X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Diane A. Lebedeff was censured for presiding over a case in which she had a “significant social and professional relationship” with the plaintiff, attorney Ravi Batra, in a determination released Thursday by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The commission’s ruling, which was laced with language highly critical of Lebedeff, who sits in Manhattan, adopted the findings and recommendations of a stipulation worked out between the commission’s investigative staff and Lebedeff’s attorney, Ben R. Rubinowitz of Gair, Gair, Conason, Steigman & Mackauf. One of the aggravating factors the commission’s unanimous decision pointed to was that during the five years Lebedeff handled Batra’s case, she excused the defense lawyers on approximately five occasions, saying she wanted to “engage in ‘gossip’ or other social conversation not related to the case, with Mr. Batra.” The commission also cited the judge’s appointment of Batra to a “lucrative guardianship” for which he was paid $84,000 while his personal injury action was pending before her. Lebedeff’s failure to recognize that her relationship with Batra “would raise questions whether her rulings were based solely on the merits is shocking and suggests an unacceptable insensitivity to judicial ethics,” the commission wrote. Rubinowitz said that Lebedeff accepts the censure because she recognizes that there was an appearance of impropriety. He stressed, however, that there was no claim that any of her actions were improper. Batra said, “The fact that the judge and I were friendly is a stipulated fact in the determination and was contemporaneously known to defense counsel, who never objected.” In his lawsuit, Batra, who once employed Assemblyman Clarence Norman, the leader of the Brooklyn Democratic Party, in his practice, sought $80 million in damages for an alleged fall off a swivel chair in his office. Batra also was vice chairman of the Brooklyn Democratic Party’s judicial screening panel for seven years until 2003. The conduct commission initiated the investigation of Lebedeff after reading a lengthy article about Batra in The New York Times in November 2003, the commission’s administrator, Robert Tembeckjian, said. In the article, one of the defense lawyers in Batra’s personal injury suit complained that Lebedeff had failed to tell the defense about the $84,000 appointment she had given Batra. Batra’s suit was ultimately settled for $225,000 but not until the Appellate Division, 1st Department, had rebuked Lebedeff for striking a third party’s pleading for missing by one day a stipulated discovery deadline. The appeals court wrote that, had Lebedeff “objectively reviewed the history of case,” she would have seen that the third party’s “slight and arguably justified delay” was not “in any way comparable to the years of dilatory practice in obstructing discovery” before the third party had joined the case. When the case was returned to the trial court, it was assigned to a different judge as part of “a routine change in assignments,” said David Bookstaver, a spokesman for the court system. Rubinowitz said that Lebedeff had struck the third party’s pleading because that was the remedy provided in the parties’ stipulation creating a 45-day deadline for discovery. Thursday’s censure was the second for Lebedeff. In 2003, she was censured for appointing her accountant, who was also a personal friend, to cases for which the accountant was paid $21,000 over four years. During that time, the accountant prepared Lebedeff’s tax returns without charge. The commission said that it was considering the most recent charge independently of the earlier one. Lebedeff’s handling of Batra’s lawsuit ended in 2000, three years before the first censure was issued. For that reason, the commission wrote, it could not consider the earlier censure as containing “warnings concerning her ethical behavior” which she should have heeded.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.