has worked in the Manhattan Surrogate's Court for 30 years. During that tenure, Reddy has seen two former law partners criticized in a state report for allegedly using unauthorized bank accounts to distribute estate money to other lawyers.
The third candidate, Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling, has no ties to the wills and estate business, but is backed by the Manhattan Democratic organization and Harlem powerbrokers like ex-Mayor David Dinkins and Rep. Charlie Rangel.
So it looks like the party favorite - the Tammany Hall candidate - just might be the one with the fewest ties to the clubby lawyers who feast on wills and estates year after year.
Go figure.
Citizen's Union
In the race for Manhattan Surrogate, Citizens Union evaluated both Reddy and Nora Anderson. It did not meet with Milton Tingling, the third candidate. In choosing Reddy, CU was impressed by his knowledge of the Surrogate's Court and the proceedings it handles. His plan to reform the Surrogate's Court showed an admirable thoughtfulness that earned our support for his election
Saturday, September 9, 2006
Daily News Endorsement and others
Best of a bad bunch
Saturday, September 6th 2008, 4:00 AM
Here's a question for you: Would you spend $270,000 of your own money on a campaign for a judgeship that pays $136,700?
No, you wouldn't.
And would you borrow an additional $225,000 for the same campaign, bringing your total potential outlay to half a million dollars, approaching four times the salary?
No again.
But that is what Manhattan lawyer Nora Anderson is doing in a series of financial transactions that should disqualify her as surrogate judge, a powerful post that hands out millions in patronage assignments to connected lawyers and accountants.
Anderson's campaign finances shout conflict of interest and raise an odor. She works for trusts and estates kingpin lawyer Seth Rubenstein, who gave her the $225,000 loan, on top of a $25,000 donation. His son is also a top trusts and estates lawyer.
Further, she is on the verge of violating the law. Her own campaign consultant says she will not repay the loan by Tuesday's primary. Yet state election law clearly states that all loans not fully repaid by the primary become donations - putting her gift from Rubenstein at seven times the legal limit.
Voters should reject her because if she wins, this will be a clear case for the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which would have the power to remove her from office.
The other two candidates are lawyer John Reddy and Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling. Reddy is an insider with three decades in Surrogate Court, who like Anderson raised an unseemly amount of money. His cash came from numerous lawyers with interests before the court, putting him a cut above Anderson.
Tingling is backed by the Harlem Democratic clubhouse, which is a drawback, but at least he hasn't gone overboard in collecting money. In a weak field, go with Tingling.
Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
---------------------------
In the race for Manhattan Surrogate, Citizens Union evaluated both Reddy and Nora Anderson. It did not meet with Milton Tingling, the third candidate. In choosing Reddy, CU was impressed by his knowledge of the Surrogate's Court and the proceedings it handles. His plan to reform the Surrogate's Court showed an admirable thoughtfulness that earned our support for his election
Saturday, September 6th 2008, 4:00 AM
Here's a question for you: Would you spend $270,000 of your own money on a campaign for a judgeship that pays $136,700?
No, you wouldn't.
And would you borrow an additional $225,000 for the same campaign, bringing your total potential outlay to half a million dollars, approaching four times the salary?
No again.
But that is what Manhattan lawyer Nora Anderson is doing in a series of financial transactions that should disqualify her as surrogate judge, a powerful post that hands out millions in patronage assignments to connected lawyers and accountants.
Anderson's campaign finances shout conflict of interest and raise an odor. She works for trusts and estates kingpin lawyer Seth Rubenstein, who gave her the $225,000 loan, on top of a $25,000 donation. His son is also a top trusts and estates lawyer.
Further, she is on the verge of violating the law. Her own campaign consultant says she will not repay the loan by Tuesday's primary. Yet state election law clearly states that all loans not fully repaid by the primary become donations - putting her gift from Rubenstein at seven times the legal limit.
Voters should reject her because if she wins, this will be a clear case for the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which would have the power to remove her from office.
The other two candidates are lawyer John Reddy and Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling. Reddy is an insider with three decades in Surrogate Court, who like Anderson raised an unseemly amount of money. His cash came from numerous lawyers with interests before the court, putting him a cut above Anderson.
Tingling is backed by the Harlem Democratic clubhouse, which is a drawback, but at least he hasn't gone overboard in collecting money. In a weak field, go with Tingling.
Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
---------------------------
In the race for Manhattan Surrogate, Citizens Union evaluated both Reddy and Nora Anderson. It did not meet with Milton Tingling, the third candidate. In choosing Reddy, CU was impressed by his knowledge of the Surrogate's Court and the proceedings it handles. His plan to reform the Surrogate's Court showed an admirable thoughtfulness that earned our support for his election
Friday, September 8, 2006
In Search of Real Reform
By Jason Boog Judicial Reportsjasonboog@judicialstudies.comPosted 08-27-2008 http://www.judicialreports.com/2008/08/post_121.php#more
The Surrogate Court has a checkered reputation. In Manhattan, three candidates are pledging to fix it. Their plans are quite different. But there's a common theme: change.
A New York Times editorial deftly described the Surrogate race in Manhattan: “[The] Democratic primary for Manhattan Surrogate underscores the case for reform … capable candidates — all promising reform of the court's patronage appointments — vied for the job, which involves dispensing millions of dollars in fees to lawyers acting as executors, guardians and estate trustees.”Unfortunately, that editorial was published 18 years ago (click here to read it), and this year’s Surrogate race is a rerun: an expensive slugfest in which every candidate promises to radically change the court. But real reforms are few. Indeed, former Surrogate Eve Preminger admitted in a recent interview that many lawyers who worked closely with that court never expected her to follow through with her 1990 campaign promises. “Nobody believed I was serious, everybody thought it was a publicity trip,” she said, maintaining a gloomy outlook on quick Surrogate Court fixes. Manhattan has two Surrogates, Kristen Booth Glen and Renee R. Roth, whose retirement after serving since 1983 created an current opening for the 10-year position. Surrogates assign legal guardians and fiduciaries to handle a number of tasks: calculating the value of estates, selling properties, and settling accounts. But because those assignments can often prove lucrative, the position has become tainted with a reputation for cronyism.REFORM-A-GO-ROUNDFulfilling one campaign promise, Preminger maintained a public list of attorneys and doled out many of them in an intentionally random process. While that particular change was also adopted by her successor, Booth Glen, the general reputation of the court has not improved. “Everybody running for the court in the last 50 years have said that they would reform the court,” said Gary Tilzer, a political consultant assisting in Supreme Court Justice Milton A. Tingling, Jr.’s current Surrogate bid in Manhattan. “But it just dissipates. There’s no follow-up.” In lieu of a more traditional website, the Tingling campaign has built an unofficial history of reform efforts at the blog, Facts About Manhattan Surrogate Court 2008. While the website is decidedly partisan, it details Surrogate scandals and failed reform efforts dating back to the 1960’s. Click here to see that site.The most recent spate of Surrogate scandals rocked the Brooklyn Surrogate Court. In 1995, then-Surrogate Bernard M. Bloom was censured for giving incorrect testimony during a court-appointed investigation of his former chief law assistant. Surrogate Michael H. Feinberg replaced him, and 10 years later, Feinberg was removed when it was discovered that he passed $8.5 million in fees to an attorney without filing the necessary paperwork. The Surrogate election game has remained unchanged as well. Three Surrogate Court candidates have raised buckets of cash for the 2008 race: Justice Tingling has raised $74,849, Seth Rubenstein attorney Nora Anderson has raised $112,634, and Bekerman & Reddy partner John J. Reddy, Jr. has raised a whopping $452,475. All have proposals that would exceed any historical reforms The main questions are whether the ideas would work and whether they’ll actually be enacted following the September 9 primary — which, in this overwhelmingly Democratic county, virtually assures victory at the general election.TINGLING’S AGENDAGiven the history of big promises and tiny changes, Judicial Reports asked experts in trusts and estates law to vet the three Surrogate Court reform platforms — to see how campaign promises appear under the scrutiny of scholarly microscopes.Justice Milton A. Tingling, Jr. is the only candidate running from the bench. He was elected to the Civil Court in 1996, and won a Supreme Court spot in 2001. Before becoming a judge, he spent years serving as Court Attorney, Law Assistant and Law Secretary for various New York City jurists. His reform platform hinges on two tenets. First, Tingling promises to create a “Blue Ribbon Commission” containing retired judges, legal leaders, and community members to act as a Surrogate watchdog — issuing two reports a year about the court’s activities. “Forty percent will not be lawyers,” he said in an interview. “They will be people who have previously experienced the system. We can talk about who’s doing the best for everybody, but who goes to the people who have been through [the Surrogate Court]?”Tingling currently serves as one of three New York City Supreme Court Justices assigned to work with guardianship appointments in the Supreme Court. According to Tingling, the three jurists currently have 500 guardianship cases pending — and, on average, seven new cases are added each week. (A number of guardianship cases land in the Civil Branch of the Supreme Court. For more information on those proceedings, click here.)He also said he would keep politicians out of lucrative guardian positions, a situation that breeds cronyism like bacteria in a Petri dish: “Not only will I be barring elected and appointed officials [from guardianships], but I will also be barring their families and their law firms.” Based on his experience with guardianships in the Supreme Court, Tingling concluded that many lawyers avoid the low-paying guardianships, vying only for positions with higher fees.“I will not assign somebody unless they agree to do two or more cases where there are no fees,” he added. “You’re not going to get appointments unless you agree to take those with little or no money.” Two legal experts had different opinions about Justice Tingling’s ideas. Wallace L. Leinheardt, Chair of the New York State Bar Association’s Trusts and Estates Law Section, felt that restricting the attorney pool that a Surrogate could appoint was generally bad policy. A partner at Jaspan Schlesinger Hoffman, he recalled an incident from former Brooklyn Surrogate Bernard Bloom’s tenure. Bloom had served as a Brooklyn District Leader for the Democratic Party before taking his office. “When he was asked by a reporter why he appointed his friends, his response was, ‘Who do you want me to appoint, my enemies?’ ” recalled Leinheardt. “It was a joke, but the judge should have an ability to appoint lawyers whose skills they know.”Stewart E. Sterk, a Real Estate Law Professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, disagreed — adding that the public had a fundamental right to know exactly why a judge appointed a particular lawyer to a particular case. “The best reforms come from the media getting in and reporting on what happens with some regularity,” he said. “The difficulty is showing who benefits from these courts. There are many appointments that a surrogate has to make, and the question is on what basis?”Former Surrogate Preminger said if she were running for the office again, she would consider making a similar pledge to keep out political leaders. “It cleans up what happens in the Surrogate race,” she said, “[and] maybe that would look better to the public.” While the former Surrogate claimed that her list of potential appointees never included political leaders, she recalled receiving multiple lunch invitations from political leaders interested in discussing appointments during her tenure.A REDDY ANSWEROut of all three candidates, John J. Reddy, Jr., offered the most dramatic restrictions on his appointment power.
“I’m going to have someone from my office go through my list of contributors and find the people who contributed to my campaign and the law firms they work for,” he explained in an interview. “They will be deleted from my list of eligible lawyers. I won’t be able to show preference in any way.”
(Reddy cannot perform this function himself, since State Election Law prohibits judicial candidates from knowing who gave them donations.) Click here to visit Reddy’s campaign website.Professor Sterk emphatically supported Reddy’s proposal. “I think that’s terrific,” he said. “Repudiating appointments for anybody who gives donations has to be a good start. It seems to me that’s a no-brainer, as long as we have an elective system.” Leinheardt called the move “naive.” A treasurer for many past judicial campaigns, he said that it would be a waste of resources to exclude attorneys just because they’d been generous. “In a race like this, lawyers are the natural [contributors]. Manhattan has to be the worst place in terms of media costs — it costs a bloody fortune,” he said. The former Surrogate agreed. “I don’t think it’s going to do anything,” Preminger said. “It depends on the integrity of the judge and the person the judge appoints.”In addition, Reddy's campaign materials also pledge that he “will not award guardianships to politicians, party and political club officials, individuals who contribute to his campaign, and attorneys related to or from the same law firms as those individuals or retired Surrogate Judges.”ANDERSON’S OUTSOURCING The final candidate for Surrogate is Nora Anderson, an attorney at the firm of Seth Rubenstein and a former Law Secretary to Supreme Court Justice Albert Williams. Click here to visit Anderson’s campaign website.Rubenstein is a probate lawyer who has made a tidy business out of Surrogate Court appointments. Earlier in the race, a number of press outlets noted that Anderson had received a large campaign loan from her employer, but the candidate has publicly pledged to repay that debt. Anderson has also proposed a solution that could eliminate the potential conflict with her employer altogether.Anderson advocates having the Corporation Counsel’s Office make guardianship appointments going forward. “You would only need five lawyers to handle that caseload,” explained Anderson in an interview.Professor Sterk was skeptical.“Anybody who does the assignments is now subject to pressure. All you are doing is moving issues from one body to the other. Maybe the Office of Court Administration or Corporation Counsel Office is a little more immune to misbehavior, but there’s no reason to believe that’s true,” he concluded, suggesting that a completely independent agnecy field the guardianship appointments for fixed fees. Leinheardt disagreed for different reasons. The State Bar Trusts and Estates Law Section chair reiterated his position that the ultimate decision about ad litem assignments should always be up to the Surrogate Judge. “I personally prefer to see private attorneys [appointed], in my experience with bureaucracy and public service, it’s not always as responsive as it should be,” he said.Leinheardt used Nora Anderson’s firm to illustrate how an automatic system could miss the benefit of a Surrogate’s judgment . “Seth Rubenstein is a good example,” he explained. “He is a leading practitioner in this area, highly qualified. I would understand in the Brooke Astor case why you need somebody like Seth Rubenstein. In a high profile case like that, he’s best qualified to serve in that case.”Out of all the experts interviewed for this story, only one had endorsed one of the Surrogate Court candidates. Surrogate Preminger said that Nora Anderson was her favorite, and was inspired by the attorney’s Corporation Counsel idea — though she wondered how the State would pay for the new arrangement.For her part, Anderson added that she might be able to fast-track the idea. “It may be possible with the okay of the mayor,” she said. “This mayor has a can-do attitude. I think he may see this as a positive thing.” Said Preminger: “It might chance the public image [of the court], because nothing we’ve done has changed the image.”The challenge for the contenders, then, is not just to win election to the post but to change the post itself. Which, given its history, would be more than a reform. It would be a revelation.
Posted by Jason Boog on August 27, 2008 01:56 AM Permalink Print
The Surrogate Court has a checkered reputation. In Manhattan, three candidates are pledging to fix it. Their plans are quite different. But there's a common theme: change.
A New York Times editorial deftly described the Surrogate race in Manhattan: “[The] Democratic primary for Manhattan Surrogate underscores the case for reform … capable candidates — all promising reform of the court's patronage appointments — vied for the job, which involves dispensing millions of dollars in fees to lawyers acting as executors, guardians and estate trustees.”Unfortunately, that editorial was published 18 years ago (click here to read it), and this year’s Surrogate race is a rerun: an expensive slugfest in which every candidate promises to radically change the court. But real reforms are few. Indeed, former Surrogate Eve Preminger admitted in a recent interview that many lawyers who worked closely with that court never expected her to follow through with her 1990 campaign promises. “Nobody believed I was serious, everybody thought it was a publicity trip,” she said, maintaining a gloomy outlook on quick Surrogate Court fixes. Manhattan has two Surrogates, Kristen Booth Glen and Renee R. Roth, whose retirement after serving since 1983 created an current opening for the 10-year position. Surrogates assign legal guardians and fiduciaries to handle a number of tasks: calculating the value of estates, selling properties, and settling accounts. But because those assignments can often prove lucrative, the position has become tainted with a reputation for cronyism.REFORM-A-GO-ROUNDFulfilling one campaign promise, Preminger maintained a public list of attorneys and doled out many of them in an intentionally random process. While that particular change was also adopted by her successor, Booth Glen, the general reputation of the court has not improved. “Everybody running for the court in the last 50 years have said that they would reform the court,” said Gary Tilzer, a political consultant assisting in Supreme Court Justice Milton A. Tingling, Jr.’s current Surrogate bid in Manhattan. “But it just dissipates. There’s no follow-up.” In lieu of a more traditional website, the Tingling campaign has built an unofficial history of reform efforts at the blog, Facts About Manhattan Surrogate Court 2008. While the website is decidedly partisan, it details Surrogate scandals and failed reform efforts dating back to the 1960’s. Click here to see that site.The most recent spate of Surrogate scandals rocked the Brooklyn Surrogate Court. In 1995, then-Surrogate Bernard M. Bloom was censured for giving incorrect testimony during a court-appointed investigation of his former chief law assistant. Surrogate Michael H. Feinberg replaced him, and 10 years later, Feinberg was removed when it was discovered that he passed $8.5 million in fees to an attorney without filing the necessary paperwork. The Surrogate election game has remained unchanged as well. Three Surrogate Court candidates have raised buckets of cash for the 2008 race: Justice Tingling has raised $74,849, Seth Rubenstein attorney Nora Anderson has raised $112,634, and Bekerman & Reddy partner John J. Reddy, Jr. has raised a whopping $452,475. All have proposals that would exceed any historical reforms The main questions are whether the ideas would work and whether they’ll actually be enacted following the September 9 primary — which, in this overwhelmingly Democratic county, virtually assures victory at the general election.TINGLING’S AGENDAGiven the history of big promises and tiny changes, Judicial Reports asked experts in trusts and estates law to vet the three Surrogate Court reform platforms — to see how campaign promises appear under the scrutiny of scholarly microscopes.Justice Milton A. Tingling, Jr. is the only candidate running from the bench. He was elected to the Civil Court in 1996, and won a Supreme Court spot in 2001. Before becoming a judge, he spent years serving as Court Attorney, Law Assistant and Law Secretary for various New York City jurists. His reform platform hinges on two tenets. First, Tingling promises to create a “Blue Ribbon Commission” containing retired judges, legal leaders, and community members to act as a Surrogate watchdog — issuing two reports a year about the court’s activities. “Forty percent will not be lawyers,” he said in an interview. “They will be people who have previously experienced the system. We can talk about who’s doing the best for everybody, but who goes to the people who have been through [the Surrogate Court]?”Tingling currently serves as one of three New York City Supreme Court Justices assigned to work with guardianship appointments in the Supreme Court. According to Tingling, the three jurists currently have 500 guardianship cases pending — and, on average, seven new cases are added each week. (A number of guardianship cases land in the Civil Branch of the Supreme Court. For more information on those proceedings, click here.)He also said he would keep politicians out of lucrative guardian positions, a situation that breeds cronyism like bacteria in a Petri dish: “Not only will I be barring elected and appointed officials [from guardianships], but I will also be barring their families and their law firms.” Based on his experience with guardianships in the Supreme Court, Tingling concluded that many lawyers avoid the low-paying guardianships, vying only for positions with higher fees.“I will not assign somebody unless they agree to do two or more cases where there are no fees,” he added. “You’re not going to get appointments unless you agree to take those with little or no money.” Two legal experts had different opinions about Justice Tingling’s ideas. Wallace L. Leinheardt, Chair of the New York State Bar Association’s Trusts and Estates Law Section, felt that restricting the attorney pool that a Surrogate could appoint was generally bad policy. A partner at Jaspan Schlesinger Hoffman, he recalled an incident from former Brooklyn Surrogate Bernard Bloom’s tenure. Bloom had served as a Brooklyn District Leader for the Democratic Party before taking his office. “When he was asked by a reporter why he appointed his friends, his response was, ‘Who do you want me to appoint, my enemies?’ ” recalled Leinheardt. “It was a joke, but the judge should have an ability to appoint lawyers whose skills they know.”Stewart E. Sterk, a Real Estate Law Professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, disagreed — adding that the public had a fundamental right to know exactly why a judge appointed a particular lawyer to a particular case. “The best reforms come from the media getting in and reporting on what happens with some regularity,” he said. “The difficulty is showing who benefits from these courts. There are many appointments that a surrogate has to make, and the question is on what basis?”Former Surrogate Preminger said if she were running for the office again, she would consider making a similar pledge to keep out political leaders. “It cleans up what happens in the Surrogate race,” she said, “[and] maybe that would look better to the public.” While the former Surrogate claimed that her list of potential appointees never included political leaders, she recalled receiving multiple lunch invitations from political leaders interested in discussing appointments during her tenure.A REDDY ANSWEROut of all three candidates, John J. Reddy, Jr., offered the most dramatic restrictions on his appointment power.
“I’m going to have someone from my office go through my list of contributors and find the people who contributed to my campaign and the law firms they work for,” he explained in an interview. “They will be deleted from my list of eligible lawyers. I won’t be able to show preference in any way.”
(Reddy cannot perform this function himself, since State Election Law prohibits judicial candidates from knowing who gave them donations.) Click here to visit Reddy’s campaign website.Professor Sterk emphatically supported Reddy’s proposal. “I think that’s terrific,” he said. “Repudiating appointments for anybody who gives donations has to be a good start. It seems to me that’s a no-brainer, as long as we have an elective system.” Leinheardt called the move “naive.” A treasurer for many past judicial campaigns, he said that it would be a waste of resources to exclude attorneys just because they’d been generous. “In a race like this, lawyers are the natural [contributors]. Manhattan has to be the worst place in terms of media costs — it costs a bloody fortune,” he said. The former Surrogate agreed. “I don’t think it’s going to do anything,” Preminger said. “It depends on the integrity of the judge and the person the judge appoints.”In addition, Reddy's campaign materials also pledge that he “will not award guardianships to politicians, party and political club officials, individuals who contribute to his campaign, and attorneys related to or from the same law firms as those individuals or retired Surrogate Judges.”ANDERSON’S OUTSOURCING The final candidate for Surrogate is Nora Anderson, an attorney at the firm of Seth Rubenstein and a former Law Secretary to Supreme Court Justice Albert Williams. Click here to visit Anderson’s campaign website.Rubenstein is a probate lawyer who has made a tidy business out of Surrogate Court appointments. Earlier in the race, a number of press outlets noted that Anderson had received a large campaign loan from her employer, but the candidate has publicly pledged to repay that debt. Anderson has also proposed a solution that could eliminate the potential conflict with her employer altogether.Anderson advocates having the Corporation Counsel’s Office make guardianship appointments going forward. “You would only need five lawyers to handle that caseload,” explained Anderson in an interview.Professor Sterk was skeptical.“Anybody who does the assignments is now subject to pressure. All you are doing is moving issues from one body to the other. Maybe the Office of Court Administration or Corporation Counsel Office is a little more immune to misbehavior, but there’s no reason to believe that’s true,” he concluded, suggesting that a completely independent agnecy field the guardianship appointments for fixed fees. Leinheardt disagreed for different reasons. The State Bar Trusts and Estates Law Section chair reiterated his position that the ultimate decision about ad litem assignments should always be up to the Surrogate Judge. “I personally prefer to see private attorneys [appointed], in my experience with bureaucracy and public service, it’s not always as responsive as it should be,” he said.Leinheardt used Nora Anderson’s firm to illustrate how an automatic system could miss the benefit of a Surrogate’s judgment . “Seth Rubenstein is a good example,” he explained. “He is a leading practitioner in this area, highly qualified. I would understand in the Brooke Astor case why you need somebody like Seth Rubenstein. In a high profile case like that, he’s best qualified to serve in that case.”Out of all the experts interviewed for this story, only one had endorsed one of the Surrogate Court candidates. Surrogate Preminger said that Nora Anderson was her favorite, and was inspired by the attorney’s Corporation Counsel idea — though she wondered how the State would pay for the new arrangement.For her part, Anderson added that she might be able to fast-track the idea. “It may be possible with the okay of the mayor,” she said. “This mayor has a can-do attitude. I think he may see this as a positive thing.” Said Preminger: “It might chance the public image [of the court], because nothing we’ve done has changed the image.”The challenge for the contenders, then, is not just to win election to the post but to change the post itself. Which, given its history, would be more than a reform. It would be a revelation.
Posted by Jason Boog on August 27, 2008 01:56 AM Permalink Print
In Search of Real Reform
By Jason Boog Judicial Reportsjasonboog@judicialstudies.comPosted 08-27-2008 http://www.judicialreports.com/2008/08/post_121.php#more
The Surrogate Court has a checkered reputation. In Manhattan, three candidates are pledging to fix it. Their plans are quite different. But there's a common theme: change.
A New York Times editorial deftly described the Surrogate race in Manhattan: “[The] Democratic primary for Manhattan Surrogate underscores the case for reform … capable candidates — all promising reform of the court's patronage appointments — vied for the job, which involves dispensing millions of dollars in fees to lawyers acting as executors, guardians and estate trustees.”Unfortunately, that editorial was published 18 years ago (click here to read it), and this year’s Surrogate race is a rerun: an expensive slugfest in which every candidate promises to radically change the court. But real reforms are few. Indeed, former Surrogate Eve Preminger admitted in a recent interview that many lawyers who worked closely with that court never expected her to follow through with her 1990 campaign promises. “Nobody believed I was serious, everybody thought it was a publicity trip,” she said, maintaining a gloomy outlook on quick Surrogate Court fixes. Manhattan has two Surrogates, Kristen Booth Glen and Renee R. Roth, whose retirement after serving since 1983 created an current opening for the 10-year position. Surrogates assign legal guardians and fiduciaries to handle a number of tasks: calculating the value of estates, selling properties, and settling accounts. But because those assignments can often prove lucrative, the position has become tainted with a reputation for cronyism.REFORM-A-GO-ROUNDFulfilling one campaign promise, Preminger maintained a public list of attorneys and doled out many of them in an intentionally random process. While that particular change was also adopted by her successor, Booth Glen, the general reputation of the court has not improved. “Everybody running for the court in the last 50 years have said that they would reform the court,” said Gary Tilzer, a political consultant assisting in Supreme Court Justice Milton A. Tingling, Jr.’s current Surrogate bid in Manhattan. “But it just dissipates. There’s no follow-up.” In lieu of a more traditional website, the Tingling campaign has built an unofficial history of reform efforts at the blog, Facts About Manhattan Surrogate Court 2008. While the website is decidedly partisan, it details Surrogate scandals and failed reform efforts dating back to the 1960’s. Click here to see that site.The most recent spate of Surrogate scandals rocked the Brooklyn Surrogate Court. In 1995, then-Surrogate Bernard M. Bloom was censured for giving incorrect testimony during a court-appointed investigation of his former chief law assistant. Surrogate Michael H. Feinberg replaced him, and 10 years later, Feinberg was removed when it was discovered that he passed $8.5 million in fees to an attorney without filing the necessary paperwork. The Surrogate election game has remained unchanged as well. Three Surrogate Court candidates have raised buckets of cash for the 2008 race: Justice Tingling has raised $74,849, Seth Rubenstein attorney Nora Anderson has raised $112,634, and Bekerman & Reddy partner John J. Reddy, Jr. has raised a whopping $452,475. All have proposals that would exceed any historical reforms The main questions are whether the ideas would work and whether they’ll actually be enacted following the September 9 primary — which, in this overwhelmingly Democratic county, virtually assures victory at the general election.TINGLING’S AGENDAGiven the history of big promises and tiny changes, Judicial Reports asked experts in trusts and estates law to vet the three Surrogate Court reform platforms — to see how campaign promises appear under the scrutiny of scholarly microscopes.Justice Milton A. Tingling, Jr. is the only candidate running from the bench. He was elected to the Civil Court in 1996, and won a Supreme Court spot in 2001. Before becoming a judge, he spent years serving as Court Attorney, Law Assistant and Law Secretary for various New York City jurists. His reform platform hinges on two tenets. First, Tingling promises to create a “Blue Ribbon Commission” containing retired judges, legal leaders, and community members to act as a Surrogate watchdog — issuing two reports a year about the court’s activities. “Forty percent will not be lawyers,” he said in an interview. “They will be people who have previously experienced the system. We can talk about who’s doing the best for everybody, but who goes to the people who have been through [the Surrogate Court]?”Tingling currently serves as one of three New York City Supreme Court Justices assigned to work with guardianship appointments in the Supreme Court. According to Tingling, the three jurists currently have 500 guardianship cases pending — and, on average, seven new cases are added each week. (A number of guardianship cases land in the Civil Branch of the Supreme Court. For more information on those proceedings, click here.)He also said he would keep politicians out of lucrative guardian positions, a situation that breeds cronyism like bacteria in a Petri dish: “Not only will I be barring elected and appointed officials [from guardianships], but I will also be barring their families and their law firms.” Based on his experience with guardianships in the Supreme Court, Tingling concluded that many lawyers avoid the low-paying guardianships, vying only for positions with higher fees.“I will not assign somebody unless they agree to do two or more cases where there are no fees,” he added. “You’re not going to get appointments unless you agree to take those with little or no money.” Two legal experts had different opinions about Justice Tingling’s ideas. Wallace L. Leinheardt, Chair of the New York State Bar Association’s Trusts and Estates Law Section, felt that restricting the attorney pool that a Surrogate could appoint was generally bad policy. A partner at Jaspan Schlesinger Hoffman, he recalled an incident from former Brooklyn Surrogate Bernard Bloom’s tenure. Bloom had served as a Brooklyn District Leader for the Democratic Party before taking his office. “When he was asked by a reporter why he appointed his friends, his response was, ‘Who do you want me to appoint, my enemies?’ ” recalled Leinheardt. “It was a joke, but the judge should have an ability to appoint lawyers whose skills they know.”Stewart E. Sterk, a Real Estate Law Professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, disagreed — adding that the public had a fundamental right to know exactly why a judge appointed a particular lawyer to a particular case. “The best reforms come from the media getting in and reporting on what happens with some regularity,” he said. “The difficulty is showing who benefits from these courts. There are many appointments that a surrogate has to make, and the question is on what basis?”Former Surrogate Preminger said if she were running for the office again, she would consider making a similar pledge to keep out political leaders. “It cleans up what happens in the Surrogate race,” she said, “[and] maybe that would look better to the public.” While the former Surrogate claimed that her list of potential appointees never included political leaders, she recalled receiving multiple lunch invitations from political leaders interested in discussing appointments during her tenure.A REDDY ANSWEROut of all three candidates, John J. Reddy, Jr., offered the most dramatic restrictions on his appointment power.
“I’m going to have someone from my office go through my list of contributors and find the people who contributed to my campaign and the law firms they work for,” he explained in an interview. “They will be deleted from my list of eligible lawyers. I won’t be able to show preference in any way.”
(Reddy cannot perform this function himself, since State Election Law prohibits judicial candidates from knowing who gave them donations.) Click here to visit Reddy’s campaign website.Professor Sterk emphatically supported Reddy’s proposal. “I think that’s terrific,” he said. “Repudiating appointments for anybody who gives donations has to be a good start. It seems to me that’s a no-brainer, as long as we have an elective system.” Leinheardt called the move “naive.” A treasurer for many past judicial campaigns, he said that it would be a waste of resources to exclude attorneys just because they’d been generous. “In a race like this, lawyers are the natural [contributors]. Manhattan has to be the worst place in terms of media costs — it costs a bloody fortune,” he said. The former Surrogate agreed. “I don’t think it’s going to do anything,” Preminger said. “It depends on the integrity of the judge and the person the judge appoints.”In addition, Reddy's campaign materials also pledge that he “will not award guardianships to politicians, party and political club officials, individuals who contribute to his campaign, and attorneys related to or from the same law firms as those individuals or retired Surrogate Judges.”ANDERSON’S OUTSOURCING The final candidate for Surrogate is Nora Anderson, an attorney at the firm of Seth Rubenstein and a former Law Secretary to Supreme Court Justice Albert Williams. Click here to visit Anderson’s campaign website.Rubenstein is a probate lawyer who has made a tidy business out of Surrogate Court appointments. Earlier in the race, a number of press outlets noted that Anderson had received a large campaign loan from her employer, but the candidate has publicly pledged to repay that debt. Anderson has also proposed a solution that could eliminate the potential conflict with her employer altogether.Anderson advocates having the Corporation Counsel’s Office make guardianship appointments going forward. “You would only need five lawyers to handle that caseload,” explained Anderson in an interview.Professor Sterk was skeptical.“Anybody who does the assignments is now subject to pressure. All you are doing is moving issues from one body to the other. Maybe the Office of Court Administration or Corporation Counsel Office is a little more immune to misbehavior, but there’s no reason to believe that’s true,” he concluded, suggesting that a completely independent agnecy field the guardianship appointments for fixed fees. Leinheardt disagreed for different reasons. The State Bar Trusts and Estates Law Section chair reiterated his position that the ultimate decision about ad litem assignments should always be up to the Surrogate Judge. “I personally prefer to see private attorneys [appointed], in my experience with bureaucracy and public service, it’s not always as responsive as it should be,” he said.Leinheardt used Nora Anderson’s firm to illustrate how an automatic system could miss the benefit of a Surrogate’s judgment . “Seth Rubenstein is a good example,” he explained. “He is a leading practitioner in this area, highly qualified. I would understand in the Brooke Astor case why you need somebody like Seth Rubenstein. In a high profile case like that, he’s best qualified to serve in that case.”Out of all the experts interviewed for this story, only one had endorsed one of the Surrogate Court candidates. Surrogate Preminger said that Nora Anderson was her favorite, and was inspired by the attorney’s Corporation Counsel idea — though she wondered how the State would pay for the new arrangement.For her part, Anderson added that she might be able to fast-track the idea. “It may be possible with the okay of the mayor,” she said. “This mayor has a can-do attitude. I think he may see this as a positive thing.” Said Preminger: “It might chance the public image [of the court], because nothing we’ve done has changed the image.”The challenge for the contenders, then, is not just to win election to the post but to change the post itself. Which, given its history, would be more than a reform. It would be a revelation.
Posted by Jason Boog on August 27, 2008 01:56 AM Permalink Print
The Surrogate Court has a checkered reputation. In Manhattan, three candidates are pledging to fix it. Their plans are quite different. But there's a common theme: change.
A New York Times editorial deftly described the Surrogate race in Manhattan: “[The] Democratic primary for Manhattan Surrogate underscores the case for reform … capable candidates — all promising reform of the court's patronage appointments — vied for the job, which involves dispensing millions of dollars in fees to lawyers acting as executors, guardians and estate trustees.”Unfortunately, that editorial was published 18 years ago (click here to read it), and this year’s Surrogate race is a rerun: an expensive slugfest in which every candidate promises to radically change the court. But real reforms are few. Indeed, former Surrogate Eve Preminger admitted in a recent interview that many lawyers who worked closely with that court never expected her to follow through with her 1990 campaign promises. “Nobody believed I was serious, everybody thought it was a publicity trip,” she said, maintaining a gloomy outlook on quick Surrogate Court fixes. Manhattan has two Surrogates, Kristen Booth Glen and Renee R. Roth, whose retirement after serving since 1983 created an current opening for the 10-year position. Surrogates assign legal guardians and fiduciaries to handle a number of tasks: calculating the value of estates, selling properties, and settling accounts. But because those assignments can often prove lucrative, the position has become tainted with a reputation for cronyism.REFORM-A-GO-ROUNDFulfilling one campaign promise, Preminger maintained a public list of attorneys and doled out many of them in an intentionally random process. While that particular change was also adopted by her successor, Booth Glen, the general reputation of the court has not improved. “Everybody running for the court in the last 50 years have said that they would reform the court,” said Gary Tilzer, a political consultant assisting in Supreme Court Justice Milton A. Tingling, Jr.’s current Surrogate bid in Manhattan. “But it just dissipates. There’s no follow-up.” In lieu of a more traditional website, the Tingling campaign has built an unofficial history of reform efforts at the blog, Facts About Manhattan Surrogate Court 2008. While the website is decidedly partisan, it details Surrogate scandals and failed reform efforts dating back to the 1960’s. Click here to see that site.The most recent spate of Surrogate scandals rocked the Brooklyn Surrogate Court. In 1995, then-Surrogate Bernard M. Bloom was censured for giving incorrect testimony during a court-appointed investigation of his former chief law assistant. Surrogate Michael H. Feinberg replaced him, and 10 years later, Feinberg was removed when it was discovered that he passed $8.5 million in fees to an attorney without filing the necessary paperwork. The Surrogate election game has remained unchanged as well. Three Surrogate Court candidates have raised buckets of cash for the 2008 race: Justice Tingling has raised $74,849, Seth Rubenstein attorney Nora Anderson has raised $112,634, and Bekerman & Reddy partner John J. Reddy, Jr. has raised a whopping $452,475. All have proposals that would exceed any historical reforms The main questions are whether the ideas would work and whether they’ll actually be enacted following the September 9 primary — which, in this overwhelmingly Democratic county, virtually assures victory at the general election.TINGLING’S AGENDAGiven the history of big promises and tiny changes, Judicial Reports asked experts in trusts and estates law to vet the three Surrogate Court reform platforms — to see how campaign promises appear under the scrutiny of scholarly microscopes.Justice Milton A. Tingling, Jr. is the only candidate running from the bench. He was elected to the Civil Court in 1996, and won a Supreme Court spot in 2001. Before becoming a judge, he spent years serving as Court Attorney, Law Assistant and Law Secretary for various New York City jurists. His reform platform hinges on two tenets. First, Tingling promises to create a “Blue Ribbon Commission” containing retired judges, legal leaders, and community members to act as a Surrogate watchdog — issuing two reports a year about the court’s activities. “Forty percent will not be lawyers,” he said in an interview. “They will be people who have previously experienced the system. We can talk about who’s doing the best for everybody, but who goes to the people who have been through [the Surrogate Court]?”Tingling currently serves as one of three New York City Supreme Court Justices assigned to work with guardianship appointments in the Supreme Court. According to Tingling, the three jurists currently have 500 guardianship cases pending — and, on average, seven new cases are added each week. (A number of guardianship cases land in the Civil Branch of the Supreme Court. For more information on those proceedings, click here.)He also said he would keep politicians out of lucrative guardian positions, a situation that breeds cronyism like bacteria in a Petri dish: “Not only will I be barring elected and appointed officials [from guardianships], but I will also be barring their families and their law firms.” Based on his experience with guardianships in the Supreme Court, Tingling concluded that many lawyers avoid the low-paying guardianships, vying only for positions with higher fees.“I will not assign somebody unless they agree to do two or more cases where there are no fees,” he added. “You’re not going to get appointments unless you agree to take those with little or no money.” Two legal experts had different opinions about Justice Tingling’s ideas. Wallace L. Leinheardt, Chair of the New York State Bar Association’s Trusts and Estates Law Section, felt that restricting the attorney pool that a Surrogate could appoint was generally bad policy. A partner at Jaspan Schlesinger Hoffman, he recalled an incident from former Brooklyn Surrogate Bernard Bloom’s tenure. Bloom had served as a Brooklyn District Leader for the Democratic Party before taking his office. “When he was asked by a reporter why he appointed his friends, his response was, ‘Who do you want me to appoint, my enemies?’ ” recalled Leinheardt. “It was a joke, but the judge should have an ability to appoint lawyers whose skills they know.”Stewart E. Sterk, a Real Estate Law Professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, disagreed — adding that the public had a fundamental right to know exactly why a judge appointed a particular lawyer to a particular case. “The best reforms come from the media getting in and reporting on what happens with some regularity,” he said. “The difficulty is showing who benefits from these courts. There are many appointments that a surrogate has to make, and the question is on what basis?”Former Surrogate Preminger said if she were running for the office again, she would consider making a similar pledge to keep out political leaders. “It cleans up what happens in the Surrogate race,” she said, “[and] maybe that would look better to the public.” While the former Surrogate claimed that her list of potential appointees never included political leaders, she recalled receiving multiple lunch invitations from political leaders interested in discussing appointments during her tenure.A REDDY ANSWEROut of all three candidates, John J. Reddy, Jr., offered the most dramatic restrictions on his appointment power.
“I’m going to have someone from my office go through my list of contributors and find the people who contributed to my campaign and the law firms they work for,” he explained in an interview. “They will be deleted from my list of eligible lawyers. I won’t be able to show preference in any way.”
(Reddy cannot perform this function himself, since State Election Law prohibits judicial candidates from knowing who gave them donations.) Click here to visit Reddy’s campaign website.Professor Sterk emphatically supported Reddy’s proposal. “I think that’s terrific,” he said. “Repudiating appointments for anybody who gives donations has to be a good start. It seems to me that’s a no-brainer, as long as we have an elective system.” Leinheardt called the move “naive.” A treasurer for many past judicial campaigns, he said that it would be a waste of resources to exclude attorneys just because they’d been generous. “In a race like this, lawyers are the natural [contributors]. Manhattan has to be the worst place in terms of media costs — it costs a bloody fortune,” he said. The former Surrogate agreed. “I don’t think it’s going to do anything,” Preminger said. “It depends on the integrity of the judge and the person the judge appoints.”In addition, Reddy's campaign materials also pledge that he “will not award guardianships to politicians, party and political club officials, individuals who contribute to his campaign, and attorneys related to or from the same law firms as those individuals or retired Surrogate Judges.”ANDERSON’S OUTSOURCING The final candidate for Surrogate is Nora Anderson, an attorney at the firm of Seth Rubenstein and a former Law Secretary to Supreme Court Justice Albert Williams. Click here to visit Anderson’s campaign website.Rubenstein is a probate lawyer who has made a tidy business out of Surrogate Court appointments. Earlier in the race, a number of press outlets noted that Anderson had received a large campaign loan from her employer, but the candidate has publicly pledged to repay that debt. Anderson has also proposed a solution that could eliminate the potential conflict with her employer altogether.Anderson advocates having the Corporation Counsel’s Office make guardianship appointments going forward. “You would only need five lawyers to handle that caseload,” explained Anderson in an interview.Professor Sterk was skeptical.“Anybody who does the assignments is now subject to pressure. All you are doing is moving issues from one body to the other. Maybe the Office of Court Administration or Corporation Counsel Office is a little more immune to misbehavior, but there’s no reason to believe that’s true,” he concluded, suggesting that a completely independent agnecy field the guardianship appointments for fixed fees. Leinheardt disagreed for different reasons. The State Bar Trusts and Estates Law Section chair reiterated his position that the ultimate decision about ad litem assignments should always be up to the Surrogate Judge. “I personally prefer to see private attorneys [appointed], in my experience with bureaucracy and public service, it’s not always as responsive as it should be,” he said.Leinheardt used Nora Anderson’s firm to illustrate how an automatic system could miss the benefit of a Surrogate’s judgment . “Seth Rubenstein is a good example,” he explained. “He is a leading practitioner in this area, highly qualified. I would understand in the Brooke Astor case why you need somebody like Seth Rubenstein. In a high profile case like that, he’s best qualified to serve in that case.”Out of all the experts interviewed for this story, only one had endorsed one of the Surrogate Court candidates. Surrogate Preminger said that Nora Anderson was her favorite, and was inspired by the attorney’s Corporation Counsel idea — though she wondered how the State would pay for the new arrangement.For her part, Anderson added that she might be able to fast-track the idea. “It may be possible with the okay of the mayor,” she said. “This mayor has a can-do attitude. I think he may see this as a positive thing.” Said Preminger: “It might chance the public image [of the court], because nothing we’ve done has changed the image.”The challenge for the contenders, then, is not just to win election to the post but to change the post itself. Which, given its history, would be more than a reform. It would be a revelation.
Posted by Jason Boog on August 27, 2008 01:56 AM Permalink Print
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
NY Times Editorial
For Judgeships in New York City
·
Published: August 22, 2008
Races for judgeships rarely get the full attention they deserve. But New York City’s courts need the most dedicated and capable jurists. Luckily, there are a few good candidates — and not so luckily some real clunkers — running in New York City’s Sept. 9 primary. Here are our recommendations in three of those matchups.
Skip to next paragraph
Additional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board »
SURROGATE’S COURT, MANHATTAN This obscure but unusually powerful court oversees wills, estates and adoptions — and is badly in need of change. The retirement of Renee Roth after 25 years as one of the borough’s two Surrogate’s Court judges is an opportunity to improve the court’s reputation. Ms. Roth will leave behind a legacy of unconscionable delays in deciding cases, imperious behavior and a tendency to use her office to reward cronies and further her personal interests.
Voters need to decide which of the three candidates vying to succeed her — Milton Tingling, John Reddy Jr. and Nora Anderson — has the independence and know-how to work effectively with Manhattan’s second, reform-minded Surrogate’s Court judge, Kristin Booth Glen, to transform the court.
Mr. Tingling, an affable but undistinguished state Supreme Court justice, seems least up to the task. Mr. Reddy, Ms. Roth’s handpicked counsel to the office charged with handling estates of those who die without wills, has an appealing manner and is plainly capable. But his ties to Ms. Roth and tolerance for the old-style, back-scratching culture make us doubt he would be an aggressive agent of change.
Our endorsement goes to Nora Anderson, an experienced trust and estates lawyer and former chief clerk in the Surrogate’s Court. Her decision to accept a large campaign loan from a mentor — a prominent trust and estates attorney — gives us pause. But we take seriously her pledge that he will not appear before her and believe, over all, that she offers the best hope of positive reform.
CIVIL COURT, MANHATTAN In this race for a countywide seat, we favor Nancy Bannon over Michael Katz. Both currently serve as law clerks in State Supreme Court. Both are able and committed to making the legal system more accessible for less-wealthy litigants. But Ms. Bannon’s thoughtful manner and depth of legal experience give her the edge.
CIVIL COURT, THE BRONX The standout in this race is Elizabeth Taylor, a well-regarded law clerk to a state Supreme Court justice and founder of the Thurgood Marshall Junior Mock Trial Program, which introduces city high school students to legal advocacy.
She is a much stronger candidate than her competitors: Maria Matos, another law clerk; and Verena Powell, a former assistant district attorney now in private practice. We enthusiastically endorse Ms. Taylor.
·
Published: August 22, 2008
Races for judgeships rarely get the full attention they deserve. But New York City’s courts need the most dedicated and capable jurists. Luckily, there are a few good candidates — and not so luckily some real clunkers — running in New York City’s Sept. 9 primary. Here are our recommendations in three of those matchups.
Skip to next paragraph
Additional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board »
SURROGATE’S COURT, MANHATTAN This obscure but unusually powerful court oversees wills, estates and adoptions — and is badly in need of change. The retirement of Renee Roth after 25 years as one of the borough’s two Surrogate’s Court judges is an opportunity to improve the court’s reputation. Ms. Roth will leave behind a legacy of unconscionable delays in deciding cases, imperious behavior and a tendency to use her office to reward cronies and further her personal interests.
Voters need to decide which of the three candidates vying to succeed her — Milton Tingling, John Reddy Jr. and Nora Anderson — has the independence and know-how to work effectively with Manhattan’s second, reform-minded Surrogate’s Court judge, Kristin Booth Glen, to transform the court.
Mr. Tingling, an affable but undistinguished state Supreme Court justice, seems least up to the task. Mr. Reddy, Ms. Roth’s handpicked counsel to the office charged with handling estates of those who die without wills, has an appealing manner and is plainly capable. But his ties to Ms. Roth and tolerance for the old-style, back-scratching culture make us doubt he would be an aggressive agent of change.
Our endorsement goes to Nora Anderson, an experienced trust and estates lawyer and former chief clerk in the Surrogate’s Court. Her decision to accept a large campaign loan from a mentor — a prominent trust and estates attorney — gives us pause. But we take seriously her pledge that he will not appear before her and believe, over all, that she offers the best hope of positive reform.
CIVIL COURT, MANHATTAN In this race for a countywide seat, we favor Nancy Bannon over Michael Katz. Both currently serve as law clerks in State Supreme Court. Both are able and committed to making the legal system more accessible for less-wealthy litigants. But Ms. Bannon’s thoughtful manner and depth of legal experience give her the edge.
CIVIL COURT, THE BRONX The standout in this race is Elizabeth Taylor, a well-regarded law clerk to a state Supreme Court justice and founder of the Thurgood Marshall Junior Mock Trial Program, which introduces city high school students to legal advocacy.
She is a much stronger candidate than her competitors: Maria Matos, another law clerk; and Verena Powell, a former assistant district attorney now in private practice. We enthusiastically endorse Ms. Taylor.
Monday, September 4, 2006
John Reddy Voted in NJ When his Campaign Says He Lived in NY
"With respect to Mr. Reddy's residency, Ms. Seto asserted that Mr. Reddy "grew up in New Jersey, has a house in New Jersey and his kids go to school in New Jersey."
Mr. Dilemani rebutted those assertions, saying that since 2004 Mr. Reddy and his wife and two of their children have lived in a condominium he purchased on the Upper East Side. His two daughters have commuted from New York to a parochial school in New Jersey, though starting this fall one daughter will go to college in Philadelphia, Mr. Dilemani added.
Since Mr. Reddy moved to New York with his family, Mr. Dilemani added, his mother-in-law has lived in the New Jersey house." - NY Law Journal, August 21, 2008
The registration card that John Reddy signed with the New York Board of Elections on September 5, 2007 he put down that he voted in 2006 in Passaic, NJ (see registration card below)
"With respect to Mr. Reddy's residency, Ms. Seto asserted that Mr. Reddy "grew up in New Jersey, has a house in New Jersey and his kids go to school in New Jersey."
Mr. Dilemani rebutted those assertions, saying that since 2004 Mr. Reddy and his wife and two of their children have lived in a condominium he purchased on the Upper East Side. His two daughters have commuted from New York to a parochial school in New Jersey, though starting this fall one daughter will go to college in Philadelphia, Mr. Dilemani added.
Since Mr. Reddy moved to New York with his family, Mr. Dilemani added, his mother-in-law has lived in the New Jersey house." - NY Law Journal, August 21, 2008
The registration card that John Reddy signed with the New York Board of Elections on September 5, 2007 he put down that he voted in 2006 in Passaic, NJ (see registration card below)
Sunday, September 3, 2006
Law Journal
Free: Trio of Democrats Square Off In Race for Manhattan Surrogate
By Daniel Wise New York Law Journal
August 21, 2008
The three candidates for the Democratic nomination for Manhattan surrogate, all insiders to the court's practice or politics, are vying to claim the mantle of reform. Manhattan Justice Milton A. Tingling (See Profile) handles guardianship cases among his Supreme Court duties and has the backing of Assemblyman Herman D. Farrell, the longtime Manhattan Democratic party leader.John J. Reddy Jr. has spent his entire 29-year legal career working for firms that have served as counsel to the Manhattan public administrator and for the last 13 years he has been counsel to the office responsible for handling the estates of those who die without wills or close relatives to wind up their affairs.Nora S. Anderson was chief clerk of the Manhattan Surrogate's Court for three years and has practiced exclusively in the estates field for the past nine years, working with a veteran estates practitioner.The three are seeking to succeed Renee R. Roth (See Profile), who has been serving as one of Manhattan's two surrogates since 1983. Surrogate Roth will leave office at the end of the year because she will reach the mandatory retirement age of 70 next month. Surrogates, who principally handle estates, are elected to 14-year terms and earn $136,700 annually.
Nora S. Anderson, 56Private practitioner, Seth Rubenstein, P.C.Other experience: Chief clerk, Manhattan Surrogate's CourtLaw secretary to Supreme Court Justice Albert WilliamsEducation: Brooklyn Law School, 1982Funds raised: $338,141
John J. Reddy Jr., 54Private practitioner, Bekerman & ReddyOther experience: Counsel to the Manhattan public administratorAdjunct professor, estate administration, New York Law SchoolEducation: New York Law School, 1979Funds raised: $458,075
Milton A. Tingling, 55Elected to Manhattan Supreme Court, 2001Other experience: Judge, Civil Court, 1996-2000 Court attorney, Civil Court, Trial Part, assigned to Judge Wilfred R. O'ConnorLaw secretary, Court of Claims, assigned to Judge Dennis Edwards Jr.Law assistant, Civil Court, assigned to Judge Milton A. RichardsonEducation: North Carolina Central University School of Law, 1982Funds raised: $76,099
NYLJ Photos/Rick KopsteinIn interviews, all three candidates stressed the need to take steps to end the public perception that patronage is involved in the many appointments surrogates are required to make. The most common appointment in Surrogate's Court is that of lawyers as guardians ad litem to represent the interests of minors or missing relatives in processing estates.Ms. Anderson called for legislation authorizing the Corporation Counsel's Office to assign a cadre of lawyers to handle such appointments. Such a move would enhance professionalism by ensuring "training, expertise and supervision without the state having to pay for the work," she said.Mr. Reddy said he would ask the Office of Court Administration to make routine appointments not involving large amounts of work or special expertise by proceeding down the court's list of more than 900 attorneys who have established eligibility for appointment as guardians ad litem in Manhattan. For more complex matters, Mr. Reddy said, he would follow Surrogate Roth's practice of developing a list of specialists he would appoint "in rotation."Justice Tingling, in contrast, underscored those he would disqualify from appointment. He would bar any elected, appointed or party officials for two years after leaving their posts as well as any lawyers working with firms with which those officials are affiliated.Mr. Reddy said he would extend a ban on the appointment of elected and party officials to contributors to his campaign, as well as to lawyers at the officials' and contributors' firms. Ms. Anderson said she would not appoint any political party officials, including district leaders, state committee members or political club presidents. She said her plan mirrors the proposal put forward in 2001 by the Commission on Fiduciary Appointments, which was appointed by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye. Court rules impose a two-year ban on the appointment of heads of state or county political party organizations. That ban extends to members of political leaders' law firms (Rules of the Chief Judge §36.2). Those who head judges' political fundraising efforts are also barred. Manhattan's other surrogate, Kristen Booth Glen (See Profile), employs a stricter standard than the court rule. She bars appointment of those who have been elected to political party positions, such as district leaders and state committee members. Surrogate Glen said in an interview that in making appointments she proceeds alphabetically down a list of lawyers maintained by OCA. For cases requiring specialized expertise, she may skip some lawyers until she comes to the next one on the list who has the required experience. Lawyers must meet certain education and training requirements to be placed on the lists, which vary depending on the type of appointment involved.Low Turnout ExpectedThe outcome of the Sept. 9 primary is likely to turn on a variety of factors, political experts said. With a low turnout, they said, a New York Times' endorsement, identity politics and primary battles in northern and lower Manhattan, which could boost turnout in those areas, all could have an impact.Jerry Skurnik, a political consultant who is not involved in any races, said Ms. Anderson could receive a boost from being the only woman in the field but that she and Justice Tingling, who are both black, could undercut each other's support. Justice Tingling could benefit from City Councilman Miguel Martinez's challenge to Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat in northern Manhattan, since both candidates have endorsed the judge, Mr. Skurnik said.Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and state Senator Martin Connor are both facing challenges in their districts, which overlap in lower Manhattan. But Mr. Skurnik said those challenges are likely to have little impact because none of the principals has endorsed a surrogate's candidate and support for the three among political clubs in the area is more diffuse.Race for FundsMr. Reddy, 54, so far has raised more money than the other two candidates, according to the latest campaign filing reports, which are current through Aug. 4. Mr. Reddy reported raising a total of $458,075 and had $340,377 in his war chest. By contrast, Ms. Anderson, 56, had taken in $338,141 and had $70,980 remaining in her coffers. Justice Tingling, 55, lagged behind with $76,099 raised and $26,517 remaining.Surrogate Glen spent more than $600,000 to win the Democratic nomination for an open seat in 2005. Mr. Reddy has contributed $65,000 to his campaign and received donations of $10,000 or more from 11 individuals. Most of those donations have come from relatives or friends, according to Mr. Reddy's campaign manager, Jake Dilemani.Among the contributions were donations of $20,000 each from Philip Bekerman and his wife, Roberta Bekerman. Mr. Bekerman, whose name remains on Mr. Reddy's law firm, Bekerman & Reddy, retired in 1992 due to illness, Mr. Dilemani said. Jay H. Ziffer, an associate of the firm, together with his mother, Rose Ziffer, contributed a total of $25,000.Mr. Reddy has received $691,447 for work his firm has received on 28 cases involving the Public Administrator's Office, according to information provided by the OCA. The court system first started tracking those payments in May 2006. Mr. Dilemani said Mr. Reddy's office handles 750 cases a year for the public administrator, 95 percent of which involve estates with less than $20,000 in assets. The compensation in those cases, he said, does not cover the amount of work put into them.Ms. Anderson has received more than 70 percent of the funds available to her campaign from Seth Rubenstein, a well-regarded estates practitioner whose firm she joined in 1999. Mr. Rubenstein has contributed $25,000 to Ms. Anderson's campaign and loaned it $225,000. The state election law requires candidates to repay any loans by Election Day, otherwise the loan is considered a contribution, said Robert Brehm, a spokesman for the state board of elections. The maximum contribution an individual may make to a candidate running in a countywide general election in Manhattan after winning a primary contest would be approximately $79,000 under a formula set by law.Ms. Anderson "fully intends to repay the loan," said her campaign manager, Michael Oliva.A list of appointments furnished by OCA going back to 1975 recorded Mr. Rubenstein as receiving 73 fee awards from cases in which he had been appointed as a fiduciary by judges in either Surrogate's or Supreme Court. Mr. Rubenstein disputed the list's accuracy, however, stating that in 36 of those cases a judge had not appointed him but instead had approved the payment of his fees for work he had done as an attorney for the family or a bank. As a guardian ad litem appointed in the case of tobacco heiress Doris Duke, Mr. Rubenstein said, he was awarded an $88,350 fee.Mr. Rubenstein also said that in 1982 he removed himself from OCA's lists of attorneys eligible to receive fiduciary appointments, but since then judges have appointed him because of his expertise, a step judges may take as long as they state their reasons for appointing off the list. Justice Tingling's fundraising effort is headed by attorney Ravi Batra, whose social relationships with two judges figured in their being censured by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. Mr. Batra had a social relationship with Civil Court Judge Diane A. Lebedeff (See Profile), which the commission cited in censuring her for the way she presided over a case in which Mr. Batra was a plaintiff and represented himself (NYLJ, April 8, 2005). Similarly, the commission referred to now-deceased Brooklyn Justice Richard D. Huttner's failure to disclose to all parties in a lawsuit in which Mr. Batra was involved his friendship with Mr. Batra as one of the reasons for censuring the judge (NYLJ, July 27, 2005).Mr. Batra said his relationship with the two judges was well known to all parties and there was "no need for any separate disclosure." He added that in the two cases the commission developed a higher standard than it has in the past, which he praised as a welcome development.Since 1982, Mr. Batra has received 43 appointments from judges sitting in the Surrogate's and Supreme courts, according to data supplied by the OCA. His five highest fee awards ranged from $28,693 to $60,000. In 29 of the cases, his approved fees were less than $5,000.Mr. Batra said that in 2003 he had removed his name from the OCA list and that since then he "has not, and will not, accept any appointments." Tingling Campaign on OffenseJustice Tingling's campaign has raised Mr. Rubenstein's funding of Ms. Anderson's campaign as an issue. It has also criticized Mr. Reddy for residing in New Jersey and for receiving funds from lawyers connected to his firm. Chung Seto, Justice Tingling's campaign manager, said the contributions and loan raise the possibility of "pay to play," asserting that even if Mr. Rubenstein in Ms. Anderson's case or Messrs. Bekerman and Ziffer in Mr. Reddy's case do not accept appointments, lawyers they work with, or their friends, might. Mr. Rubenstein said that should Ms. Anderson become surrogate he "will not be appointed" for two years. Mr. Oliva, Ms. Anderson's campaign manager, also said that Mr. Rubenstein does "not intend to take any appointments."Mr. Dilemani, responding for Mr. Reddy's campaign, said Mr. Bekerman has been retired since 1992 and is no longer practicing law. With regard to Mr. Ziffer, he reiterated that Mr. Reddy will not appoint anyone who has contributed to his campaign.With respect to Mr. Reddy's residency, Ms. Seto asserted that Mr. Reddy "grew up in New Jersey, has a house in New Jersey and his kids go to school in New Jersey." Mr. Dilemani rebutted those assertions, saying that since 2004 Mr. Reddy and his wife and two of their children have lived in a condominium he purchased on the Upper East Side. His two daughters have commuted from New York to a parochial school in New Jersey, though starting this fall one daughter will go to college in Philadelphia, Mr. Dilemani added. Since Mr. Reddy moved to New York with his family, Mr. Dilemani added, his mother-in-law has lived in the New Jersey house.Ms. Anderson has been endorsed by several former surrogates, including Eve Preminger, Manhattan; Louis D. Laurino, Queens; C. Raymond Radigan, Nassau; and Edwin Kassoff, who served as an acting surrogate in Queens. Mr. Reddy, who is a Law Journal columnist, has been endorsed by former Manhattan Surrogate Millard Midonick and former Appellate Division Justices Betty Weinberg Ellerin, Alfred Lerner and Israel Rubin, all of whom sat in the First Department. Two former Appellate Division, Second Department, justices have endorsed Justice Tingling: Seymour Boyers and Stephen G. Crane. Daniel.Wise@incisivemedia.com
By Daniel Wise New York Law Journal
August 21, 2008
The three candidates for the Democratic nomination for Manhattan surrogate, all insiders to the court's practice or politics, are vying to claim the mantle of reform. Manhattan Justice Milton A. Tingling (See Profile) handles guardianship cases among his Supreme Court duties and has the backing of Assemblyman Herman D. Farrell, the longtime Manhattan Democratic party leader.John J. Reddy Jr. has spent his entire 29-year legal career working for firms that have served as counsel to the Manhattan public administrator and for the last 13 years he has been counsel to the office responsible for handling the estates of those who die without wills or close relatives to wind up their affairs.Nora S. Anderson was chief clerk of the Manhattan Surrogate's Court for three years and has practiced exclusively in the estates field for the past nine years, working with a veteran estates practitioner.The three are seeking to succeed Renee R. Roth (See Profile), who has been serving as one of Manhattan's two surrogates since 1983. Surrogate Roth will leave office at the end of the year because she will reach the mandatory retirement age of 70 next month. Surrogates, who principally handle estates, are elected to 14-year terms and earn $136,700 annually.
Nora S. Anderson, 56Private practitioner, Seth Rubenstein, P.C.Other experience: Chief clerk, Manhattan Surrogate's CourtLaw secretary to Supreme Court Justice Albert WilliamsEducation: Brooklyn Law School, 1982Funds raised: $338,141
John J. Reddy Jr., 54Private practitioner, Bekerman & ReddyOther experience: Counsel to the Manhattan public administratorAdjunct professor, estate administration, New York Law SchoolEducation: New York Law School, 1979Funds raised: $458,075
Milton A. Tingling, 55Elected to Manhattan Supreme Court, 2001Other experience: Judge, Civil Court, 1996-2000 Court attorney, Civil Court, Trial Part, assigned to Judge Wilfred R. O'ConnorLaw secretary, Court of Claims, assigned to Judge Dennis Edwards Jr.Law assistant, Civil Court, assigned to Judge Milton A. RichardsonEducation: North Carolina Central University School of Law, 1982Funds raised: $76,099
NYLJ Photos/Rick KopsteinIn interviews, all three candidates stressed the need to take steps to end the public perception that patronage is involved in the many appointments surrogates are required to make. The most common appointment in Surrogate's Court is that of lawyers as guardians ad litem to represent the interests of minors or missing relatives in processing estates.Ms. Anderson called for legislation authorizing the Corporation Counsel's Office to assign a cadre of lawyers to handle such appointments. Such a move would enhance professionalism by ensuring "training, expertise and supervision without the state having to pay for the work," she said.Mr. Reddy said he would ask the Office of Court Administration to make routine appointments not involving large amounts of work or special expertise by proceeding down the court's list of more than 900 attorneys who have established eligibility for appointment as guardians ad litem in Manhattan. For more complex matters, Mr. Reddy said, he would follow Surrogate Roth's practice of developing a list of specialists he would appoint "in rotation."Justice Tingling, in contrast, underscored those he would disqualify from appointment. He would bar any elected, appointed or party officials for two years after leaving their posts as well as any lawyers working with firms with which those officials are affiliated.Mr. Reddy said he would extend a ban on the appointment of elected and party officials to contributors to his campaign, as well as to lawyers at the officials' and contributors' firms. Ms. Anderson said she would not appoint any political party officials, including district leaders, state committee members or political club presidents. She said her plan mirrors the proposal put forward in 2001 by the Commission on Fiduciary Appointments, which was appointed by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye. Court rules impose a two-year ban on the appointment of heads of state or county political party organizations. That ban extends to members of political leaders' law firms (Rules of the Chief Judge §36.2). Those who head judges' political fundraising efforts are also barred. Manhattan's other surrogate, Kristen Booth Glen (See Profile), employs a stricter standard than the court rule. She bars appointment of those who have been elected to political party positions, such as district leaders and state committee members. Surrogate Glen said in an interview that in making appointments she proceeds alphabetically down a list of lawyers maintained by OCA. For cases requiring specialized expertise, she may skip some lawyers until she comes to the next one on the list who has the required experience. Lawyers must meet certain education and training requirements to be placed on the lists, which vary depending on the type of appointment involved.Low Turnout ExpectedThe outcome of the Sept. 9 primary is likely to turn on a variety of factors, political experts said. With a low turnout, they said, a New York Times' endorsement, identity politics and primary battles in northern and lower Manhattan, which could boost turnout in those areas, all could have an impact.Jerry Skurnik, a political consultant who is not involved in any races, said Ms. Anderson could receive a boost from being the only woman in the field but that she and Justice Tingling, who are both black, could undercut each other's support. Justice Tingling could benefit from City Councilman Miguel Martinez's challenge to Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat in northern Manhattan, since both candidates have endorsed the judge, Mr. Skurnik said.Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and state Senator Martin Connor are both facing challenges in their districts, which overlap in lower Manhattan. But Mr. Skurnik said those challenges are likely to have little impact because none of the principals has endorsed a surrogate's candidate and support for the three among political clubs in the area is more diffuse.Race for FundsMr. Reddy, 54, so far has raised more money than the other two candidates, according to the latest campaign filing reports, which are current through Aug. 4. Mr. Reddy reported raising a total of $458,075 and had $340,377 in his war chest. By contrast, Ms. Anderson, 56, had taken in $338,141 and had $70,980 remaining in her coffers. Justice Tingling, 55, lagged behind with $76,099 raised and $26,517 remaining.Surrogate Glen spent more than $600,000 to win the Democratic nomination for an open seat in 2005. Mr. Reddy has contributed $65,000 to his campaign and received donations of $10,000 or more from 11 individuals. Most of those donations have come from relatives or friends, according to Mr. Reddy's campaign manager, Jake Dilemani.Among the contributions were donations of $20,000 each from Philip Bekerman and his wife, Roberta Bekerman. Mr. Bekerman, whose name remains on Mr. Reddy's law firm, Bekerman & Reddy, retired in 1992 due to illness, Mr. Dilemani said. Jay H. Ziffer, an associate of the firm, together with his mother, Rose Ziffer, contributed a total of $25,000.Mr. Reddy has received $691,447 for work his firm has received on 28 cases involving the Public Administrator's Office, according to information provided by the OCA. The court system first started tracking those payments in May 2006. Mr. Dilemani said Mr. Reddy's office handles 750 cases a year for the public administrator, 95 percent of which involve estates with less than $20,000 in assets. The compensation in those cases, he said, does not cover the amount of work put into them.Ms. Anderson has received more than 70 percent of the funds available to her campaign from Seth Rubenstein, a well-regarded estates practitioner whose firm she joined in 1999. Mr. Rubenstein has contributed $25,000 to Ms. Anderson's campaign and loaned it $225,000. The state election law requires candidates to repay any loans by Election Day, otherwise the loan is considered a contribution, said Robert Brehm, a spokesman for the state board of elections. The maximum contribution an individual may make to a candidate running in a countywide general election in Manhattan after winning a primary contest would be approximately $79,000 under a formula set by law.Ms. Anderson "fully intends to repay the loan," said her campaign manager, Michael Oliva.A list of appointments furnished by OCA going back to 1975 recorded Mr. Rubenstein as receiving 73 fee awards from cases in which he had been appointed as a fiduciary by judges in either Surrogate's or Supreme Court. Mr. Rubenstein disputed the list's accuracy, however, stating that in 36 of those cases a judge had not appointed him but instead had approved the payment of his fees for work he had done as an attorney for the family or a bank. As a guardian ad litem appointed in the case of tobacco heiress Doris Duke, Mr. Rubenstein said, he was awarded an $88,350 fee.Mr. Rubenstein also said that in 1982 he removed himself from OCA's lists of attorneys eligible to receive fiduciary appointments, but since then judges have appointed him because of his expertise, a step judges may take as long as they state their reasons for appointing off the list. Justice Tingling's fundraising effort is headed by attorney Ravi Batra, whose social relationships with two judges figured in their being censured by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. Mr. Batra had a social relationship with Civil Court Judge Diane A. Lebedeff (See Profile), which the commission cited in censuring her for the way she presided over a case in which Mr. Batra was a plaintiff and represented himself (NYLJ, April 8, 2005). Similarly, the commission referred to now-deceased Brooklyn Justice Richard D. Huttner's failure to disclose to all parties in a lawsuit in which Mr. Batra was involved his friendship with Mr. Batra as one of the reasons for censuring the judge (NYLJ, July 27, 2005).Mr. Batra said his relationship with the two judges was well known to all parties and there was "no need for any separate disclosure." He added that in the two cases the commission developed a higher standard than it has in the past, which he praised as a welcome development.Since 1982, Mr. Batra has received 43 appointments from judges sitting in the Surrogate's and Supreme courts, according to data supplied by the OCA. His five highest fee awards ranged from $28,693 to $60,000. In 29 of the cases, his approved fees were less than $5,000.Mr. Batra said that in 2003 he had removed his name from the OCA list and that since then he "has not, and will not, accept any appointments." Tingling Campaign on OffenseJustice Tingling's campaign has raised Mr. Rubenstein's funding of Ms. Anderson's campaign as an issue. It has also criticized Mr. Reddy for residing in New Jersey and for receiving funds from lawyers connected to his firm. Chung Seto, Justice Tingling's campaign manager, said the contributions and loan raise the possibility of "pay to play," asserting that even if Mr. Rubenstein in Ms. Anderson's case or Messrs. Bekerman and Ziffer in Mr. Reddy's case do not accept appointments, lawyers they work with, or their friends, might. Mr. Rubenstein said that should Ms. Anderson become surrogate he "will not be appointed" for two years. Mr. Oliva, Ms. Anderson's campaign manager, also said that Mr. Rubenstein does "not intend to take any appointments."Mr. Dilemani, responding for Mr. Reddy's campaign, said Mr. Bekerman has been retired since 1992 and is no longer practicing law. With regard to Mr. Ziffer, he reiterated that Mr. Reddy will not appoint anyone who has contributed to his campaign.With respect to Mr. Reddy's residency, Ms. Seto asserted that Mr. Reddy "grew up in New Jersey, has a house in New Jersey and his kids go to school in New Jersey." Mr. Dilemani rebutted those assertions, saying that since 2004 Mr. Reddy and his wife and two of their children have lived in a condominium he purchased on the Upper East Side. His two daughters have commuted from New York to a parochial school in New Jersey, though starting this fall one daughter will go to college in Philadelphia, Mr. Dilemani added. Since Mr. Reddy moved to New York with his family, Mr. Dilemani added, his mother-in-law has lived in the New Jersey house.Ms. Anderson has been endorsed by several former surrogates, including Eve Preminger, Manhattan; Louis D. Laurino, Queens; C. Raymond Radigan, Nassau; and Edwin Kassoff, who served as an acting surrogate in Queens. Mr. Reddy, who is a Law Journal columnist, has been endorsed by former Manhattan Surrogate Millard Midonick and former Appellate Division Justices Betty Weinberg Ellerin, Alfred Lerner and Israel Rubin, all of whom sat in the First Department. Two former Appellate Division, Second Department, justices have endorsed Justice Tingling: Seymour Boyers and Stephen G. Crane. Daniel.Wise@incisivemedia.com
Law Journal
Free: Trio of Democrats Square Off In Race for Manhattan Surrogate
By Daniel Wise New York Law Journal
August 21, 2008
The three candidates for the Democratic nomination for Manhattan surrogate, all insiders to the court's practice or politics, are vying to claim the mantle of reform. Manhattan Justice Milton A. Tingling (See Profile) handles guardianship cases among his Supreme Court duties and has the backing of Assemblyman Herman D. Farrell, the longtime Manhattan Democratic party leader.John J. Reddy Jr. has spent his entire 29-year legal career working for firms that have served as counsel to the Manhattan public administrator and for the last 13 years he has been counsel to the office responsible for handling the estates of those who die without wills or close relatives to wind up their affairs.Nora S. Anderson was chief clerk of the Manhattan Surrogate's Court for three years and has practiced exclusively in the estates field for the past nine years, working with a veteran estates practitioner.The three are seeking to succeed Renee R. Roth (See Profile), who has been serving as one of Manhattan's two surrogates since 1983. Surrogate Roth will leave office at the end of the year because she will reach the mandatory retirement age of 70 next month. Surrogates, who principally handle estates, are elected to 14-year terms and earn $136,700 annually.
Nora S. Anderson, 56Private practitioner, Seth Rubenstein, P.C.Other experience: Chief clerk, Manhattan Surrogate's CourtLaw secretary to Supreme Court Justice Albert WilliamsEducation: Brooklyn Law School, 1982Funds raised: $338,141
John J. Reddy Jr., 54Private practitioner, Bekerman & ReddyOther experience: Counsel to the Manhattan public administratorAdjunct professor, estate administration, New York Law SchoolEducation: New York Law School, 1979Funds raised: $458,075
Milton A. Tingling, 55Elected to Manhattan Supreme Court, 2001Other experience: Judge, Civil Court, 1996-2000 Court attorney, Civil Court, Trial Part, assigned to Judge Wilfred R. O'ConnorLaw secretary, Court of Claims, assigned to Judge Dennis Edwards Jr.Law assistant, Civil Court, assigned to Judge Milton A. RichardsonEducation: North Carolina Central University School of Law, 1982Funds raised: $76,099
NYLJ Photos/Rick KopsteinIn interviews, all three candidates stressed the need to take steps to end the public perception that patronage is involved in the many appointments surrogates are required to make. The most common appointment in Surrogate's Court is that of lawyers as guardians ad litem to represent the interests of minors or missing relatives in processing estates.Ms. Anderson called for legislation authorizing the Corporation Counsel's Office to assign a cadre of lawyers to handle such appointments. Such a move would enhance professionalism by ensuring "training, expertise and supervision without the state having to pay for the work," she said.Mr. Reddy said he would ask the Office of Court Administration to make routine appointments not involving large amounts of work or special expertise by proceeding down the court's list of more than 900 attorneys who have established eligibility for appointment as guardians ad litem in Manhattan. For more complex matters, Mr. Reddy said, he would follow Surrogate Roth's practice of developing a list of specialists he would appoint "in rotation."Justice Tingling, in contrast, underscored those he would disqualify from appointment. He would bar any elected, appointed or party officials for two years after leaving their posts as well as any lawyers working with firms with which those officials are affiliated.Mr. Reddy said he would extend a ban on the appointment of elected and party officials to contributors to his campaign, as well as to lawyers at the officials' and contributors' firms. Ms. Anderson said she would not appoint any political party officials, including district leaders, state committee members or political club presidents. She said her plan mirrors the proposal put forward in 2001 by the Commission on Fiduciary Appointments, which was appointed by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye. Court rules impose a two-year ban on the appointment of heads of state or county political party organizations. That ban extends to members of political leaders' law firms (Rules of the Chief Judge §36.2). Those who head judges' political fundraising efforts are also barred. Manhattan's other surrogate, Kristen Booth Glen (See Profile), employs a stricter standard than the court rule. She bars appointment of those who have been elected to political party positions, such as district leaders and state committee members. Surrogate Glen said in an interview that in making appointments she proceeds alphabetically down a list of lawyers maintained by OCA. For cases requiring specialized expertise, she may skip some lawyers until she comes to the next one on the list who has the required experience. Lawyers must meet certain education and training requirements to be placed on the lists, which vary depending on the type of appointment involved.Low Turnout ExpectedThe outcome of the Sept. 9 primary is likely to turn on a variety of factors, political experts said. With a low turnout, they said, a New York Times' endorsement, identity politics and primary battles in northern and lower Manhattan, which could boost turnout in those areas, all could have an impact.Jerry Skurnik, a political consultant who is not involved in any races, said Ms. Anderson could receive a boost from being the only woman in the field but that she and Justice Tingling, who are both black, could undercut each other's support. Justice Tingling could benefit from City Councilman Miguel Martinez's challenge to Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat in northern Manhattan, since both candidates have endorsed the judge, Mr. Skurnik said.Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and state Senator Martin Connor are both facing challenges in their districts, which overlap in lower Manhattan. But Mr. Skurnik said those challenges are likely to have little impact because none of the principals has endorsed a surrogate's candidate and support for the three among political clubs in the area is more diffuse.Race for FundsMr. Reddy, 54, so far has raised more money than the other two candidates, according to the latest campaign filing reports, which are current through Aug. 4. Mr. Reddy reported raising a total of $458,075 and had $340,377 in his war chest. By contrast, Ms. Anderson, 56, had taken in $338,141 and had $70,980 remaining in her coffers. Justice Tingling, 55, lagged behind with $76,099 raised and $26,517 remaining.Surrogate Glen spent more than $600,000 to win the Democratic nomination for an open seat in 2005. Mr. Reddy has contributed $65,000 to his campaign and received donations of $10,000 or more from 11 individuals. Most of those donations have come from relatives or friends, according to Mr. Reddy's campaign manager, Jake Dilemani.Among the contributions were donations of $20,000 each from Philip Bekerman and his wife, Roberta Bekerman. Mr. Bekerman, whose name remains on Mr. Reddy's law firm, Bekerman & Reddy, retired in 1992 due to illness, Mr. Dilemani said. Jay H. Ziffer, an associate of the firm, together with his mother, Rose Ziffer, contributed a total of $25,000.Mr. Reddy has received $691,447 for work his firm has received on 28 cases involving the Public Administrator's Office, according to information provided by the OCA. The court system first started tracking those payments in May 2006. Mr. Dilemani said Mr. Reddy's office handles 750 cases a year for the public administrator, 95 percent of which involve estates with less than $20,000 in assets. The compensation in those cases, he said, does not cover the amount of work put into them.Ms. Anderson has received more than 70 percent of the funds available to her campaign from Seth Rubenstein, a well-regarded estates practitioner whose firm she joined in 1999. Mr. Rubenstein has contributed $25,000 to Ms. Anderson's campaign and loaned it $225,000. The state election law requires candidates to repay any loans by Election Day, otherwise the loan is considered a contribution, said Robert Brehm, a spokesman for the state board of elections. The maximum contribution an individual may make to a candidate running in a countywide general election in Manhattan after winning a primary contest would be approximately $79,000 under a formula set by law.Ms. Anderson "fully intends to repay the loan," said her campaign manager, Michael Oliva.A list of appointments furnished by OCA going back to 1975 recorded Mr. Rubenstein as receiving 73 fee awards from cases in which he had been appointed as a fiduciary by judges in either Surrogate's or Supreme Court. Mr. Rubenstein disputed the list's accuracy, however, stating that in 36 of those cases a judge had not appointed him but instead had approved the payment of his fees for work he had done as an attorney for the family or a bank. As a guardian ad litem appointed in the case of tobacco heiress Doris Duke, Mr. Rubenstein said, he was awarded an $88,350 fee.Mr. Rubenstein also said that in 1982 he removed himself from OCA's lists of attorneys eligible to receive fiduciary appointments, but since then judges have appointed him because of his expertise, a step judges may take as long as they state their reasons for appointing off the list. Justice Tingling's fundraising effort is headed by attorney Ravi Batra, whose social relationships with two judges figured in their being censured by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. Mr. Batra had a social relationship with Civil Court Judge Diane A. Lebedeff (See Profile), which the commission cited in censuring her for the way she presided over a case in which Mr. Batra was a plaintiff and represented himself (NYLJ, April 8, 2005). Similarly, the commission referred to now-deceased Brooklyn Justice Richard D. Huttner's failure to disclose to all parties in a lawsuit in which Mr. Batra was involved his friendship with Mr. Batra as one of the reasons for censuring the judge (NYLJ, July 27, 2005).Mr. Batra said his relationship with the two judges was well known to all parties and there was "no need for any separate disclosure." He added that in the two cases the commission developed a higher standard than it has in the past, which he praised as a welcome development.Since 1982, Mr. Batra has received 43 appointments from judges sitting in the Surrogate's and Supreme courts, according to data supplied by the OCA. His five highest fee awards ranged from $28,693 to $60,000. In 29 of the cases, his approved fees were less than $5,000.Mr. Batra said that in 2003 he had removed his name from the OCA list and that since then he "has not, and will not, accept any appointments." Tingling Campaign on OffenseJustice Tingling's campaign has raised Mr. Rubenstein's funding of Ms. Anderson's campaign as an issue. It has also criticized Mr. Reddy for residing in New Jersey and for receiving funds from lawyers connected to his firm. Chung Seto, Justice Tingling's campaign manager, said the contributions and loan raise the possibility of "pay to play," asserting that even if Mr. Rubenstein in Ms. Anderson's case or Messrs. Bekerman and Ziffer in Mr. Reddy's case do not accept appointments, lawyers they work with, or their friends, might. Mr. Rubenstein said that should Ms. Anderson become surrogate he "will not be appointed" for two years. Mr. Oliva, Ms. Anderson's campaign manager, also said that Mr. Rubenstein does "not intend to take any appointments."Mr. Dilemani, responding for Mr. Reddy's campaign, said Mr. Bekerman has been retired since 1992 and is no longer practicing law. With regard to Mr. Ziffer, he reiterated that Mr. Reddy will not appoint anyone who has contributed to his campaign.With respect to Mr. Reddy's residency, Ms. Seto asserted that Mr. Reddy "grew up in New Jersey, has a house in New Jersey and his kids go to school in New Jersey." Mr. Dilemani rebutted those assertions, saying that since 2004 Mr. Reddy and his wife and two of their children have lived in a condominium he purchased on the Upper East Side. His two daughters have commuted from New York to a parochial school in New Jersey, though starting this fall one daughter will go to college in Philadelphia, Mr. Dilemani added. Since Mr. Reddy moved to New York with his family, Mr. Dilemani added, his mother-in-law has lived in the New Jersey house.Ms. Anderson has been endorsed by several former surrogates, including Eve Preminger, Manhattan; Louis D. Laurino, Queens; C. Raymond Radigan, Nassau; and Edwin Kassoff, who served as an acting surrogate in Queens. Mr. Reddy, who is a Law Journal columnist, has been endorsed by former Manhattan Surrogate Millard Midonick and former Appellate Division Justices Betty Weinberg Ellerin, Alfred Lerner and Israel Rubin, all of whom sat in the First Department. Two former Appellate Division, Second Department, justices have endorsed Justice Tingling: Seymour Boyers and Stephen G. Crane. Daniel.Wise@incisivemedia.com
By Daniel Wise New York Law Journal
August 21, 2008
The three candidates for the Democratic nomination for Manhattan surrogate, all insiders to the court's practice or politics, are vying to claim the mantle of reform. Manhattan Justice Milton A. Tingling (See Profile) handles guardianship cases among his Supreme Court duties and has the backing of Assemblyman Herman D. Farrell, the longtime Manhattan Democratic party leader.John J. Reddy Jr. has spent his entire 29-year legal career working for firms that have served as counsel to the Manhattan public administrator and for the last 13 years he has been counsel to the office responsible for handling the estates of those who die without wills or close relatives to wind up their affairs.Nora S. Anderson was chief clerk of the Manhattan Surrogate's Court for three years and has practiced exclusively in the estates field for the past nine years, working with a veteran estates practitioner.The three are seeking to succeed Renee R. Roth (See Profile), who has been serving as one of Manhattan's two surrogates since 1983. Surrogate Roth will leave office at the end of the year because she will reach the mandatory retirement age of 70 next month. Surrogates, who principally handle estates, are elected to 14-year terms and earn $136,700 annually.
Nora S. Anderson, 56Private practitioner, Seth Rubenstein, P.C.Other experience: Chief clerk, Manhattan Surrogate's CourtLaw secretary to Supreme Court Justice Albert WilliamsEducation: Brooklyn Law School, 1982Funds raised: $338,141
John J. Reddy Jr., 54Private practitioner, Bekerman & ReddyOther experience: Counsel to the Manhattan public administratorAdjunct professor, estate administration, New York Law SchoolEducation: New York Law School, 1979Funds raised: $458,075
Milton A. Tingling, 55Elected to Manhattan Supreme Court, 2001Other experience: Judge, Civil Court, 1996-2000 Court attorney, Civil Court, Trial Part, assigned to Judge Wilfred R. O'ConnorLaw secretary, Court of Claims, assigned to Judge Dennis Edwards Jr.Law assistant, Civil Court, assigned to Judge Milton A. RichardsonEducation: North Carolina Central University School of Law, 1982Funds raised: $76,099
NYLJ Photos/Rick KopsteinIn interviews, all three candidates stressed the need to take steps to end the public perception that patronage is involved in the many appointments surrogates are required to make. The most common appointment in Surrogate's Court is that of lawyers as guardians ad litem to represent the interests of minors or missing relatives in processing estates.Ms. Anderson called for legislation authorizing the Corporation Counsel's Office to assign a cadre of lawyers to handle such appointments. Such a move would enhance professionalism by ensuring "training, expertise and supervision without the state having to pay for the work," she said.Mr. Reddy said he would ask the Office of Court Administration to make routine appointments not involving large amounts of work or special expertise by proceeding down the court's list of more than 900 attorneys who have established eligibility for appointment as guardians ad litem in Manhattan. For more complex matters, Mr. Reddy said, he would follow Surrogate Roth's practice of developing a list of specialists he would appoint "in rotation."Justice Tingling, in contrast, underscored those he would disqualify from appointment. He would bar any elected, appointed or party officials for two years after leaving their posts as well as any lawyers working with firms with which those officials are affiliated.Mr. Reddy said he would extend a ban on the appointment of elected and party officials to contributors to his campaign, as well as to lawyers at the officials' and contributors' firms. Ms. Anderson said she would not appoint any political party officials, including district leaders, state committee members or political club presidents. She said her plan mirrors the proposal put forward in 2001 by the Commission on Fiduciary Appointments, which was appointed by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye. Court rules impose a two-year ban on the appointment of heads of state or county political party organizations. That ban extends to members of political leaders' law firms (Rules of the Chief Judge §36.2). Those who head judges' political fundraising efforts are also barred. Manhattan's other surrogate, Kristen Booth Glen (See Profile), employs a stricter standard than the court rule. She bars appointment of those who have been elected to political party positions, such as district leaders and state committee members. Surrogate Glen said in an interview that in making appointments she proceeds alphabetically down a list of lawyers maintained by OCA. For cases requiring specialized expertise, she may skip some lawyers until she comes to the next one on the list who has the required experience. Lawyers must meet certain education and training requirements to be placed on the lists, which vary depending on the type of appointment involved.Low Turnout ExpectedThe outcome of the Sept. 9 primary is likely to turn on a variety of factors, political experts said. With a low turnout, they said, a New York Times' endorsement, identity politics and primary battles in northern and lower Manhattan, which could boost turnout in those areas, all could have an impact.Jerry Skurnik, a political consultant who is not involved in any races, said Ms. Anderson could receive a boost from being the only woman in the field but that she and Justice Tingling, who are both black, could undercut each other's support. Justice Tingling could benefit from City Councilman Miguel Martinez's challenge to Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat in northern Manhattan, since both candidates have endorsed the judge, Mr. Skurnik said.Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and state Senator Martin Connor are both facing challenges in their districts, which overlap in lower Manhattan. But Mr. Skurnik said those challenges are likely to have little impact because none of the principals has endorsed a surrogate's candidate and support for the three among political clubs in the area is more diffuse.Race for FundsMr. Reddy, 54, so far has raised more money than the other two candidates, according to the latest campaign filing reports, which are current through Aug. 4. Mr. Reddy reported raising a total of $458,075 and had $340,377 in his war chest. By contrast, Ms. Anderson, 56, had taken in $338,141 and had $70,980 remaining in her coffers. Justice Tingling, 55, lagged behind with $76,099 raised and $26,517 remaining.Surrogate Glen spent more than $600,000 to win the Democratic nomination for an open seat in 2005. Mr. Reddy has contributed $65,000 to his campaign and received donations of $10,000 or more from 11 individuals. Most of those donations have come from relatives or friends, according to Mr. Reddy's campaign manager, Jake Dilemani.Among the contributions were donations of $20,000 each from Philip Bekerman and his wife, Roberta Bekerman. Mr. Bekerman, whose name remains on Mr. Reddy's law firm, Bekerman & Reddy, retired in 1992 due to illness, Mr. Dilemani said. Jay H. Ziffer, an associate of the firm, together with his mother, Rose Ziffer, contributed a total of $25,000.Mr. Reddy has received $691,447 for work his firm has received on 28 cases involving the Public Administrator's Office, according to information provided by the OCA. The court system first started tracking those payments in May 2006. Mr. Dilemani said Mr. Reddy's office handles 750 cases a year for the public administrator, 95 percent of which involve estates with less than $20,000 in assets. The compensation in those cases, he said, does not cover the amount of work put into them.Ms. Anderson has received more than 70 percent of the funds available to her campaign from Seth Rubenstein, a well-regarded estates practitioner whose firm she joined in 1999. Mr. Rubenstein has contributed $25,000 to Ms. Anderson's campaign and loaned it $225,000. The state election law requires candidates to repay any loans by Election Day, otherwise the loan is considered a contribution, said Robert Brehm, a spokesman for the state board of elections. The maximum contribution an individual may make to a candidate running in a countywide general election in Manhattan after winning a primary contest would be approximately $79,000 under a formula set by law.Ms. Anderson "fully intends to repay the loan," said her campaign manager, Michael Oliva.A list of appointments furnished by OCA going back to 1975 recorded Mr. Rubenstein as receiving 73 fee awards from cases in which he had been appointed as a fiduciary by judges in either Surrogate's or Supreme Court. Mr. Rubenstein disputed the list's accuracy, however, stating that in 36 of those cases a judge had not appointed him but instead had approved the payment of his fees for work he had done as an attorney for the family or a bank. As a guardian ad litem appointed in the case of tobacco heiress Doris Duke, Mr. Rubenstein said, he was awarded an $88,350 fee.Mr. Rubenstein also said that in 1982 he removed himself from OCA's lists of attorneys eligible to receive fiduciary appointments, but since then judges have appointed him because of his expertise, a step judges may take as long as they state their reasons for appointing off the list. Justice Tingling's fundraising effort is headed by attorney Ravi Batra, whose social relationships with two judges figured in their being censured by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. Mr. Batra had a social relationship with Civil Court Judge Diane A. Lebedeff (See Profile), which the commission cited in censuring her for the way she presided over a case in which Mr. Batra was a plaintiff and represented himself (NYLJ, April 8, 2005). Similarly, the commission referred to now-deceased Brooklyn Justice Richard D. Huttner's failure to disclose to all parties in a lawsuit in which Mr. Batra was involved his friendship with Mr. Batra as one of the reasons for censuring the judge (NYLJ, July 27, 2005).Mr. Batra said his relationship with the two judges was well known to all parties and there was "no need for any separate disclosure." He added that in the two cases the commission developed a higher standard than it has in the past, which he praised as a welcome development.Since 1982, Mr. Batra has received 43 appointments from judges sitting in the Surrogate's and Supreme courts, according to data supplied by the OCA. His five highest fee awards ranged from $28,693 to $60,000. In 29 of the cases, his approved fees were less than $5,000.Mr. Batra said that in 2003 he had removed his name from the OCA list and that since then he "has not, and will not, accept any appointments." Tingling Campaign on OffenseJustice Tingling's campaign has raised Mr. Rubenstein's funding of Ms. Anderson's campaign as an issue. It has also criticized Mr. Reddy for residing in New Jersey and for receiving funds from lawyers connected to his firm. Chung Seto, Justice Tingling's campaign manager, said the contributions and loan raise the possibility of "pay to play," asserting that even if Mr. Rubenstein in Ms. Anderson's case or Messrs. Bekerman and Ziffer in Mr. Reddy's case do not accept appointments, lawyers they work with, or their friends, might. Mr. Rubenstein said that should Ms. Anderson become surrogate he "will not be appointed" for two years. Mr. Oliva, Ms. Anderson's campaign manager, also said that Mr. Rubenstein does "not intend to take any appointments."Mr. Dilemani, responding for Mr. Reddy's campaign, said Mr. Bekerman has been retired since 1992 and is no longer practicing law. With regard to Mr. Ziffer, he reiterated that Mr. Reddy will not appoint anyone who has contributed to his campaign.With respect to Mr. Reddy's residency, Ms. Seto asserted that Mr. Reddy "grew up in New Jersey, has a house in New Jersey and his kids go to school in New Jersey." Mr. Dilemani rebutted those assertions, saying that since 2004 Mr. Reddy and his wife and two of their children have lived in a condominium he purchased on the Upper East Side. His two daughters have commuted from New York to a parochial school in New Jersey, though starting this fall one daughter will go to college in Philadelphia, Mr. Dilemani added. Since Mr. Reddy moved to New York with his family, Mr. Dilemani added, his mother-in-law has lived in the New Jersey house.Ms. Anderson has been endorsed by several former surrogates, including Eve Preminger, Manhattan; Louis D. Laurino, Queens; C. Raymond Radigan, Nassau; and Edwin Kassoff, who served as an acting surrogate in Queens. Mr. Reddy, who is a Law Journal columnist, has been endorsed by former Manhattan Surrogate Millard Midonick and former Appellate Division Justices Betty Weinberg Ellerin, Alfred Lerner and Israel Rubin, all of whom sat in the First Department. Two former Appellate Division, Second Department, justices have endorsed Justice Tingling: Seymour Boyers and Stephen G. Crane. Daniel.Wise@incisivemedia.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)