Why the Manhattan Surrogate's Court Judge Matters
Here's how longtime political consultant Jerry Skurnik explained why anyone cares who wins the ongoing race for one of two positions on Manhattan Surrogate's Court: “Because a lot of lawyers make a lot of money at the courts."
In particular, he went on, trust and real estate lawyers, "many of whom are politically connected, get really high fees in Surrogate's Court."
In this case, there doesn't seem to be a clear favorite to win among the three candidates for the "obscure but powerful" open seat. John Reddy teaches law and is closely associated with the current surrogate, Renee Roth; Nora Anderson wants to give court clerks a greater role in processing cases; and Milton Tingling is currently a state supreme court judge who has support from the county organization and got the New York Times endorsement for a previous judicial race.
Last week, Tingling may have begun to pull away from the pack when he got the endorsement of the New York County Democratic organization, securing 141 out of 156 votes, according to a consultant on his campaign, Kevin Wardally. (In an email, Wardally explained, “In was a weighted vote where each District Leader was worth different amounts due to the size of the Assembly District but in total 156 votes were cast and our candidate received 141 of those votes cruising to a overwhelming victory. 141 for Milton Tingling, 12 for Reddy, 3 for Nora with 6 proxies of 21 votes open.”)
The actual function of the Surrogate's Court is to rule on cases that have to do with the estate of someone who has died. Since that means the judges have the power to steer lots of money in fees to their colleagues, the Surrogate's Court has long had a reputation for corruption. In 2005, Brooklyn Surrogate Michael Feinberg was removed from the bench for awarding $9 million in fees to a lawyer who was also his friend.
One shouldn't forget that Nora Anderson is of counsel to the law firm of Seth Rubenstein PC, of Brooklyn, who is also very close to Surrogate Roth. Apparently Rubenstein's father was the Surrogate in the 50s and the family was supportive of Roth's run for the bench.
So it seems there are two candidates for the Manhattan Surrogate's spot who are close to the current Surrogate.
Also let's not forget that Brooklyn elected two very "independent" Surrogates- Lopez Torres bucked the Party and took her case to the US Supreme Court and Vito Lopez's candidate LOST the election. Party regulars must be STARVING in Brooklyn.
John Reddy is the most qualified candidate for Manhattan Surrogate. www.reddyforsurrogate.com
John Reddy is the most qualified candidate for Manhattan Surrogate. www.reddyforsurrogate.com
Let's hope that none of these three is as crooked as Roth.
In the past 2 weeks I have received 4 or 5 separate 4-color, slick advertising mailers for Reddy. They all say he is independent and has done tons of work for no charge on behalf of 9/11 victims. Is he "independently" wealthy? or expecting to make the money back while in office (how?), or how can he afford to send out all these expensively printed pieces?
The only similar onslaught of campaign mail dispropportionate to the race I have received has been from Bloomberg when he is running. It will have the same impact, too. I can't vote for someone who simply controls and applies so many more resources than anyone else to a political contest that he seemingly controls the race. It flies in the face of my idea of what democratic elections are about.
Today, I received another one, this one an unattributed attack ad called "No on Nora" assailing her for a loan she has supposedly accepted and claiming that it is "over 7 times the legal limit!" I'm prepared to feel uncomfortable about this loan, but is there a legal limit for loans, or just for political donations? The language of the ad strongly implies that this loan was illegal. Was it?
Though the mailer used a different color scheme and did not state who sent it, it had the same return street address as those from Reddy.
At most, I now feel an aversion to voting for either one of these candidates.
September 4th NY Daily News:
"Anderson has borrowed $225,000 from her longtime employer, trust lawyer Seth Rubenstein, who is the grandson of a surrogate and the father of Manhattan lawyer Joshua Rubenstein, who heads the trust and estate section of a major law firm.
That's almost certainly a violation of Article 14, Section 114 of New York State election law, which specifies that a campaign loan "shall be deemed, to the extent not repaid by the date of the primary, general or special election, as the case may be, a contribution."
The $225,000 is far above the legal contribution limit. So Anderson, if she wins, will likely be in violation of the law."
Anderson has no intention of paying back that "Loan" and will only be subject to a small fine for violating the election law. Sad, a candidate for Judge violatig the law on her way to the bench.
John Reddy is a reformer with a 10 point plan on cleaning up Surrogate's Court. He worked hard to raise the money to pay for those mailers, and every contribution he got was legal and didn't violate the elections law.
The lawyer that loaned Nora Anderson the $225,000 will be appearing before her as a judge for guardianships if she is elected. You tell me, do you think he will get his money back tenfold with her as judge?
It seems that Reddy's PR/election team are closely monitoring these comments and fluffing up their candidate in postings. But what about Tingling? He got the majority of votes from the NY Democratic Committee, but I don't know anything else about him.
Well here are some facts about Judge Tingling: He has one of the worst records on decisions, and has been overturned by the Appellate Division more than any other New York supreme court judge. Read about his decision history and reversals at:
http://www.judicialreports.com/2007/07/post_56.php
Justice Tingling is also backed by Charlie Rangel, currently under investigation for failing to report &75,000 in "extra" income.
The more you know, the more obvious a choice John Reddy is. Experienced and knowledgable, all funds raised legally, and committed to reforming the Manhattan Surrogate's Court.
www.reddyforsurrogate.com
The fact that Reddy is so closely tied to the out-going Judge Roth is extremely upsetting as she has been a disgrace to justice and to the court.
Is Reddy really ready? To change things? To act in a fair and impartial manner? Not to rule in favor of whoever it is that has taken him to lunch most recently?
Just curious.
Irresponsible of you to mention that Tingling got the NYT endorsement for a PREVIOUS race, but NOT mention that Anderson was endorsed by the NYT for THIS race! I'm sick of slanted coverage. Do your journalistic duty!
Congrats to everyone involved in the NORA ANDERSON victory. Michael Oliva did a great job, Musa Moore did a great job, Arthur, Ray, James, and of course Nora great work.
Congrats on Nancy Bannon as well, I here Michael and Musa led Nancy to victory, good job.
Nora Anderson and Seth Rubenstien should be investigated. They cost my family a large sum of money in a Surrogate's Court matter. They used thier political influence to have the case extended costing my family dearly. Finally when we found out that Political Patronage was in play, we had to have the venue moved. The Surrogate's Court needs a complete overhaul.