Lawyer Sanctioned for Disclosing What A Judge Should Have
Here’s another outrageous story of judicial heavyhandedness. This story, Attorneys Sanctioned for Representing Client’s Challenges of Judicial Ethics (Empire Journal 2/14/05). According to the article, the New York Appellate Division, First Department sanctioned two New York attorneys (to the tune of $2000 and $250 respectively) for “frivolous conduct” when they argued that a judge who had a financial stake in the defendant’s company should have recused herself from the case. Apparently, the court even agreed that the judge was required to disclose any financial interest, however small, but upheld the outcome of the case nonetheless. See also this link at New York Lawyer.
So how is it frivolous to raise an argument that the court ultimately accepts? Only in the universe where judge’s attempt to intimidate attorneys from exposing any negative conduct, I guess.
With certain differences…it’s “don’t make the boos look bad in public.”
With certain differences…it’s “don’t make the boos look bad in public.”
JUST “ANOTHER OUTRAGEOUS STORY OF JUDICIAL HEAVY-HANDEDNESS”
Here, courtesy of Carolyn Elefant.
JUST “ANOTHER OUTRAGEOUS STORY OF JUDICIAL HEAVY-HANDEDNESS”
Here, courtesy of Carolyn Elefant.
Carolyn, you might want to find a source other than The Empire Journal (home of the “Stop Judicial Tryranny Ribbon”) before concluding that the Appellate Division has engaged in “outrageous” behavior.
I have not located the sanction decision yet in this case, but the initial appellate decision on the merits is here, and it appears that the Client, Anthony DeRosa raised defenses to the foreclosure that were without merit as a matter of law. (DeRosa v JP Morgan Chase, 2004 NYSlipOp 02116, March 23, 2004).
The issue of the trial judge’s recusal was mooted by that decision, because the Appellate Court ruled her decision to be null and void and then ruled on the merits against DeRosa, since only questions of law were presented.
Thereafter, attorneys Cohen and Shanahan moved for rehearing on behalf of DeRosa. It was this rehearing request that provoked the show cause order on sanctions. The reasons given by the court in its second decision, DeRosa v Chase Manhattan Mtge. Corp. (App. Div. 1st Dept., Dkt. 1918, 2004 NYSlipOp 06446) appear to be that the lawyers had, besides showing no reason why the prior decision should be reopened, (1) improperly alterred the caption of the matter, and (2) improperly added 10 pages of the trial judge’s personal financial records.
Furthermore, according to the New York Law Journal article (Feb. 14, 2005):
Outrageous? If I can get the court’s opinion imposing sanctions, I’ll let you know. But, until then, I’m withholding judgment.
Carolyn, you might want to find a source other than The Empire Journal (home of the “Stop Judicial Tryranny Ribbon”) before concluding that the Appellate Division has engaged in “outrageous” behavior.
I have not located the sanction decision yet in this case, but the initial appellate decision on the merits is here, and it appears that the Client, Anthony DeRosa raised defenses to the foreclosure that were without merit as a matter of law. (DeRosa v JP Morgan Chase, 2004 NYSlipOp 02116, March 23, 2004).
The issue of the trial judge’s recusal was mooted by that decision, because the Appellate Court ruled her decision to be null and void and then ruled on the merits against DeRosa, since only questions of law were presented.
Thereafter, attorneys Cohen and Shanahan moved for rehearing on behalf of DeRosa. It was this rehearing request that provoked the show cause order on sanctions. The reasons given by the court in its second decision, DeRosa v Chase Manhattan Mtge. Corp. (App. Div. 1st Dept., Dkt. 1918, 2004 NYSlipOp 06446) appear to be that the lawyers had, besides showing no reason why the prior decision should be reopened, (1) improperly alterred the caption of the matter, and (2) improperly added 10 pages of the trial judge’s personal financial records.
Furthermore, according to the New York Law Journal article (Feb. 14, 2005):
Outrageous? If I can get the court’s opinion imposing sanctions, I’ll let you know. But, until then, I’m withholding judgment.