Throughout the 1990s, favoritism ran rampant in New York City’s court system: Political leaders within the boroughs were getting state Supreme or Surrogate’s Court appointments from the same judges they’d helped elect.
These appointees are charged with managing the finances of New York’s most vulnerable populations — widows, children, and people with cognitive disabilities — and are paid from the same funds they’re managing.
On Wednesday, New York Focus examined how political patronage never left this appointment system, despite reforms implemented two decades ago by then-Chief Judge Judith Kaye.
When lawyers are appointed by judges based on connections,
not competence, clients may be forced to pay for less than stellar
representation. And when a politically connected lawyer is appointed,
and appears before the same judge for their client, it can raise other
parties’ suspicions in the case.
Here are four key takeaways from our investigation.
Working Around the Kaye Rules
Kaye’s 2002 rules barred a state or county political party
chair, executive director, or their “equivalent” from gaining
appointment in guardianship, estate and foreclosure proceedings. Also
barred: Any law firm “associated” with such a political party official.
“Public confidence in the courts is put at risk when
judicial appointments are based on considerations other than merit,”
Kaye said in 2000. “Simply put, the public must have faith that the
courts operate free of favoritism and partiality.”
But those rules don’t always account for officials with alternative titles who wield significant, but softer, influence.
Tens of Millions of Dollars in Queens
Three decades ago, critics held up Gerard Sweeney’s
appointment in Queens as a major example of patronage. All these years
later, the appointment continues.
Sweeney was once law chair of the Queens Democratic Party,
as well as the campaign treasurer for the party chair during the 1990s.
In 1992, the borough’s Surrogate’s Court judge granted Sweeney perhaps
the most plum judicial appointment in the entire state — counsel to the
Queens County Public Administrator.
Sweeney’s law firm, Sweeney, Reich & Bolz, has reaped
many tens of millions of dollars from the post, including more than $3.2
million in 2023.
In 2006, a Kaye amendment to the rules added “counsel to
the public administration” to the list of positions that could not be
held by an attorney who worked at a law firm “associated” with a party
chair or executive director.
The rules also barred a counsel to the public administrator
from working at a law firm associated with someone who is the
“equivalent” of party chair or executive director.
No one holds the formal title of “executive director” in
the county Democratic Party. But the partners at Sweeney, Reich &
Bolz have long played a major role in the party’s operations, especially
Michael Reich, the party’s longtime “executive secretary.”
Reich has served as a party spokesperson and election
lawyer; has overseen party judicial convention meetings; and, along with
partner Frank Bolz, comprises two-thirds of a panel that vets potential
judges seeking the party’s endorsement.
But Reich does not hold the title of “executive director,”
and a 2016 revision to the court rules — which spelled out what could be
considered the “equivalent” of a chair or executive director — did not
cover Reich, either.
In a lawsuit last year, Sweeney’s political ties to the
Queens Surrogate’s Court were used to cast doubt on then-Surrogate Judge
Peter Kelly’s impartiality. The lawsuit contended Kelly had improperly
favored Sweenedy during settlement negotiations, and alleged the root
cause was an “old-time but still operational” political machine in which
a “select group of individuals maintain tight control” over a “massive
patronage mill.”
A Major Force in the Bronx
When the Bronx Democrats have held their annual
judicial nomination convention in recent years, Assemblymember Jeffrey
Dinowitz has sat at the front of the room, overseeing the meeting as
party secretary. Dinowitz additionally sits on the party’s “executive
committee,” which advises party chair Jamaal Bailey on judicial
endorsements.
After winning election, a number of borough judges
appointed Dinowitz to serve in guardianship and Surrogate’s Court cases.
Since 2010, Dinowitz has received 40 appointments from Bronx judges.
Dinowitz once held a higher title, serving for years as the
chairperson of the Bronx Democratic County Committee. He resigned in
2016 because of an amendment to the court rules, issued by then-Chief
Judge Janet DiFiore, expounding on who could be considered the
“equivalent” of a party chair or executive director. And though Dinowitz
disagreed, the Office of Court Administration (OCA) determined the
amendment applied to him.
A “party chair,” or the equivalent, cannot land court
appointments until they’ve been out of the position for two years,
according to court rules. But during the two years following his
resignation, Dinowitz received 20.
Dinowitz recalled that the OCA gave him the green light to
go forward with appointments during the two-year window, but did not
provide records related to it.
Now, it’s clearly legal for Dinowitz to gain appointments,
and irrespective of his formal party title, he remains influential. “I
try to have some input and influence in the election of judges,”
Dinowitz told New York Focus.
In addition, several politically connected Bronx lawyers
have faced questions over their performances as fiduciaries, including:
-
Howard Vargas, a former executive director of the Bronx Democratic Party.
-
Longtime borough powerbroker Stanley Schlein, another counsel to the Bronx Democratic Party.
-
Carl Lucas, another politically connected Bronx lawyer.
Six-figures paid to Brooklyn chair
In 2011, the Long Island-based law firm Abrams Fensterman
moved into Brooklyn, absorbing a boutique practice and making Brooklyn
political power brokers Frank Carone and Frank Seddio partners.
The next year, Seddio was elected chair of the Brooklyn Democratic Party. But that presented a problem for Abrams Fensterman.
Under the court rules, if Seddio had stayed on as a law
firm partner, that would have clearly barred both him and his firm from
fiduciary appointments.
As a result, Seddio quietly resigned as a partner in the
firm. Abrams Fensterman — which had a long-established guardianship case
practice — continued to land the court jobs.
Yet the connection between Seddio and Abrams Fensterman
didn’t cease, which raises the question of whether Seddio and the law
firm remained “associated.”
At a minimum, Seddio continued making an average of nearly
$100,000 a year from Abrams Fensterman. Between 2013 and 2018, Seddio
earned between $595,000 and $975,000 from that law firm in “co-counsel
fees,” according to financial disclosure forms. Through a separate law
firm he founded, Seddio frequently worked with Abrams Fensterman as a
co-counsel on commercial litigation.
In addition, Abrams Fensterman paid Seddio between $60,000
and $150,000 to rent part of his Brooklyn law office from 2013 to 2015.
It was the same building from which Seddio & Associates operated.
Seddio, the Brooklyn Democratic Party chair, worked alongside Carone, who remained a partner at Abrams Fensterman.
The definition of “associated” in this context is nebulous,
and the OCA wouldn’t respond to questions about its interpretation.
It’s unclear whether Seddio’s financial ties with Abrams Fensterman
should have barred the firm from appointment.
The performance of a firm appointee came into question
during that period. The OCA sent a letter to an Abrams Fensterman
attorney in 2015 stating her “current unsatisfactory performance may
warrant removal” from the list of those eligible to receive
appointments.
The attorney, Ellyn Kravitz, had allegedly failed to file
timely final accountings in two guardianship cases. She voluntarily
resigned from the appointments list.