ExclusiveDeadbeat ex-judge gets break in court
BY NANCIE L. KATZ
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Monday, May 7th 2007,
A Manhattan judge dropped her arrest warrant last week against a deadbeat dad who owes $250,000 in child support because the father - a former judge himself - said he was poor and depressed.Justice Joan Lobis' decision, just a month after approving the warrant, enraged the ex-wife of disgraced former jurist Reynold Mason."There is no justice! There are no laws!" fumed Tessa Abrams Mason, who has had to raise three kids without her ex-husband's help and now faces eviction from her Long Island home. "He knows how to work the system, and she's letting him do it. She's failing my kids."Lobis refused to explain her actions to the Daily News.Mason, now a real estate agent in Georgia, said in court papers that he had declared bankruptcy and become depressed after he was kicked off the bench in 2003 for dipping into a legal client's escrow account."All of my resources and energy were given to coping with the shock of the life-altering events swirling around me," Mason whined.He claimed he earned $68,000 over two years selling real estate - far less than his $136,700 annual salary as the first Caribbean-born state Supreme Court justice.That prompted Lobis to revoke the warrant Wednesday, ordering him instead to post $150,000 bond.
Lobis was far more harsh the following day - ordering sheriffs to her courtroom in an unrelated case to arrest a mom who owed $5,000 in child support. The woman dodged jail by borrowing the cash.nkatz@nydailynews.com
Saturday, August 25, 2007
NY DAILY NEWS - MISGUIDED SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JOAN LOBIS
Ex-judge a real stiffOwes former wife & three kids 200G
BY NANCIE L. KATZ
Originally published on November 12, 2006
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
A former Brooklyn judge whose shady dealing got him booted off the bench has embarked on a new career as a deadbeat dad, the Daily News has learned.Ex-judge Reynold Mason has refused to pay more than $200,000 in court-ordered child support and alimony to his former wife and their three children, records show.Now his one-time spouse, who struggles to get by on $9.45 an hour at WalMart, her daughter and two sons are facing eviction from the Long Island home."I am so frustrated," Tessa Abrams Mason, 46 told The News. "This should not have been. There's no end. This guy is free. It's like he has a new life and it's okay."A former city Civil Court judge who later made the jump to state Supreme Court, Mason, 55, was removed from office in 2003 after the state Commission on Judicial Conduct found that he had pocketed escrow funds and illegally sublet his rent-stabilized apartment.The couple met in 1989 when he was a landlord-tenant lawyer. They married in 1993. A year later, she led his campaign to become the first Caribbean-American on the Brooklyn Civil Court. In 1997, he was elected to the Supreme Court, where he earned $136,700 a year.That same year, he left Tessa pregnant with their third child, she said. The couple was divorced in 2004 in Manhattan, where the case was moved to avoid any conflict of interest.Up until he was tossed from the bench, she said, child-support payments of $2,600 a month were being garnished from Mason's paycheck. A $600 monthly alimony order was never paid.Mason soon pulled up roots and moved to Georgia where he obtained a real estate license and today sells homes for a large brokerage.His real estate Web site highlights his former judicial and legal career, plus teaching stints at three New York colleges.But there's no mention of his deadbeat ways, Abrams Mason noted.His tab has risen to $200,000 in child support plus alimony, according to city records.He has ignored repeated judgments issued by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Lobis.Reached by phone in Georgia last week, the ex-judge declined comment. "Send me a copy [of the article]," he said. "Say whatever you want."Abrams Mason said she has appealed to the city's child support enforcement unit and the city Law Department, which is supposed to alert officials in Georgia of Mason's debts.A Law Department official said that Georgia authorities have been notified.Yet Abrams Mason still struggles to live on $1,500 a month, and now must find another place to live because the small, affordable house a friend had rented her has been foreclosed."It's hurting our children," she said. "I can barely live on what I make. I can't take a second job, I have to take care of the kids."
BY NANCIE L. KATZ
Originally published on November 12, 2006
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
A former Brooklyn judge whose shady dealing got him booted off the bench has embarked on a new career as a deadbeat dad, the Daily News has learned.Ex-judge Reynold Mason has refused to pay more than $200,000 in court-ordered child support and alimony to his former wife and their three children, records show.Now his one-time spouse, who struggles to get by on $9.45 an hour at WalMart, her daughter and two sons are facing eviction from the Long Island home."I am so frustrated," Tessa Abrams Mason, 46 told The News. "This should not have been. There's no end. This guy is free. It's like he has a new life and it's okay."A former city Civil Court judge who later made the jump to state Supreme Court, Mason, 55, was removed from office in 2003 after the state Commission on Judicial Conduct found that he had pocketed escrow funds and illegally sublet his rent-stabilized apartment.The couple met in 1989 when he was a landlord-tenant lawyer. They married in 1993. A year later, she led his campaign to become the first Caribbean-American on the Brooklyn Civil Court. In 1997, he was elected to the Supreme Court, where he earned $136,700 a year.That same year, he left Tessa pregnant with their third child, she said. The couple was divorced in 2004 in Manhattan, where the case was moved to avoid any conflict of interest.Up until he was tossed from the bench, she said, child-support payments of $2,600 a month were being garnished from Mason's paycheck. A $600 monthly alimony order was never paid.Mason soon pulled up roots and moved to Georgia where he obtained a real estate license and today sells homes for a large brokerage.His real estate Web site highlights his former judicial and legal career, plus teaching stints at three New York colleges.But there's no mention of his deadbeat ways, Abrams Mason noted.His tab has risen to $200,000 in child support plus alimony, according to city records.He has ignored repeated judgments issued by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Lobis.Reached by phone in Georgia last week, the ex-judge declined comment. "Send me a copy [of the article]," he said. "Say whatever you want."Abrams Mason said she has appealed to the city's child support enforcement unit and the city Law Department, which is supposed to alert officials in Georgia of Mason's debts.A Law Department official said that Georgia authorities have been notified.Yet Abrams Mason still struggles to live on $1,500 a month, and now must find another place to live because the small, affordable house a friend had rented her has been foreclosed."It's hurting our children," she said. "I can barely live on what I make. I can't take a second job, I have to take care of the kids."
MISGUIDED SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JOAN LOBIS VICTIM # 3
How My Ex-hubby Paid to Be Judge Former Wife Claims Cash & Bribery 'Package Deal'
By Nancy KatzNew York Daily News
January 23. 2007
Tessa Abrams Mason says her ex-husband, Reynold Mason, was expected to come up with cash for all comers.
Ex-Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Reynold Mason found out early, his ex-wife says, that running for judge meant making big payoffs to pols and hiring people he was told to.
In a shocking new twist in the exploding "judgeships for sale" scandal, the ex-wife of a disgraced Brooklyn Supreme Court judge has revealed details of a systematic payoff scheme that bought her husband his seat on the bench.
Tessa Abrams Mason alleges the couple spent nearly $100,000 - some of it bribe money - to boost the legal career of her then-husband, former Supreme Court Justice Reynold Mason.
In a series of exclusive interviews, Abrams Mason implicated well-known Brooklyn Democrats in the deals - including former state Sen. Carl Andrews, who has close ties to Gov. Spitzer.
Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes, who has been probing court corruption, was not familiar with Abrams Mason's story, said spokesman Jerry Schmetterer.
But Schmetterer added, "Based on the scope of our investigation, we take any allegations about corruption seriously."
The startling accounts were given to the Daily News over the past six months in dozens of interviews and in an explosive unpublished memoir.
Although other jurists have been caught up in the ever-widening probe, it is the details provided by Abrams Mason that make her story so compelling.
She tells how:
* Her husband had to buy a package deal of payoffs to secure the party's backing.
* Andrews allegedly took a $5,000 payoff in an
envelope at Mason's Brooklyn law office - for which no services were received.
* Mason had to hire a campaign manager and an election lawyer at the direction of the local party.
* Once elected, he had to hire a law clerk chosen by the party.
"They didn't care if Mason was competent," his ex-wife, 46, told The News. "All they cared about was [that] Mason had a deep pocket and could raise funds and throw around money without asking questions."
Caught dipping into escrow
Her ex-husband was stripped of his post in 2003 after she told the state Commission on Judicial Conduct that he dipped into an client escrow account to fund the campaign - an accusation that the commission substantiated.
Mason, 57, now a real estate agent in Georgia, has been ducking court-ordered child support payments for years. Recently a New York state judge threatened him with jail if he didn't show up to explain why he hasn't paid up the $200,000 he owed.
Reached by telephone last week, Mason vehemently denied the charges of his former spouse, whom he calls "a bitter woman."
"I never paid a bribe to anyone," he said. "What they do is meet with you [and say],
'If you want our help, you gotta do XYZ.' That's all they ever said."
"You work with them," Mason added. "You want to win. You bite the bullet and do what you have to do."
But his ex-wife's startling account of back-door deals and pay-for-play demands seems to mirror much of what Hynes has uncovered in a corruption probe now in its sixth year.
Hynes' work led to the toppling of once-powerful Democratic boss Clarence Norman and the indictment of three state Supreme Court justices and other elected officials.
Norman's lawyer said his client was focused on his next trial, due to get under-way today with jury selection. "Any other allegations are simply a scurrilous attempt to poison a jury pool," said attorney Edward Wilford.
First race an eye-opener
In 1994, Mason was a 46-year-old real estate lawyer just starting to make a name for himself in Brooklyn's West Indian community when he decided to run for the bench.
A native of Grenada, he had married Abrams Mason, who worked as his office manager and paralegal, a year earlier. The couple have three children.
Though Mason had dabbled in local politics, his entry into the judicial race proved an eye-opener for him and his new bride. In heavily Democratic Brooklyn, the primary was the real election and he faced stiff opposition.
Friends led him to pols with close ties to Norman. One of the first stops was a meeting with local Democratic district leader Marietta Small.
Small, who later held a top patronage post in Brooklyn Surrogate's Court, taught the couple the facts of life about judicial politics, Abrams Mason said.
"Small was not interested in money, but influence and power," she said. "Everyone else was interested in payoffs."
To get Norman's backing, Mason was told, he would have to take what his wife described as "the package deal."
That included a campaign manager selected by the bosses who would be paid $15,000, an election lawyer who would get $10,000 and inherit Mason's cases and clients if he was elected, and a law clerk handpicked by Small once he got on the bench.
"At one meeting, Mason was told you have to pay Andrews $5,000 cash and make donations to other candidates," his ex-wife said. "Whatever money politicians asked for, Mason had to have it right then and there. We ended up spending nearly $100,000."
Not all of it was reported by Mason's campaign, she added. Campaign finance records reviewed by The News show Mason's campaign spent $67,895.04.
But other expenditures, like the alleged payment to Andrews, "weren't accounted for in campaign records," she said.
At the time, Andrews was an active Democratic leader in Brooklyn and a close confidant of Norman. He was later elected to the state Senate, worked for Spitzer in the attorney general's office, but lost a bid for Congress despite Spitzer's backing.
Andrews was recently hired by Spitzer to work in his Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The Village Voice recently identified Andrews as the bagman for a bribe paid to Norman in 2001 to get another judge, Howard Ruditzky, a Supreme Court seat.
Andrews 'insulted' by query
Andrews, 50, did not return repeated calls for comment. But earlier, when asked about the Ruditzky allegation, he replied, "I'm insulted by the question and the implications behind that question. I guess my only crime is being Clarence Norman's friend. Guilt by association."
Yet Abrams Mason says she clearly recalls the day when Andrews showed up at Mason's law office on Glenwood Road in East Flatbush to pick up his cash.
"Mason was annoyed. He said, 'Why do we have to pay this guy $5,000? What is he going to do for me?'"
As it turned out, nothing. She recalled, "Mason took money out of the right-hand drawer of his desk, where we keep our cash and records. He put the $5,000 in an envelope and handed it to him. [Andrews] put it in his jacket pocket. He didn't stick around. That was it!"
"Mason and I thought he took the money to go neutral, because he did nothing. ... He didn't do anything for Mason's opponent either."
"We never saw him again, not even at a fund-raiser," she said.
In a telephone interview, Small also denied any wrongdoing.
"I have no knowledge of anyone taking any bribes," she said. "I would not ever be a part of that. I would never be a part of anything like that. That's the God's honest truth."
Abrams Mason insists thousands in cash went to politically connected operatives who supposedly spent it on such things as neighborhood get-out-the-vote campaigns.
Some of it went to district leaders who controlled large blocs of votes at local housing projects, where "the voters were told who to vote for, and this was a plus."
The support of Norman's army of regulars helped Mason eke out a win in the Civil Court primary by 145 votes.
By the time of his 1996 election to the state Supreme Court, the couple had split. But he would tell her later he had to pay the Democrats even more for that race.
With his expenses mounting, Mason eventually dipped into the client escrow account - a no-no that was exposed by his ex-wife.
The alleged wrongdoing - much of it also detailed in her unpublished memoir, "The Judge's Wife and the Political Mafia" - are unlikely to result in new criminal charges because the statute of limitations has run out.
She decided to go public because the court battle over financial support for their three children has dragged on.
When she could no longer afford a lawyer, she drew up legal papers herself. She eventually won a contempt order against him, demonstrating that of all his political foes, Mason's ex-wife has been the most formidable.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/491095p-413659c.html
Judge Scandal Could Tarnish Spitzer Shine Anti-corrupt Gov Hiring Pol Tied to Norman?
By Lisa L. Colangelo, Nancie L. Katz and Adam LisbergNew York Daily News January 15, 2007
Clarence Norman
Gov. Spitzer took office two weeks ago with a corruption-busting promise - but yesterday he welcomed into his inner circle a man who has been named in connection with an exploding Brooklyn bribery scandal.
Former state Sen. Carl Andrews was one of several insiders who were invited into Spitzer's midtown offices following a news conference where the governor ducked a question about the corruption probe.
"With respect for the alleged improprieties that have been the subject of investigation in Brooklyn, obviously those cases continue and they proceed," Spitzer said.
Andrews is reportedly being considered for a high-ranking post in the Spitzer administration - and while the governor said little, his exit with the well-connected Andrews seemed to show Spitzer was not publicly distancing himself from him.
The Village Voice claimed in a story published Saturday that Andrews picked up a bribe in 2001 - either $25,000 in cash or $3,000 in postage stamps that could be used in a campaign - from a sex therapist named Norman Chesler, who was hoping to get his cousin, Civil Court Judge Howard Ruditzky, a seat on the state Supreme Court.
Andrews allegedly delivered it to his longtime confidant Clarence Norman, a corrupt Democratic Party boss who could be indicted for allegedly taking as much as $70,000 in bribes to put Ruditzky on the bench, The Voice reported.
Andrews told the Daily News yesterday he has never met Chesler - and when asked point-blank about collecting a bribe, said it was beneath his dignity to answer.
"I'm insulted by the question and the implications behind that question," he said. "I guess my only crime is being Clarence Norman's friend. Guilt by association."
Law enforcement sources told The News yesterday that Andrews is not a target in the long-running probe of whether Brooklyn judges have bought their way onto the bench.
Andrews held a community relations job under Spitzer when he was state attorney general. Andrews later served as a Brooklyn state senator and ran unsuccessfully for Congress last fall.
Ruditzky, Chesler and Norman declined to comment. Norman's lawyer Edward Wilford said he has not been contacted by Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes about the allegations.
Prosecutors would not file any new charges against Norman until after his Jan. 23 trial on extortion charges, a law enforcement source said.
Spitzer's office did not respond to a request for comment.
With Nicole Bode and Tamer El-Ghobashy
DA: Norman Sold Judgeship for 50g - & 6g in Stamps
By Nancie L. Katz and Rich SchapiroNew York Daily NewsJanuary 14, 2007
Clarence Norman
Brooklyn prosecutors are seeking to indict deposed Brooklyn Democratic Party chairman Clarence Norman for allegedly selling a judgeship for at least $50,000 in cash and $6,000 in postage stamps, it was reported yesterday.
The alleged corruption, detailed by The Village Voice, has the potential to shake the Brooklyn political establishment and push the Legislature to overhaul how state Supreme Court judges are selected.
Norman - already sentenced to two to six years behind bars for unrelated felony campaign corruption - will be indicted by a grand jury for allegedly demanding payoffs to elevate former Civil Court Judge Howard Ruditzky to the state Supreme Court, The Voice says.
Sources told the Daily News that Ruditzky was granted immunity and recently testified before a grand jury, where he revealed he paid $70,000 for the judgeship.
"A sitting judge told a grand jury that he paid Clarence Norman $70,000 for the nomination," one of the sources said.
The Voice said it had pinpointed only $56,000 in payments.
District Attorney Charles Hynes' case against Norman, according to The Voice, revolves around the testimony of Ruditzky and three other witnesses: Jeff Feldman, the executive director of the Brooklyn Democratic Party; ex-Supreme Court Justice Michael Garson; and Ruditzky's millionaire cousin, an overweight sex therapist named Norman Chesler.
It was Chesler who was at the center of the alleged payoffs, according to The Voice.
In 2001, Chesler began helping Ruditzky in his bid to get reelected to the Civil Court. According to The Voice, Ruditzky wasn't planning to serve if reelected because Norman allegedly had promised to elevate him to the Supreme Court after the balloting.
Norman had the ability to promote Ruditzky because Supreme Court nominees are selected by judicial conventions, a system that allows a Democratic leader in a Democratic county to handpick jurists.
Norman was planning to promote Ruditzky and then select his replacement for Civil Court without having to run that candidate in a primary, The Voice reports.
"If Ruditzky wins reelection, we'll elevate him," Norman told Chesler, according to The Voice.
But that plan crumbled when Ruditzky lost. In stepped Chesler, who, according to The Voice, was allegedly told by Norman, "We could use money for activities in my community."
Chesler's first alleged payment to Norman came in the form of postage stamps, two $3,000 rolls he bought at a post office, The Voice reported.
Chesler, who refers to Ruditzky as "Rudy," also allegedly gave Norman $50,000 - delivering the first half "wrapped in a large brown envelope," according to The Voice.
Bank records reviewed by The Voice reveal a series of withdrawals totaling $43,950 that Chesler made from his company between July and November 2001. Notations contained with the record of the withdrawals, also reviewed by The Voice, said that "CN asked for Rudy to come up and give 50k for services," adding that "since they weren't getting it on their own, they asked for help."
Chesler began cooperating with Hynes' office after being indicted in a car insurance scam, The Voice says.
Ruditzky, Chesler and Norman's lawyer could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Sources told The News last week that Ruditzky's grand jury testimony is being reviewed by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. Commission administrator Robert Tembekjian declined to comment last week.
David Bookstaver, spokesman for the New York State Office of Court Administration, told The News on Friday that "it would be inappropriate to comment about an alleged ongoing investigation."
Grand jury testimony is secret, and when The News asked Hynes on Dec. 21 about Ruditzky appearing before the panel, Hynes declared it was "untrue." Hynes' spokesman, Jerry Schmetterer, declined to comment Friday on whether the office knew about the alleged bribe.
The author of The Voice article, Wayne Barrett, revealed that his mentor, the late Jack Newfield, had been investigating Brooklyn courts before his death in 2004.
According to The Voice, Newfield had scrawled Ruditzky's name into a notebook that contained his last interview.
More than 30 years have passed since Newfield wrote in 1972, "It is common belief on the streets of this city that judgeships are bought and sold by politicians for cash, and that once on the bench, some judges continue to be up for sale - or at least for rent."
By Nancy KatzNew York Daily News
January 23. 2007
Tessa Abrams Mason says her ex-husband, Reynold Mason, was expected to come up with cash for all comers.
Ex-Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Reynold Mason found out early, his ex-wife says, that running for judge meant making big payoffs to pols and hiring people he was told to.
In a shocking new twist in the exploding "judgeships for sale" scandal, the ex-wife of a disgraced Brooklyn Supreme Court judge has revealed details of a systematic payoff scheme that bought her husband his seat on the bench.
Tessa Abrams Mason alleges the couple spent nearly $100,000 - some of it bribe money - to boost the legal career of her then-husband, former Supreme Court Justice Reynold Mason.
In a series of exclusive interviews, Abrams Mason implicated well-known Brooklyn Democrats in the deals - including former state Sen. Carl Andrews, who has close ties to Gov. Spitzer.
Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes, who has been probing court corruption, was not familiar with Abrams Mason's story, said spokesman Jerry Schmetterer.
But Schmetterer added, "Based on the scope of our investigation, we take any allegations about corruption seriously."
The startling accounts were given to the Daily News over the past six months in dozens of interviews and in an explosive unpublished memoir.
Although other jurists have been caught up in the ever-widening probe, it is the details provided by Abrams Mason that make her story so compelling.
She tells how:
* Her husband had to buy a package deal of payoffs to secure the party's backing.
* Andrews allegedly took a $5,000 payoff in an
envelope at Mason's Brooklyn law office - for which no services were received.
* Mason had to hire a campaign manager and an election lawyer at the direction of the local party.
* Once elected, he had to hire a law clerk chosen by the party.
"They didn't care if Mason was competent," his ex-wife, 46, told The News. "All they cared about was [that] Mason had a deep pocket and could raise funds and throw around money without asking questions."
Caught dipping into escrow
Her ex-husband was stripped of his post in 2003 after she told the state Commission on Judicial Conduct that he dipped into an client escrow account to fund the campaign - an accusation that the commission substantiated.
Mason, 57, now a real estate agent in Georgia, has been ducking court-ordered child support payments for years. Recently a New York state judge threatened him with jail if he didn't show up to explain why he hasn't paid up the $200,000 he owed.
Reached by telephone last week, Mason vehemently denied the charges of his former spouse, whom he calls "a bitter woman."
"I never paid a bribe to anyone," he said. "What they do is meet with you [and say],
'If you want our help, you gotta do XYZ.' That's all they ever said."
"You work with them," Mason added. "You want to win. You bite the bullet and do what you have to do."
But his ex-wife's startling account of back-door deals and pay-for-play demands seems to mirror much of what Hynes has uncovered in a corruption probe now in its sixth year.
Hynes' work led to the toppling of once-powerful Democratic boss Clarence Norman and the indictment of three state Supreme Court justices and other elected officials.
Norman's lawyer said his client was focused on his next trial, due to get under-way today with jury selection. "Any other allegations are simply a scurrilous attempt to poison a jury pool," said attorney Edward Wilford.
First race an eye-opener
In 1994, Mason was a 46-year-old real estate lawyer just starting to make a name for himself in Brooklyn's West Indian community when he decided to run for the bench.
A native of Grenada, he had married Abrams Mason, who worked as his office manager and paralegal, a year earlier. The couple have three children.
Though Mason had dabbled in local politics, his entry into the judicial race proved an eye-opener for him and his new bride. In heavily Democratic Brooklyn, the primary was the real election and he faced stiff opposition.
Friends led him to pols with close ties to Norman. One of the first stops was a meeting with local Democratic district leader Marietta Small.
Small, who later held a top patronage post in Brooklyn Surrogate's Court, taught the couple the facts of life about judicial politics, Abrams Mason said.
"Small was not interested in money, but influence and power," she said. "Everyone else was interested in payoffs."
To get Norman's backing, Mason was told, he would have to take what his wife described as "the package deal."
That included a campaign manager selected by the bosses who would be paid $15,000, an election lawyer who would get $10,000 and inherit Mason's cases and clients if he was elected, and a law clerk handpicked by Small once he got on the bench.
"At one meeting, Mason was told you have to pay Andrews $5,000 cash and make donations to other candidates," his ex-wife said. "Whatever money politicians asked for, Mason had to have it right then and there. We ended up spending nearly $100,000."
Not all of it was reported by Mason's campaign, she added. Campaign finance records reviewed by The News show Mason's campaign spent $67,895.04.
But other expenditures, like the alleged payment to Andrews, "weren't accounted for in campaign records," she said.
At the time, Andrews was an active Democratic leader in Brooklyn and a close confidant of Norman. He was later elected to the state Senate, worked for Spitzer in the attorney general's office, but lost a bid for Congress despite Spitzer's backing.
Andrews was recently hired by Spitzer to work in his Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The Village Voice recently identified Andrews as the bagman for a bribe paid to Norman in 2001 to get another judge, Howard Ruditzky, a Supreme Court seat.
Andrews 'insulted' by query
Andrews, 50, did not return repeated calls for comment. But earlier, when asked about the Ruditzky allegation, he replied, "I'm insulted by the question and the implications behind that question. I guess my only crime is being Clarence Norman's friend. Guilt by association."
Yet Abrams Mason says she clearly recalls the day when Andrews showed up at Mason's law office on Glenwood Road in East Flatbush to pick up his cash.
"Mason was annoyed. He said, 'Why do we have to pay this guy $5,000? What is he going to do for me?'"
As it turned out, nothing. She recalled, "Mason took money out of the right-hand drawer of his desk, where we keep our cash and records. He put the $5,000 in an envelope and handed it to him. [Andrews] put it in his jacket pocket. He didn't stick around. That was it!"
"Mason and I thought he took the money to go neutral, because he did nothing. ... He didn't do anything for Mason's opponent either."
"We never saw him again, not even at a fund-raiser," she said.
In a telephone interview, Small also denied any wrongdoing.
"I have no knowledge of anyone taking any bribes," she said. "I would not ever be a part of that. I would never be a part of anything like that. That's the God's honest truth."
Abrams Mason insists thousands in cash went to politically connected operatives who supposedly spent it on such things as neighborhood get-out-the-vote campaigns.
Some of it went to district leaders who controlled large blocs of votes at local housing projects, where "the voters were told who to vote for, and this was a plus."
The support of Norman's army of regulars helped Mason eke out a win in the Civil Court primary by 145 votes.
By the time of his 1996 election to the state Supreme Court, the couple had split. But he would tell her later he had to pay the Democrats even more for that race.
With his expenses mounting, Mason eventually dipped into the client escrow account - a no-no that was exposed by his ex-wife.
The alleged wrongdoing - much of it also detailed in her unpublished memoir, "The Judge's Wife and the Political Mafia" - are unlikely to result in new criminal charges because the statute of limitations has run out.
She decided to go public because the court battle over financial support for their three children has dragged on.
When she could no longer afford a lawyer, she drew up legal papers herself. She eventually won a contempt order against him, demonstrating that of all his political foes, Mason's ex-wife has been the most formidable.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/491095p-413659c.html
Judge Scandal Could Tarnish Spitzer Shine Anti-corrupt Gov Hiring Pol Tied to Norman?
By Lisa L. Colangelo, Nancie L. Katz and Adam LisbergNew York Daily News January 15, 2007
Clarence Norman
Gov. Spitzer took office two weeks ago with a corruption-busting promise - but yesterday he welcomed into his inner circle a man who has been named in connection with an exploding Brooklyn bribery scandal.
Former state Sen. Carl Andrews was one of several insiders who were invited into Spitzer's midtown offices following a news conference where the governor ducked a question about the corruption probe.
"With respect for the alleged improprieties that have been the subject of investigation in Brooklyn, obviously those cases continue and they proceed," Spitzer said.
Andrews is reportedly being considered for a high-ranking post in the Spitzer administration - and while the governor said little, his exit with the well-connected Andrews seemed to show Spitzer was not publicly distancing himself from him.
The Village Voice claimed in a story published Saturday that Andrews picked up a bribe in 2001 - either $25,000 in cash or $3,000 in postage stamps that could be used in a campaign - from a sex therapist named Norman Chesler, who was hoping to get his cousin, Civil Court Judge Howard Ruditzky, a seat on the state Supreme Court.
Andrews allegedly delivered it to his longtime confidant Clarence Norman, a corrupt Democratic Party boss who could be indicted for allegedly taking as much as $70,000 in bribes to put Ruditzky on the bench, The Voice reported.
Andrews told the Daily News yesterday he has never met Chesler - and when asked point-blank about collecting a bribe, said it was beneath his dignity to answer.
"I'm insulted by the question and the implications behind that question," he said. "I guess my only crime is being Clarence Norman's friend. Guilt by association."
Law enforcement sources told The News yesterday that Andrews is not a target in the long-running probe of whether Brooklyn judges have bought their way onto the bench.
Andrews held a community relations job under Spitzer when he was state attorney general. Andrews later served as a Brooklyn state senator and ran unsuccessfully for Congress last fall.
Ruditzky, Chesler and Norman declined to comment. Norman's lawyer Edward Wilford said he has not been contacted by Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes about the allegations.
Prosecutors would not file any new charges against Norman until after his Jan. 23 trial on extortion charges, a law enforcement source said.
Spitzer's office did not respond to a request for comment.
With Nicole Bode and Tamer El-Ghobashy
DA: Norman Sold Judgeship for 50g - & 6g in Stamps
By Nancie L. Katz and Rich SchapiroNew York Daily NewsJanuary 14, 2007
Clarence Norman
Brooklyn prosecutors are seeking to indict deposed Brooklyn Democratic Party chairman Clarence Norman for allegedly selling a judgeship for at least $50,000 in cash and $6,000 in postage stamps, it was reported yesterday.
The alleged corruption, detailed by The Village Voice, has the potential to shake the Brooklyn political establishment and push the Legislature to overhaul how state Supreme Court judges are selected.
Norman - already sentenced to two to six years behind bars for unrelated felony campaign corruption - will be indicted by a grand jury for allegedly demanding payoffs to elevate former Civil Court Judge Howard Ruditzky to the state Supreme Court, The Voice says.
Sources told the Daily News that Ruditzky was granted immunity and recently testified before a grand jury, where he revealed he paid $70,000 for the judgeship.
"A sitting judge told a grand jury that he paid Clarence Norman $70,000 for the nomination," one of the sources said.
The Voice said it had pinpointed only $56,000 in payments.
District Attorney Charles Hynes' case against Norman, according to The Voice, revolves around the testimony of Ruditzky and three other witnesses: Jeff Feldman, the executive director of the Brooklyn Democratic Party; ex-Supreme Court Justice Michael Garson; and Ruditzky's millionaire cousin, an overweight sex therapist named Norman Chesler.
It was Chesler who was at the center of the alleged payoffs, according to The Voice.
In 2001, Chesler began helping Ruditzky in his bid to get reelected to the Civil Court. According to The Voice, Ruditzky wasn't planning to serve if reelected because Norman allegedly had promised to elevate him to the Supreme Court after the balloting.
Norman had the ability to promote Ruditzky because Supreme Court nominees are selected by judicial conventions, a system that allows a Democratic leader in a Democratic county to handpick jurists.
Norman was planning to promote Ruditzky and then select his replacement for Civil Court without having to run that candidate in a primary, The Voice reports.
"If Ruditzky wins reelection, we'll elevate him," Norman told Chesler, according to The Voice.
But that plan crumbled when Ruditzky lost. In stepped Chesler, who, according to The Voice, was allegedly told by Norman, "We could use money for activities in my community."
Chesler's first alleged payment to Norman came in the form of postage stamps, two $3,000 rolls he bought at a post office, The Voice reported.
Chesler, who refers to Ruditzky as "Rudy," also allegedly gave Norman $50,000 - delivering the first half "wrapped in a large brown envelope," according to The Voice.
Bank records reviewed by The Voice reveal a series of withdrawals totaling $43,950 that Chesler made from his company between July and November 2001. Notations contained with the record of the withdrawals, also reviewed by The Voice, said that "CN asked for Rudy to come up and give 50k for services," adding that "since they weren't getting it on their own, they asked for help."
Chesler began cooperating with Hynes' office after being indicted in a car insurance scam, The Voice says.
Ruditzky, Chesler and Norman's lawyer could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Sources told The News last week that Ruditzky's grand jury testimony is being reviewed by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. Commission administrator Robert Tembekjian declined to comment last week.
David Bookstaver, spokesman for the New York State Office of Court Administration, told The News on Friday that "it would be inappropriate to comment about an alleged ongoing investigation."
Grand jury testimony is secret, and when The News asked Hynes on Dec. 21 about Ruditzky appearing before the panel, Hynes declared it was "untrue." Hynes' spokesman, Jerry Schmetterer, declined to comment Friday on whether the office knew about the alleged bribe.
The author of The Voice article, Wayne Barrett, revealed that his mentor, the late Jack Newfield, had been investigating Brooklyn courts before his death in 2004.
According to The Voice, Newfield had scrawled Ruditzky's name into a notebook that contained his last interview.
More than 30 years have passed since Newfield wrote in 1972, "It is common belief on the streets of this city that judgeships are bought and sold by politicians for cash, and that once on the bench, some judges continue to be up for sale - or at least for rent."
SECOND KUDOS TO THE FIRST DEPARTMENT FOR TRUMPING MISGUIDED SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JOAN LOBIS
St. Clement v Casale 2006 NYSlipOp 03697
May 11, 2006 Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau: <http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/> pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, July 19, 2006 Courtney St. Clement, on Behalf of Taylor Ernest Casale, Appellant,vGerald Casale et al., Respondents.—[*1]Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered April 12, 2002, September 23, 2002, on or about April 29, 2004, August 26, 2004 and November 19, 2004, which, respectively, inter alia, denied petitioner mother's application for temporary custody of the subject child, confirmed a Special Referee's report, denied her request to have the child evaluated by the Bellevue Hospital Child Protection Unit, denied her motion to renew, and denied her motion to subpoena the child's pediatrician; and order and judgment (one paper), same court and Justice, entered September 21, 2004, which, inter alia, awarded child support to respondent father Gerald Casale in the amount of $567 monthly, retroactive to April 16, 2001, the date of the judgment awarding the father custody, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the matter remanded for a hearing before Supreme Court in order to reevaluate the best interests of the child, as well as the issues of child support. Family Court, during the pendency of this appeal, and in response to a petition filed by the Administration for Children's Services naming petitioner and respondents herein as respondents in that proceeding, has appointed a law guardian to represent the interests of the child. That law guardian is directed to continue to represent the child for the purposes of the Supreme Court proceeding directed herein.
In this matter, we find troubling respondents\' refusal, in the face of petitioner\'s allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct, to address the issue of the Web site postings in question, for if respondent Londa did, in fact, post these messages, a change in custody may very well be warranted. In addition, given the somewhat contradictory positions espoused by Dr. Prezioso, the child\'s pediatrician, both in support of, and in opposition to, petitioner\'s order to show cause, we find clarification of her observations necessary in order to make an informed determination regarding the child\'s best interests. Finally, we remand the issue of child support to Supreme Court, for as Supreme Court acknowledged in its decision, its ability to review the referee\'s conclusions was circumscribed by the parties\' failure to submit a transcript of the hearing, in violation of CPLR 4320. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.\u003cbr /\>\u003cbr /\>Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.\u003c/div\>",0]
);
//-->
It is settled that the essential consideration in making an award of custody is the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Faunteleroy v Mercado, 5 AD3d 482, 482-483 [2004]), and a court may direct a change in custody if the totality of the circumstances warrants a modification and such a change is in the best interests of the child (Matter of Mathis v Parkhurst, 23 AD3d 923, 924 [2005]; Matter of [*2]Dow v Dow, 306 AD2d 529, 530 [2003]). Some of the factors to be considered include "the quality of the home environment, parental guidance, financial status and ability to provide for the child as well as the ability to provide for the emotional and intellectual development of the child" (Matter of Luz Maria V., 23 AD3d 192, 193 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 710 [2006], citing Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 172). Moreover, the burden of establishing a change in circumstances requiring a modification of an existing custody order rests with the petitioner (Matter of Martin R.G. v Ofelia G.O., 24 AD3d 305, 305-306 [2005]; Matter of Millan v Vargas, 5 AD3d 602 [2004]).In this matter, we find troubling respondents' refusal, in the face of petitioner's allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct, to address the issue of the Web site postings in question, for if respondent Londa did, in fact, post these messages, a change in custody may very well be warranted. In addition, given the somewhat contradictory positions espoused by Dr. Prezioso, the child's pediatrician, both in support of, and in opposition to, petitioner's order to show cause, we find clarification of her observations necessary in order to make an informed determination regarding the child's best interests. Finally, we remand the issue of child support to Supreme Court, for as Supreme Court acknowledged in its decision, its ability to review the referee's conclusions was circumscribed by the parties' failure to submit a transcript of the hearing, in violation of CPLR 4320. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
May 11, 2006 Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau: <http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/> pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, July 19, 2006 Courtney St. Clement, on Behalf of Taylor Ernest Casale, Appellant,vGerald Casale et al., Respondents.—[*1]Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered April 12, 2002, September 23, 2002, on or about April 29, 2004, August 26, 2004 and November 19, 2004, which, respectively, inter alia, denied petitioner mother's application for temporary custody of the subject child, confirmed a Special Referee's report, denied her request to have the child evaluated by the Bellevue Hospital Child Protection Unit, denied her motion to renew, and denied her motion to subpoena the child's pediatrician; and order and judgment (one paper), same court and Justice, entered September 21, 2004, which, inter alia, awarded child support to respondent father Gerald Casale in the amount of $567 monthly, retroactive to April 16, 2001, the date of the judgment awarding the father custody, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the matter remanded for a hearing before Supreme Court in order to reevaluate the best interests of the child, as well as the issues of child support. Family Court, during the pendency of this appeal, and in response to a petition filed by the Administration for Children's Services naming petitioner and respondents herein as respondents in that proceeding, has appointed a law guardian to represent the interests of the child. That law guardian is directed to continue to represent the child for the purposes of the Supreme Court proceeding directed herein.
In this matter, we find troubling respondents\' refusal, in the face of petitioner\'s allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct, to address the issue of the Web site postings in question, for if respondent Londa did, in fact, post these messages, a change in custody may very well be warranted. In addition, given the somewhat contradictory positions espoused by Dr. Prezioso, the child\'s pediatrician, both in support of, and in opposition to, petitioner\'s order to show cause, we find clarification of her observations necessary in order to make an informed determination regarding the child\'s best interests. Finally, we remand the issue of child support to Supreme Court, for as Supreme Court acknowledged in its decision, its ability to review the referee\'s conclusions was circumscribed by the parties\' failure to submit a transcript of the hearing, in violation of CPLR 4320. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.\u003cbr /\>\u003cbr /\>Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.\u003c/div\>",0]
);
//-->
It is settled that the essential consideration in making an award of custody is the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Faunteleroy v Mercado, 5 AD3d 482, 482-483 [2004]), and a court may direct a change in custody if the totality of the circumstances warrants a modification and such a change is in the best interests of the child (Matter of Mathis v Parkhurst, 23 AD3d 923, 924 [2005]; Matter of [*2]Dow v Dow, 306 AD2d 529, 530 [2003]). Some of the factors to be considered include "the quality of the home environment, parental guidance, financial status and ability to provide for the child as well as the ability to provide for the emotional and intellectual development of the child" (Matter of Luz Maria V., 23 AD3d 192, 193 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 710 [2006], citing Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 172). Moreover, the burden of establishing a change in circumstances requiring a modification of an existing custody order rests with the petitioner (Matter of Martin R.G. v Ofelia G.O., 24 AD3d 305, 305-306 [2005]; Matter of Millan v Vargas, 5 AD3d 602 [2004]).In this matter, we find troubling respondents' refusal, in the face of petitioner's allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct, to address the issue of the Web site postings in question, for if respondent Londa did, in fact, post these messages, a change in custody may very well be warranted. In addition, given the somewhat contradictory positions espoused by Dr. Prezioso, the child's pediatrician, both in support of, and in opposition to, petitioner's order to show cause, we find clarification of her observations necessary in order to make an informed determination regarding the child's best interests. Finally, we remand the issue of child support to Supreme Court, for as Supreme Court acknowledged in its decision, its ability to review the referee's conclusions was circumscribed by the parties' failure to submit a transcript of the hearing, in violation of CPLR 4320. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
KUDOS TO THE FIRST FIRST DEPARTMENT FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING - TRUMPING MISGUIDED BLACK ROBE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JOAN LOBIS
Cordula Bartha, Respondent-Appellant,
v
Nicholas Bartha, Appellant-Respondent.
State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, January 27, 2005
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Ira E. Garr, P.C., New York City (Jane R. Slavin and Ira E. Garr of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Polly N. Passonneau, P.C., New York City (Donna E. Bennick and Polly N. Passonneau of counsel), respondent-appellant.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Saxe, J.
The determination of equitable distribution made by the Special Referee and incorporated in the court's judgment is both inequitable and unsupported by the record in numerous respects; in particular, the conclusion that plaintiff had no right to any portion of the marital residence or its appreciation in value was contrary to fundamental principles of equitable distribution. Reversal of the financial provisions of the judgment is therefore necessary.
Plaintiff Cordula Bartha, who was born in the Netherlands, emigrated with her family to Italy in 1960. She earned a Ph.D. in German literature from the University of Rome, after which she found employment as an assistant to a publisher. In 1973, she met defendant Nicholas Bartha, a medical student of Romanian and Hungarian heritage. The parties lived together in Rome until defendant graduated from medical school in April 1974, at which time they relocated to the United States and moved in with defendant's parents in a large house owned by defendant and his mother in Rego Park, New York. While defendant studied to pass the examination required of graduates of foreign medical schools, plaintiff worked in the cultural section of the Netherlands Consulate.
In 1976, defendant passed the test that entitled him to practice medicine in the United States, and began an internship at Elmhurst General Hospital in Queens, New York. At about the same time, plaintiff learned that she was pregnant, and the parties married on January 10, 1977. The couple's two children, born, respectively, on August 5, 1977 and December 11, 1978, are now adults.
Although plaintiff continued to work until shortly before their first child was born, she subsequently remained at home with the children until the youngest was approximately 11 years old. Plaintiff returned to work at the Consulate on a part-time basis in 1989, and resumed full-time status there in 1994. In the meantime, defendant completed his internship and residency, and from 1979 until the present has worked as an emergency room physician.
The family, along with defendant's parents, moved to Manhattan in 1986, to a townhouse located on East 62nd Street, which was purchased in 1980 for $395,000, with cash totaling $199,699 obtained from a variety of sources, including a check from defendant's parents and a payment of separate funds belonging to plaintiff; the seller took back a mortgage for the remainder. Once the renovations on the building were completed, this townhouse contained the duplex apartment in which the parties resided, another apartment for defendant's parents, a rental apartment, and a physician's office unit on the first floor. Title to the property was placed in the name of defendant's parents at the time of the purchase; subsequently, it was put jointly in defendant's and his mother's name. Although the parties disagree as to the source of the mortgage payments between 1980 and 1985, it is undisputed that by 1988 the mortgage payments were made from the parties' joint account, as were the costs of the extensive renovations made on the property prior to their taking residence.
In October 2001, plaintiff wife vacated the marital residence and commenced this action for divorce.
After a fault trial, a divorce was granted in favor of plaintiff. The economic issues were referred to a Special Referee to hear and determine.
The Referee found that the townhouse on East 62nd Street was not marital property, but [*2]was in part the separate property of defendant and in part belonged to the parties' children. It was noted that defendant obtained title to 50% of the marital residence as a gift from his father and another 25% as an inheritance from his mother, while the remaining 25% had been willed by his mother to the children of the marriage.
The Referee then found that plaintiff was entitled to a distributive award, calculated to include (1) half the money the marital estate would have received had they rented out the apartment supplied to defendant's parents (determined to be $400,000), (2) half the income lost to plaintiff because she stayed home instead of working while the parties' children were young (determined to be $550,000), (3) half of the $1,112,467 in marital funds which the couple put into the marital residence, and (4) the $196,500 in separate property which plaintiff contributed over the years to the marital residence. The total distributive award thus came to a total of $1,227,733.50.
The Referee also directed defendant to pay plaintiff maintenance of $2,000 per month for three years, and denied plaintiff an award of counsel fees.
We affirm the determination awarding a divorce to plaintiff on grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. Plaintiff's proof, when viewed cumulatively, established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that defendant had engaged in a course of conduct which was harmful to the plaintiff's physical and mental health, thus rendering cohabitation unsafe or improper (Domestic Relations Law § 170 [1]).
This was not a case of ordinary marital dissatisfaction or even "riotous quarrels" as defendant suggests. Defendant intentionally traumatized plaintiff, a woman of Jewish origin born in Nazi-occupied Holland, with swastika-adorned articles and notes affixed around their home, and became enraged when she removed them. He ignored her need for support and assistance while she was undergoing surgery and treatment for breast cancer (see Siczewicz v Siczewicz, 92 AD2d 915, 916 [1983], appeal dismissed 59 NY2d 968 [1983]). He systematically cut off her access to marital funds and credit as a means of psychological abuse. Even plaintiff's assertion that defendant completely ceased speaking to her is not benign, but must be understood in the context of the prior years' verbal abuse.
Physical violence is not a prerequisite for a showing that plaintiff's physical or mental well-being rendered it unsafe or improper for her to continue cohabiting with defendant as required by Domestic Relations Law § 170 (1) (see Hessen v Hessen, 33 NY2d 406, 410 [1974]; Pfoltzer v Morris-Pfoltzer, 9 AD3d 615, 616-617 [2004]). Nor did plaintiff need an expert to prove that defendant's actions had the claimed effect on her mental condition (see Levine v Levine, 2 AD3d 498, 500 [2003]), particularly in view of her explanation that she is the type of person who finds it difficult to consider seeking psychological treatment.
However, the Referee's determination of the economic issues must be rejected.
With regard to the Manhattan townhouse on East 62nd Street, which was purchased in 1980 for $395,000, and was valued by the neutral appraiser in June of 2002 at $5 million, it was error to accept at face value the claim that initially placing the townhouse in the names of defendant's parents, and defendant's subsequently holding joint title with his mother, rendered the property nonmarital. [*3]
It is true that it was defendant's parents who took title to the townhouse when it was purchased in 1980, and that defendant's father thereafter purported to gift his half of the house to defendant, while the other half remained in his mother's name, until at her death in 1997, when defendant inherited 50% of her interest in the property, with the remainder willed to her granddaughters, the parties' children. However, the names in whom title was placed does not end the analysis, especially in circumstances such as these.
It is central to the Equitable Distribution Law that the term "marital property" includes property acquired by either spouse during the marriage "regardless of the form in which title is held" (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c]). That one of the spouses acquired title to property jointly with another relative would not necessarily interfere with its being considered marital, at least to the extent of the spouse's established interest (see Antenucci v Antenucci, 193 AD2d 948 [1993]). Moreover, in this instance, the manner in which defendant's parents initially obtained title, and defendant then obtained title from his parents, supports the claim that the townhouse was truly the marital property of these parties, at least in part, from the outset, and that any additional interest that defendant acquired from his parents subsequently might similarly be considered marital property as well.
It is undisputed that $45,095 of the $199,699 cash used for the purchase of the townhouse came from plaintiff's separate property. Moreover, while $114,369 of the cash down payment came from a check from defendant's parents' account, in the context of the probate of his mother's estate, defendant took the position that at least $60,000 of that payment belonged to him and constituted marital assets. Indeed, that defendant considered the funds held in his parents' names to belong in part to himself and his wife was illuminated by the manner in which he and his family handled their finances generally. For instance, while defendant's mother alone received the rents on the Rego Park building that she and defendant had purchased jointly before the marriage, the building's expenses were paid by plaintiff and defendant, from marital earnings. Indeed, in the probate of his mother's estate, in which defendant successfully defended a challenge by his nephews to his right to inherit his mother's interest in the townhouse, defendant asserted that he and his parents had so thoroughly commingled their assets that while he had, technically, inherited property from his mother, the inheritance actually amounted to a repayment to him of financial loans that he and his wife had made to his mother over the course of many years.
There is a "presumption in favor of marital property, premised on the contemporary view of marriage as an economic partnership, crediting each party's contributions, whether monetary or not, to the growth and value of the marriage" (DeJesus v DeJesus, 90 NY2d 643, 648 [1997]). The term marital property must be broadly construed in order to give effect to the economic partnership concept (Price v Price, 69 NY2d 8, 11 [1986]), and assure that "to the extent that the appreciated value of separate property is at all 'aided or facilitated' by the nontitled spouse's direct or indirect efforts, that part of the appreciation is marital property subject to equitable distribution" (Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 46 [1995]).
To the extent defendant establishes that a portion of the down payment for the Manhattan townhouse was from funds of his parents which had not been intermingled with marital funds, or [*4]from his own separate property, he is entitled to a credit for that contribution; but, otherwise, the property, or at least the 75% interest therein currently held in defendant's name, is marital property[FN*] (see Heine v Heine, 176 AD2d 77, 84 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 753 [1992]). The appreciation of the value of the house, from $395,000 to $5 million, was unrelated to the down payments, but very much related to the complete gutting and renovation which was largely overseen by plaintiff, and paid for out of the parties' marital funds (id.). Furthermore, the mortgage payments were made entirely from marital funds, at least from 1988 on, and possibly during the earlier years as well.
As to the distributive award that the court granted to plaintiff, both parties agree that there is neither support nor sufficient explanation of how the Referee calculated the amounts of $400,000 for loss of rental income and $550,000 for plaintiff's loss of employment income. Even if we agreed with the characterization of the marital residence as defendant's separate property, a remand would be necessary on this basis in any event.
The need for reassessment of the equitable distribution award also necessitates reassessment of the court's maintenance award to plaintiff. We note, however, that the record fails to disclose how a maintenance award of $2,000 per month for three years will enable plaintiff, who currently lives in a small apartment in Washington Heights with her two adult daughters, to retain her predivorce standard of living (see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d at 50-52; Summer v Summer, 85 NY2d 1014 [1995]). Finally, the question of whether or not plaintiff is entitled to an award of legal fees in connection with this matrimonial proceeding must also be reassessed in accordance with the final equitable distribution determination.
Accordingly, the judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered May 9, 2003, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff a divorce, provided for a distributive award to the wife, awarded her maintenance in the sum of $2,000 per month for a period of three years, and denied her application for attorney's fees, should be modified, on the law, so as to vacate the provisions regarding equitable distribution, maintenance and counsel fees, and the matter remanded for a new fact-finding hearing and determination of those issues in accordance herewith, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias and Marlow, JJ., concur.
Judgment of divorce, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 9, 2003, modified, on the law, so as to vacate the provisions regarding equitable distribution, maintenance and counsel fees, and the matter remanded for a new fact-finding hearing and determination of those issues in accordance herewith, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Footnotes
Footnote *: While plaintiff challenges the authority of defendant's mother to bequeath 25% of the house to her granddaughters, she nevertheless does not want to challenge her daughters' ownership rights.
Source: New York State Courts
v
Nicholas Bartha, Appellant-Respondent.
State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, January 27, 2005
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Ira E. Garr, P.C., New York City (Jane R. Slavin and Ira E. Garr of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Polly N. Passonneau, P.C., New York City (Donna E. Bennick and Polly N. Passonneau of counsel), respondent-appellant.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Saxe, J.
The determination of equitable distribution made by the Special Referee and incorporated in the court's judgment is both inequitable and unsupported by the record in numerous respects; in particular, the conclusion that plaintiff had no right to any portion of the marital residence or its appreciation in value was contrary to fundamental principles of equitable distribution. Reversal of the financial provisions of the judgment is therefore necessary.
Plaintiff Cordula Bartha, who was born in the Netherlands, emigrated with her family to Italy in 1960. She earned a Ph.D. in German literature from the University of Rome, after which she found employment as an assistant to a publisher. In 1973, she met defendant Nicholas Bartha, a medical student of Romanian and Hungarian heritage. The parties lived together in Rome until defendant graduated from medical school in April 1974, at which time they relocated to the United States and moved in with defendant's parents in a large house owned by defendant and his mother in Rego Park, New York. While defendant studied to pass the examination required of graduates of foreign medical schools, plaintiff worked in the cultural section of the Netherlands Consulate.
In 1976, defendant passed the test that entitled him to practice medicine in the United States, and began an internship at Elmhurst General Hospital in Queens, New York. At about the same time, plaintiff learned that she was pregnant, and the parties married on January 10, 1977. The couple's two children, born, respectively, on August 5, 1977 and December 11, 1978, are now adults.
Although plaintiff continued to work until shortly before their first child was born, she subsequently remained at home with the children until the youngest was approximately 11 years old. Plaintiff returned to work at the Consulate on a part-time basis in 1989, and resumed full-time status there in 1994. In the meantime, defendant completed his internship and residency, and from 1979 until the present has worked as an emergency room physician.
The family, along with defendant's parents, moved to Manhattan in 1986, to a townhouse located on East 62nd Street, which was purchased in 1980 for $395,000, with cash totaling $199,699 obtained from a variety of sources, including a check from defendant's parents and a payment of separate funds belonging to plaintiff; the seller took back a mortgage for the remainder. Once the renovations on the building were completed, this townhouse contained the duplex apartment in which the parties resided, another apartment for defendant's parents, a rental apartment, and a physician's office unit on the first floor. Title to the property was placed in the name of defendant's parents at the time of the purchase; subsequently, it was put jointly in defendant's and his mother's name. Although the parties disagree as to the source of the mortgage payments between 1980 and 1985, it is undisputed that by 1988 the mortgage payments were made from the parties' joint account, as were the costs of the extensive renovations made on the property prior to their taking residence.
In October 2001, plaintiff wife vacated the marital residence and commenced this action for divorce.
After a fault trial, a divorce was granted in favor of plaintiff. The economic issues were referred to a Special Referee to hear and determine.
The Referee found that the townhouse on East 62nd Street was not marital property, but [*2]was in part the separate property of defendant and in part belonged to the parties' children. It was noted that defendant obtained title to 50% of the marital residence as a gift from his father and another 25% as an inheritance from his mother, while the remaining 25% had been willed by his mother to the children of the marriage.
The Referee then found that plaintiff was entitled to a distributive award, calculated to include (1) half the money the marital estate would have received had they rented out the apartment supplied to defendant's parents (determined to be $400,000), (2) half the income lost to plaintiff because she stayed home instead of working while the parties' children were young (determined to be $550,000), (3) half of the $1,112,467 in marital funds which the couple put into the marital residence, and (4) the $196,500 in separate property which plaintiff contributed over the years to the marital residence. The total distributive award thus came to a total of $1,227,733.50.
The Referee also directed defendant to pay plaintiff maintenance of $2,000 per month for three years, and denied plaintiff an award of counsel fees.
We affirm the determination awarding a divorce to plaintiff on grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. Plaintiff's proof, when viewed cumulatively, established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that defendant had engaged in a course of conduct which was harmful to the plaintiff's physical and mental health, thus rendering cohabitation unsafe or improper (Domestic Relations Law § 170 [1]).
This was not a case of ordinary marital dissatisfaction or even "riotous quarrels" as defendant suggests. Defendant intentionally traumatized plaintiff, a woman of Jewish origin born in Nazi-occupied Holland, with swastika-adorned articles and notes affixed around their home, and became enraged when she removed them. He ignored her need for support and assistance while she was undergoing surgery and treatment for breast cancer (see Siczewicz v Siczewicz, 92 AD2d 915, 916 [1983], appeal dismissed 59 NY2d 968 [1983]). He systematically cut off her access to marital funds and credit as a means of psychological abuse. Even plaintiff's assertion that defendant completely ceased speaking to her is not benign, but must be understood in the context of the prior years' verbal abuse.
Physical violence is not a prerequisite for a showing that plaintiff's physical or mental well-being rendered it unsafe or improper for her to continue cohabiting with defendant as required by Domestic Relations Law § 170 (1) (see Hessen v Hessen, 33 NY2d 406, 410 [1974]; Pfoltzer v Morris-Pfoltzer, 9 AD3d 615, 616-617 [2004]). Nor did plaintiff need an expert to prove that defendant's actions had the claimed effect on her mental condition (see Levine v Levine, 2 AD3d 498, 500 [2003]), particularly in view of her explanation that she is the type of person who finds it difficult to consider seeking psychological treatment.
However, the Referee's determination of the economic issues must be rejected.
With regard to the Manhattan townhouse on East 62nd Street, which was purchased in 1980 for $395,000, and was valued by the neutral appraiser in June of 2002 at $5 million, it was error to accept at face value the claim that initially placing the townhouse in the names of defendant's parents, and defendant's subsequently holding joint title with his mother, rendered the property nonmarital. [*3]
It is true that it was defendant's parents who took title to the townhouse when it was purchased in 1980, and that defendant's father thereafter purported to gift his half of the house to defendant, while the other half remained in his mother's name, until at her death in 1997, when defendant inherited 50% of her interest in the property, with the remainder willed to her granddaughters, the parties' children. However, the names in whom title was placed does not end the analysis, especially in circumstances such as these.
It is central to the Equitable Distribution Law that the term "marital property" includes property acquired by either spouse during the marriage "regardless of the form in which title is held" (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c]). That one of the spouses acquired title to property jointly with another relative would not necessarily interfere with its being considered marital, at least to the extent of the spouse's established interest (see Antenucci v Antenucci, 193 AD2d 948 [1993]). Moreover, in this instance, the manner in which defendant's parents initially obtained title, and defendant then obtained title from his parents, supports the claim that the townhouse was truly the marital property of these parties, at least in part, from the outset, and that any additional interest that defendant acquired from his parents subsequently might similarly be considered marital property as well.
It is undisputed that $45,095 of the $199,699 cash used for the purchase of the townhouse came from plaintiff's separate property. Moreover, while $114,369 of the cash down payment came from a check from defendant's parents' account, in the context of the probate of his mother's estate, defendant took the position that at least $60,000 of that payment belonged to him and constituted marital assets. Indeed, that defendant considered the funds held in his parents' names to belong in part to himself and his wife was illuminated by the manner in which he and his family handled their finances generally. For instance, while defendant's mother alone received the rents on the Rego Park building that she and defendant had purchased jointly before the marriage, the building's expenses were paid by plaintiff and defendant, from marital earnings. Indeed, in the probate of his mother's estate, in which defendant successfully defended a challenge by his nephews to his right to inherit his mother's interest in the townhouse, defendant asserted that he and his parents had so thoroughly commingled their assets that while he had, technically, inherited property from his mother, the inheritance actually amounted to a repayment to him of financial loans that he and his wife had made to his mother over the course of many years.
There is a "presumption in favor of marital property, premised on the contemporary view of marriage as an economic partnership, crediting each party's contributions, whether monetary or not, to the growth and value of the marriage" (DeJesus v DeJesus, 90 NY2d 643, 648 [1997]). The term marital property must be broadly construed in order to give effect to the economic partnership concept (Price v Price, 69 NY2d 8, 11 [1986]), and assure that "to the extent that the appreciated value of separate property is at all 'aided or facilitated' by the nontitled spouse's direct or indirect efforts, that part of the appreciation is marital property subject to equitable distribution" (Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 46 [1995]).
To the extent defendant establishes that a portion of the down payment for the Manhattan townhouse was from funds of his parents which had not been intermingled with marital funds, or [*4]from his own separate property, he is entitled to a credit for that contribution; but, otherwise, the property, or at least the 75% interest therein currently held in defendant's name, is marital property[FN*] (see Heine v Heine, 176 AD2d 77, 84 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 753 [1992]). The appreciation of the value of the house, from $395,000 to $5 million, was unrelated to the down payments, but very much related to the complete gutting and renovation which was largely overseen by plaintiff, and paid for out of the parties' marital funds (id.). Furthermore, the mortgage payments were made entirely from marital funds, at least from 1988 on, and possibly during the earlier years as well.
As to the distributive award that the court granted to plaintiff, both parties agree that there is neither support nor sufficient explanation of how the Referee calculated the amounts of $400,000 for loss of rental income and $550,000 for plaintiff's loss of employment income. Even if we agreed with the characterization of the marital residence as defendant's separate property, a remand would be necessary on this basis in any event.
The need for reassessment of the equitable distribution award also necessitates reassessment of the court's maintenance award to plaintiff. We note, however, that the record fails to disclose how a maintenance award of $2,000 per month for three years will enable plaintiff, who currently lives in a small apartment in Washington Heights with her two adult daughters, to retain her predivorce standard of living (see Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d at 50-52; Summer v Summer, 85 NY2d 1014 [1995]). Finally, the question of whether or not plaintiff is entitled to an award of legal fees in connection with this matrimonial proceeding must also be reassessed in accordance with the final equitable distribution determination.
Accordingly, the judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered May 9, 2003, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff a divorce, provided for a distributive award to the wife, awarded her maintenance in the sum of $2,000 per month for a period of three years, and denied her application for attorney's fees, should be modified, on the law, so as to vacate the provisions regarding equitable distribution, maintenance and counsel fees, and the matter remanded for a new fact-finding hearing and determination of those issues in accordance herewith, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias and Marlow, JJ., concur.
Judgment of divorce, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 9, 2003, modified, on the law, so as to vacate the provisions regarding equitable distribution, maintenance and counsel fees, and the matter remanded for a new fact-finding hearing and determination of those issues in accordance herewith, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Footnotes
Footnote *: While plaintiff challenges the authority of defendant's mother to bequeath 25% of the house to her granddaughters, she nevertheless does not want to challenge her daughters' ownership rights.
Source: New York State Courts
NY TIMES SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JOAN LOBIS
How a Town House in N.Y. Went From Dream to Nightmare
NY Times By CARA BUCKLEY
Published: July 11, 2006
The graceful town house on East 62nd Street was more than a home to Nicholas Bartha. It was the culmination of his life’s work, proof that he had realized the classic immigrant’s dream.
Skip to next paragraph
Dr. Nicholas Bartha is pulled from his town house. \
Multimedia
Photographs: Manhattan Building Collapses
Video: James Barron on the Collapse
Graphic: Anatomy of a Town House
Map: Aerial View of Area
Related
Blast Levels Manhattan Town House; Inquiry Focuses on Injured Owner (July 11, 2006)
The Rescue: 2 Firefighters, Persevering, Pull Owner From Rubble (July 11, 2006)
The Scene: The Day Disaster Arrived on East 62nd (July 11, 2006)
The Building: If These Walls Could Talk, What They Would Say Might Be Classified (July 11, 2006)
Text: Opinion in Bartha v. Bartha
Andrew Gombert/European Pressphoto Agency
More than 200 firefighters worked to get things under control after an explosion destroyed the four-story building at 34 East 62nd Street in Manhattan on Monday. More Photos >
Dr. Bartha, burned and barely conscious, was pulled from the ruins yesterday morning after the house was nearly leveled by a gas explosion, raining bricks on one of the city’s wealthiest streets and sending up thick columns of black smoke. Even before the fires were extinguished, police began focusing on Dr. Bartha as the most likely person to have caused the blast.
Just as his historic town house, a landmark used more than half a century ago by American spies, was no ordinary building, Dr. Bartha, 66, was embroiled in a marital split that by all accounts was no ordinary divorce. But he would have done anything to keep that house, including stay married, his lawyer said.
He lost one key battle last year when a court ruled that his wife deserved a share of the building, a decision he fought.
Then, in April, he was ordered to sell it so he could pay his wife more than $4 million. In court papers, she said he had repeatedly vowed in ominous tones that he would die in that house and that she would never get it.
Now there is no house.
“He wanted to stay married,” said Ira E. Garr, Dr. Bartha’s lawyer until last year. “He wanted to maintain the status quo so he could continue to live in this house,” he said, adding, “He wanted nothing other than to remain in this house for the rest of his life.”
Dr. Bartha was Romanian, and met his wife, Cordula Hahn, a native of the Netherlands, in 1973. He was studying medicine at the University of Rome, and she had just earned a doctorate in German literature. In 1974, they moved to the United States, and lived with Dr. Bartha’s parents in Rego Park, Queens.
Ms. Hahn took a job in the cultural section with the Netherlands Consulate General in New York while he studied for and passed exams enabling him to practice medicine in the United States. The couple were married early in 1977 and soon after had two daughters, Serena and Johanna. His wife stayed home to raise the children while he worked in hospital emergency rooms, where he developed a reputation for being a dour man with a gruff bedside manner.
“He only talked about work, a workaholic doctor,” said Dr. Paul Mantia, who shared an office with Dr. Bartha.
In 1980, Dr. Bartha first saw what would prove to be the love of his life, the four-story town house at 34 East 62nd Street, between Park and Madison Avenues.
According to divorce papers, he and his parents, Ethel and John Bartha, bought the house for $395,000, after cobbling together $199,699 in cash. Dr. Bartha, his young family and his parents moved into the house in 1986.
Dr. Bartha’s joy over the purchase was intense and immediate, Mr. Garr said. For him, it symbolized validation, proof of success.
“He told me, ‘I stood at the corner of 59th Street and Fifth Avenue and looked north, and said, “This is it. This is where I want to live the rest of my life,” ’ ” Mr. Garr said.
Dr. Bartha may have found his dream house, but his home life was far from idyllic.
As he worked, he grew increasingly estranged from his wife and daughters, his lawyer said. Silence pervaded the home. “There was two years of noncommunication,” Mr. Garr said. “They were like two ships in the night.”
In October 2001, his wife, who has resumed the use of her family name, filed for divorce and moved with her daughters to a small apartment in Washington Heights.
The divorce papers described a bizarre, markedly unhappy home life. Dr. Bartha put up “swastika-adorned articles” around the house, according to a court decision, “intentionally traumatizing” her because she is of Jewish descent and was born in “Nazi-occupied” Holland. Dr. Bartha became enraged when she took them down, according to the papers, which also said he ignored his wife as she was treated for breast cancer.
A judge granted her the divorce. He was ordered to pay $1.23 million, plus alimony of $2,000 per month for three years. But the referee in the case held that the couple’s home, then valued at $5 million, was not marital property and that Ms. Hahn had no claim to the home.
Then Dr. Bartha appealed the decision, a move that would ultimately cost him his house. He wanted to stay married, and would have had to sell or mortgage the house to pay the $1.2 million the court said he owed.
Skip to next paragraph
Landmarks Preservation Commission via Associated Press
A file photograph of 34 East 62nd Street. More Photos >
Multimedia
Photographs: Manhattan Building Collapses
Video: James Barron on the Collapse
Graphic: Anatomy of a Town House
Map: Aerial View of Area
“He didn’t love her,” Mr. Garr said. “He was emotionally and constitutionally opposed to divorce. He was a man who worked all the time and couldn’t stand being alone.”
Early in 2005, the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court held that the town house was marital property. It was an unusual decision that the New York Law Journal noted on its front page, partly because the appellate court determined that the home was community property “regardless of the form in which the title is held.”
After the decision, Mr. Garr tried repeatedly to contact his client through letters and phone calls but failed “He disappeared,” Mr. Garr said.
Steadily, Dr. Bartha seemed to be swallowed by his own despondency. He had already begun a series of suicide attempts, according to an official, who would not speak for attribution because the investigation is under way.
In one instance, three or four years ago, the official said, Dr. Bartha barricaded himself inside his office and filled it with insecticide, and his secretary found him after breaking down the door. Once, within the last year, his partner found him in the basement, passed out with the gas on, the official said.
Finally, Dr. Bartha’s beloved town house slipped from his grasp.
In August 2005, Ms. Hahn received a judgment of $3.6 million, plus a property credit and lawyer’s fees, according to court papers. The total of all money judgments in the matrimonial action against Dr. Bartha came to more than $4 million. Ms. Hahn had complained in court papers that he “has fought me every step of the way in the divorce action,” and said she did not expect that he would satisfy the money judgments. The only way to ensure that he complied, she said, was to have the house sold.
“I have no doubt that respondent will ensconce himself in the marital residence and refuse to leave it after the auction is held,” she said. “He has said many times that he intends to ‘die in my house.’ ”
In April this year, Justice Joan B. Lobis of State Supreme Court ordered that his 75 percent interest in the house be sold at auction. The court also ordered that the sheriff evict him from the house no more than 10 days after the auction, and that the sheriff remove three pieces of property — two antique armoires and an antique desk — and turn it over to Ms. Hahn. The furniture belonged to her family, according to the order.
On Friday, a sheriff’s deputy arrived at the house with eviction papers, said Dr. Mantia, who shared his office. If Dr. Bartha was upset, he did not show it, Dr. Mantia said.
“He’s been up and down for two years since this divorce started,” Dr. Mantia said. “Sure, he was trying to commit suicide.”
Reporting for this article was contributed by Sewell Chan, Jim Dwyer, Anemona Hartocollis, Jo Craven McGinty, Mick Meenan, Aron Pilhofer and William K. Rashbaum.
Related Articles
· An Earlier Case of a Gas Explosion After a Broken Relationship (July 12, 2006)
· THE SCENE; The Day Disaster Arrived on East 62nd (July 11, 2006)
· THE RESCUE; 2 Firefighters, Persevering, Pull Owner From Rubble (July 11, 2006)
· THE BUILDING; If These Walls Could Talk, What They Would Say Might Be Classified (July 11, 2006)
NY Times By CARA BUCKLEY
Published: July 11, 2006
The graceful town house on East 62nd Street was more than a home to Nicholas Bartha. It was the culmination of his life’s work, proof that he had realized the classic immigrant’s dream.
Skip to next paragraph
Dr. Nicholas Bartha is pulled from his town house. \
Multimedia
Photographs: Manhattan Building Collapses
Video: James Barron on the Collapse
Graphic: Anatomy of a Town House
Map: Aerial View of Area
Related
Blast Levels Manhattan Town House; Inquiry Focuses on Injured Owner (July 11, 2006)
The Rescue: 2 Firefighters, Persevering, Pull Owner From Rubble (July 11, 2006)
The Scene: The Day Disaster Arrived on East 62nd (July 11, 2006)
The Building: If These Walls Could Talk, What They Would Say Might Be Classified (July 11, 2006)
Text: Opinion in Bartha v. Bartha
Andrew Gombert/European Pressphoto Agency
More than 200 firefighters worked to get things under control after an explosion destroyed the four-story building at 34 East 62nd Street in Manhattan on Monday. More Photos >
Dr. Bartha, burned and barely conscious, was pulled from the ruins yesterday morning after the house was nearly leveled by a gas explosion, raining bricks on one of the city’s wealthiest streets and sending up thick columns of black smoke. Even before the fires were extinguished, police began focusing on Dr. Bartha as the most likely person to have caused the blast.
Just as his historic town house, a landmark used more than half a century ago by American spies, was no ordinary building, Dr. Bartha, 66, was embroiled in a marital split that by all accounts was no ordinary divorce. But he would have done anything to keep that house, including stay married, his lawyer said.
He lost one key battle last year when a court ruled that his wife deserved a share of the building, a decision he fought.
Then, in April, he was ordered to sell it so he could pay his wife more than $4 million. In court papers, she said he had repeatedly vowed in ominous tones that he would die in that house and that she would never get it.
Now there is no house.
“He wanted to stay married,” said Ira E. Garr, Dr. Bartha’s lawyer until last year. “He wanted to maintain the status quo so he could continue to live in this house,” he said, adding, “He wanted nothing other than to remain in this house for the rest of his life.”
Dr. Bartha was Romanian, and met his wife, Cordula Hahn, a native of the Netherlands, in 1973. He was studying medicine at the University of Rome, and she had just earned a doctorate in German literature. In 1974, they moved to the United States, and lived with Dr. Bartha’s parents in Rego Park, Queens.
Ms. Hahn took a job in the cultural section with the Netherlands Consulate General in New York while he studied for and passed exams enabling him to practice medicine in the United States. The couple were married early in 1977 and soon after had two daughters, Serena and Johanna. His wife stayed home to raise the children while he worked in hospital emergency rooms, where he developed a reputation for being a dour man with a gruff bedside manner.
“He only talked about work, a workaholic doctor,” said Dr. Paul Mantia, who shared an office with Dr. Bartha.
In 1980, Dr. Bartha first saw what would prove to be the love of his life, the four-story town house at 34 East 62nd Street, between Park and Madison Avenues.
According to divorce papers, he and his parents, Ethel and John Bartha, bought the house for $395,000, after cobbling together $199,699 in cash. Dr. Bartha, his young family and his parents moved into the house in 1986.
Dr. Bartha’s joy over the purchase was intense and immediate, Mr. Garr said. For him, it symbolized validation, proof of success.
“He told me, ‘I stood at the corner of 59th Street and Fifth Avenue and looked north, and said, “This is it. This is where I want to live the rest of my life,” ’ ” Mr. Garr said.
Dr. Bartha may have found his dream house, but his home life was far from idyllic.
As he worked, he grew increasingly estranged from his wife and daughters, his lawyer said. Silence pervaded the home. “There was two years of noncommunication,” Mr. Garr said. “They were like two ships in the night.”
In October 2001, his wife, who has resumed the use of her family name, filed for divorce and moved with her daughters to a small apartment in Washington Heights.
The divorce papers described a bizarre, markedly unhappy home life. Dr. Bartha put up “swastika-adorned articles” around the house, according to a court decision, “intentionally traumatizing” her because she is of Jewish descent and was born in “Nazi-occupied” Holland. Dr. Bartha became enraged when she took them down, according to the papers, which also said he ignored his wife as she was treated for breast cancer.
A judge granted her the divorce. He was ordered to pay $1.23 million, plus alimony of $2,000 per month for three years. But the referee in the case held that the couple’s home, then valued at $5 million, was not marital property and that Ms. Hahn had no claim to the home.
Then Dr. Bartha appealed the decision, a move that would ultimately cost him his house. He wanted to stay married, and would have had to sell or mortgage the house to pay the $1.2 million the court said he owed.
Skip to next paragraph
Landmarks Preservation Commission via Associated Press
A file photograph of 34 East 62nd Street. More Photos >
Multimedia
Photographs: Manhattan Building Collapses
Video: James Barron on the Collapse
Graphic: Anatomy of a Town House
Map: Aerial View of Area
“He didn’t love her,” Mr. Garr said. “He was emotionally and constitutionally opposed to divorce. He was a man who worked all the time and couldn’t stand being alone.”
Early in 2005, the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court held that the town house was marital property. It was an unusual decision that the New York Law Journal noted on its front page, partly because the appellate court determined that the home was community property “regardless of the form in which the title is held.”
After the decision, Mr. Garr tried repeatedly to contact his client through letters and phone calls but failed “He disappeared,” Mr. Garr said.
Steadily, Dr. Bartha seemed to be swallowed by his own despondency. He had already begun a series of suicide attempts, according to an official, who would not speak for attribution because the investigation is under way.
In one instance, three or four years ago, the official said, Dr. Bartha barricaded himself inside his office and filled it with insecticide, and his secretary found him after breaking down the door. Once, within the last year, his partner found him in the basement, passed out with the gas on, the official said.
Finally, Dr. Bartha’s beloved town house slipped from his grasp.
In August 2005, Ms. Hahn received a judgment of $3.6 million, plus a property credit and lawyer’s fees, according to court papers. The total of all money judgments in the matrimonial action against Dr. Bartha came to more than $4 million. Ms. Hahn had complained in court papers that he “has fought me every step of the way in the divorce action,” and said she did not expect that he would satisfy the money judgments. The only way to ensure that he complied, she said, was to have the house sold.
“I have no doubt that respondent will ensconce himself in the marital residence and refuse to leave it after the auction is held,” she said. “He has said many times that he intends to ‘die in my house.’ ”
In April this year, Justice Joan B. Lobis of State Supreme Court ordered that his 75 percent interest in the house be sold at auction. The court also ordered that the sheriff evict him from the house no more than 10 days after the auction, and that the sheriff remove three pieces of property — two antique armoires and an antique desk — and turn it over to Ms. Hahn. The furniture belonged to her family, according to the order.
On Friday, a sheriff’s deputy arrived at the house with eviction papers, said Dr. Mantia, who shared his office. If Dr. Bartha was upset, he did not show it, Dr. Mantia said.
“He’s been up and down for two years since this divorce started,” Dr. Mantia said. “Sure, he was trying to commit suicide.”
Reporting for this article was contributed by Sewell Chan, Jim Dwyer, Anemona Hartocollis, Jo Craven McGinty, Mick Meenan, Aron Pilhofer and William K. Rashbaum.
Related Articles
· An Earlier Case of a Gas Explosion After a Broken Relationship (July 12, 2006)
· THE SCENE; The Day Disaster Arrived on East 62nd (July 11, 2006)
· THE RESCUE; 2 Firefighters, Persevering, Pull Owner From Rubble (July 11, 2006)
· THE BUILDING; If These Walls Could Talk, What They Would Say Might Be Classified (July 11, 2006)
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JOAN LOBIS - VICTIM 1
War Over Boy Raised By Gays
Brad Hamilton – New York Post May 30, 2004
An ugly tug of war is raging over the fate of a 6-year-old boy being raised by a gay couple who won custody of the child in a landmark decision in 2000. Gays hailed the ruling as a major victory for same-sex couples, but the boy has since become a troubled kid who punches his teachers and repeatedly says he wants to kill himself, according to an expert's report requested by his school. The report has spurred the mother to fight for increased access to her son, who has lived with the two men since the ruling - the first time a New York court awarded custody to a gay couple over a woman they claimed to be a surrogate. The mother says she was never a surrogate and that she, the father - once a close friend who worked for her - and his live-in lover intended to raise the child as a parental trio. "I just hadn't met the right guy yet," said Courtney St. Clement, 52, who had never been identified in the press or spoken out about her experiences. "They held out that they had a lot of money, and at the time, I felt like I was marrying a doctor. They said, 'We're a family.' We were supposed to all live together, but we didn't get that far." St. Clement, who runs her own marketing and consulting firm and lives on the Upper West Side, had no inkling of how badly things would go for her son, whose name is being withheld by The Post. He punches and kicks his teachers, hits and bites himself, curses and says he wants to kill himself as often as twice a month, according to the new report, completed in January by NYU's Child Study Center. It also says he repeatedly kisses and touches classmates inappropriately and once ran around naked. "[He] is exhibiting significant behavioral problems at school," said the report, which was based on a personal evaluation of the boy by two experts, along with interviews with his teachers and both parents and their spouses. It blames his unruliness in part on the "hostility" between his parents. "His mother and father have always lived apart and have had remarkably significant disputes regarding custody and visitation from very early on," said the report, which recommended that the boy be appointed a law guardian. He was previously kicked out of PS 116 as a kindergartner in 2002 after just two weeks there and placed in a private special-needs school on the Upper East Side. St. Clement says the family arrangement broke down after the father, part-time substitute teacher Gerald Casale, 47, and his partner, a trusts and estates lawyer, Ernest Londa, 46, stopped her from seeing the 6-month-old infant in April 1998. She then sued for custody. The partners claimed they struck a deal with St. Clement in which she agreed to carry Casale's child to term, then step back and allow them to be sole parents. "I think Ms. Clement has a certain bent," said Phyllis Levitas, Casale's lawyer. "My client and I have given this some very careful consideration, and we believe that it's not in the child's best interest to discuss this case with the media." Last December, St. Clement challenged the custody ruling - made by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond - in light of the boy's disturbing behavior at school, and the boy's pediatrician requested a follow-up evaluation by a court-appointed specialist. In March, an appeals court ruled that the new judge in the case, Supreme Court Justice Joan Lobis, reconsider the custody question. But Lobis refused to take up the custody issue, denied the evaluation request and rejected the recommendation for a child guardian, spurring a motion in which the mother slammed Lobis for "abdicating her role as judge." Lobis' office did not respond to The Post's request for comment. The mother is part of the Alliance for Judicial Justice, a group of 200 litigants who suspect their cases were tainted by judges' personal interests, led by activist Anthony DeRosa.
http://nypost.com/news/regionalnews/24903.htm
Brad Hamilton – New York Post May 30, 2004
An ugly tug of war is raging over the fate of a 6-year-old boy being raised by a gay couple who won custody of the child in a landmark decision in 2000. Gays hailed the ruling as a major victory for same-sex couples, but the boy has since become a troubled kid who punches his teachers and repeatedly says he wants to kill himself, according to an expert's report requested by his school. The report has spurred the mother to fight for increased access to her son, who has lived with the two men since the ruling - the first time a New York court awarded custody to a gay couple over a woman they claimed to be a surrogate. The mother says she was never a surrogate and that she, the father - once a close friend who worked for her - and his live-in lover intended to raise the child as a parental trio. "I just hadn't met the right guy yet," said Courtney St. Clement, 52, who had never been identified in the press or spoken out about her experiences. "They held out that they had a lot of money, and at the time, I felt like I was marrying a doctor. They said, 'We're a family.' We were supposed to all live together, but we didn't get that far." St. Clement, who runs her own marketing and consulting firm and lives on the Upper West Side, had no inkling of how badly things would go for her son, whose name is being withheld by The Post. He punches and kicks his teachers, hits and bites himself, curses and says he wants to kill himself as often as twice a month, according to the new report, completed in January by NYU's Child Study Center. It also says he repeatedly kisses and touches classmates inappropriately and once ran around naked. "[He] is exhibiting significant behavioral problems at school," said the report, which was based on a personal evaluation of the boy by two experts, along with interviews with his teachers and both parents and their spouses. It blames his unruliness in part on the "hostility" between his parents. "His mother and father have always lived apart and have had remarkably significant disputes regarding custody and visitation from very early on," said the report, which recommended that the boy be appointed a law guardian. He was previously kicked out of PS 116 as a kindergartner in 2002 after just two weeks there and placed in a private special-needs school on the Upper East Side. St. Clement says the family arrangement broke down after the father, part-time substitute teacher Gerald Casale, 47, and his partner, a trusts and estates lawyer, Ernest Londa, 46, stopped her from seeing the 6-month-old infant in April 1998. She then sued for custody. The partners claimed they struck a deal with St. Clement in which she agreed to carry Casale's child to term, then step back and allow them to be sole parents. "I think Ms. Clement has a certain bent," said Phyllis Levitas, Casale's lawyer. "My client and I have given this some very careful consideration, and we believe that it's not in the child's best interest to discuss this case with the media." Last December, St. Clement challenged the custody ruling - made by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond - in light of the boy's disturbing behavior at school, and the boy's pediatrician requested a follow-up evaluation by a court-appointed specialist. In March, an appeals court ruled that the new judge in the case, Supreme Court Justice Joan Lobis, reconsider the custody question. But Lobis refused to take up the custody issue, denied the evaluation request and rejected the recommendation for a child guardian, spurring a motion in which the mother slammed Lobis for "abdicating her role as judge." Lobis' office did not respond to The Post's request for comment. The mother is part of the Alliance for Judicial Justice, a group of 200 litigants who suspect their cases were tainted by judges' personal interests, led by activist Anthony DeRosa.
http://nypost.com/news/regionalnews/24903.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)