CLOSEClose Law.com Menu
 
X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Richard D. Huttner has agreed to leave the bench at the end of the year after being censured for a second time in less than four years, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct announced Tuesday. The commission indicated that it would have preferred to remove the judge from the bench, but said it was “constrained” by the fact that it could not have completed a disciplinary proceeding without his cooperation before the end of the judge’s current term in December. In agreeing not to seek recertification, the commission said, Huttner, 70, had “acknowledged his misconduct.” “The judge’s departure from office was an essential element of this stipulated censure,” Robert H. Tembeckjian, the commission’s administrator and counsel, said in an interview. The commission faulted Huttner, who has been sitting in Queens since 2002, for presiding over a case in which a long-time friend, prominent Brooklyn attorney Ravi Batra, represented a party. Huttner did not inform the opposition of his relationship with Batra, with whom he has frequently dined and socialized since the mid-1990s. They have visited each other’s homes and Huttner also attended MBatra’s wedding anniversary party, according to the commission. Between 1996 and 1999, Justice Huttner appointed Batra as a fiduciary in 11 cases. In one 1998 case, he appointed Batra receiver and counsel to Cypress Hills Cemetery. He continued to socialize with Batra while the case was before him. The conduct commission singled out another case for its strongest criticism: Baisden v. Pacific House Residence for Adults Housing Development Fund Corporation . Batra represented two of three defendants in the case, which involved an adult home whose president was Clarence Norman Sr., the father of Brooklyn Democratic leader Clarence Norman, who was once a member of Batra’s law firm. Justice Huttner did not disclose his relationship with Batra to attorneys, nor did he reveal that he had awarded Batra fiduciary appointments. His failure to do so violated the standards of judicial conduct, the commission found in a unanimous ruling. “At the very least, [Huttner] should have disclosed the relationship so that the parties and their attorneys could have had an opportunity to consider whether to seek his disqualification,” the commission wrote. The commission said a mitigating factor was that Huttner ultimately played a “relatively small” role in the conclusion of the Baisden suit. The parties presented him with an agreed-upon stipulation and he signed it “so ordered.” In 2001, Justice Huttner was censured for using the prestige of his office to advance private interests when he actively participated in litigation involving the board of his cooperative. Though the cases involving Batra predated the previous sanction, the conduct commission said that the timing should not mitigate the current penalty. “The record establishes that respondent lacks sensitivity to the special ethical obligations of judges and indicates the need for a severe sanction,” the commission wrote. Batra was recently at the center of another judicial sanction. In April, Manhattan Acting Supreme Court Justice Diane A. Lebedeff was censured for presiding over a personal injury suit in which Batra was a plaintiff. The two have a personal relationship, and Lebedeff at times excused opposing counsel so she could engage in “gossip” unrelated to the case, according to the commission’s ruling. She also appointed Batra to a guardianship that paid him $84,000 while his personal injury suit was pending. The suit was eventually settled for $225,000. Lebedeff was reassigned to Civil Court shortly after her sanction, the second censure of her career. In a statement after the release of the Huttner decision, Batra said the ruling had created a “new and higher standard” for judges that should be applauded by the bench and the bar. In an interview, he added that since the Lebedeff ruling, he has been telling clients and opposing counsel if he has any relationship at all with a member of the bench. “The lawyers don’t have a problem, because they all have the same thing,” Batra said. “No member of the bar or bench who values their lifelong reputation will sully their reputation for a case or a client, and that serves to enhance public confidence.” Batra said Huttner is ailing from a heart condition that recently required surgery. The judge could not be reached for comment. His attorney, Jerome Karp, was unavailable.

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.