Patronage Never Left: New York Courts Still Favor the Politically Connected

It’s unclear whether some of these appointments are legal. The Office of Court Administration, which is charged with enforcing the state’s anti-patronage rules, did not respond to multiple questions about New York Focus’s findings.

Chief judges in New York have amended the rules many times over the past two decades; the current chief, Rowan Wilson, has the authority to amend them further.

The rules focus on preventing high-ranking party officials, or those exerting certain formal powers, from gaining appointment, but don’t always account for officials with alternative titles who wield significant, but softer, influence.

When lawyers are appointed based on connections, not a record of competence, clients may be forced to pay for subpar legal representation.

And when a politically connected attorney is appointed — then appears before the same judge for their client — it can raise other parties’ suspicions in the case.

“These sorts of antics only jeopardize public trust in the courts,” said Ben Weinberg, the public policy director at the government reform group Citizens Union.

“There’s a reason anti-patronage rules exist,” he said. “It’s to protect the integrity of our government systems, not to create a game of political musical chairs.”

A Quiet Understanding

The issue of judicial patronage came to a boil in Brooklyn around the turn of the century.

In 1999, after losing a lucrative court appointment, attorneys connected to the Brooklyn Democratic Party complained in a letter, which eventually became public, that their loyal party service should entitle them to Brooklyn fiduciary assignments.

It was a public airing of what had been a quiet understanding.

The letter spurred a state commission to produce a report that found the “sheer number” of appointments party leaders and their law firms were receiving raised the “troubling perception” that political considerations could be influencing the process.

Chief Judge Kaye adopted rules to curb patronage and other alleged abuses within the system in 2002.

Nine years later, a Long Island-based law firm moved into Brooklyn.

The firm, Abrams Fensterman, absorbed a boutique practice and made Brooklyn political power brokers Frank Carone and Frank Seddio partners.

In 2012, insiders elected Seddio chair of the Brooklyn Democratic Party. That presented a problem, however, for his new law firm.

The Kaye rules prohibit a political party chair, executive director, or anyone at a law firm “associated” with them from landing appointments to work in guardianship, estate or foreclosure cases. If Seddio had stayed on as an Abrams Fensterman partner, that would have clearly barred not just him but also his firm from the cases.

So, Seddio quietly resigned as an Abrams Fensterman partner, and the law firm — which had a long-established guardianship case practice — continued to land the court jobs.

“Seddio was no longer with the firm from the day he became chairman,” said an Abrams Fensterman spokesperson, George Arzt. “He was not an equity partner.”

However, the connection between Seddio and Abrams Fensterman did not end, raising the question of whether Seddio and the law firm remained “associated.”

Seddio continued to make an average of nearly $100,000 a year from Abrams Fensterman, at a minimum.

Between 2013 and 2018, Seddio earned between $595,000 and $975,000 from that law firm in “co-counsel fees,” according to financial disclosure forms. (As a party chairman, Seddio was required to file annual disclosures, but the state ethics commission said it did not have his forms covering 2019 or 2020, the year he resigned as chair.) Through a separate law firm he founded, Seddio & Associates, Seddio frequently worked with Abrams Fensterman as a co-counsel on commercial litigation.

Abrams Fensterman also paid Seddio between $60,000 and $150,000 to rent out a portion of his Brooklyn law office from 2013 to 2015. It was the same building from which Seddio & Associates operated.

Within that Canarsie property, Seddio — still the Brooklyn Democratic Party chair — worked alongside his longtime ally, Carone, who was still a partner at Abrams Fensterman.

The Kaye rules were written to insulate the appointment process “from appearances of favoritism, nepotism or politics,” and they disqualify any law firm “associated” with a political chair from gaining appointment.

The term “associated” is nebulous, and because the Office of Court Administration wouldn’t respond to questions about its interpretation, it’s unclear whether Seddio’s continued ties with Abrams Fensterman should have barred the firm from gaining appointments.

As chair, Seddio played a role in who the party nominated for judgeships.

In an August interview, Seddio told New York Focus that the Brooklyn Democratic Party’s judicial selection process was a “very good system that works, and that’s managed to allow me to be a part of selecting at least, maybe, 60 Supreme Court judges.”

A screening panel made up of attorneys determines which candidates are qualified for the Brooklyn party’s potential endorsement.

An Abrams Fensterman partner serves on that panel, and its attorneys landed more than 200 judicial appointments from state Supreme and Surrogate’s Court judges during Seddio’s tenure as chair, totaling more than $2.3 million.

Queens judges assigned the most cases, 68, resulting in $793,000 in fees, while Brooklyn judges assigned 17, resulting in total fees of $309,000, according to data provided by the state court system.

Arzt said that Seddio had “nothing to do with appointments [Abrams Fensterman] received on Guardianship cases,” and added that the firm’s co-founder and executive partner, Robert Abrams, is “the preeminent authority on guardianship law” in the state. Abrams edited a treatise on the subject that is “used by every judge in the state who presides over these cases,” Arzt said.

Seddio resigned as Brooklyn Democratic Party chair in 2020 and sold his Canarsie space three years later. He moved into an office provided by Abrams Fensterman at 1 MetroTech Center in Downtown Brooklyn, where the rest of the firm’s Brooklyn operation is based.

Today, he works with the firm on commercial litigation matters but has not rejoined as a partner, Arzt said.

While no longer Brooklyn Democratic Party chair, Seddio remains an insider: The party recently nominated him as their commissioner to the New York City Board of Elections, which itself has a reputation for patronage. The appointment was confirmed by the New York City Council.

Abrams Fensterman has had other deep Brooklyn Democratic Party connections: Carone served as the party’s law chair while employed as an Abrams Fensterman partner. During this period, Abrams Fensterman also provided paid election-related services to the Brooklyn Democrats.

Those connections don’t involve a party chair or executive director, so they do not bar Abrams Fensterman attorneys from landing judicial appointments.

In at least one instance during this period, the performance of a firm appointee did come into question.

In 2015, the Office of Court Administration (OCA) sent a letter to an Abrams Fensterman attorney stating her “current unsatisfactory performance may warrant removal” from the list of those eligible to receive appointments, according to a copy obtained by New York Focus.

The attorney, Ellyn Kravitz, allegedly failed to file timely paperwork on behalf of her clients in two court-appointed guardianship cases. One was in Manhattan, the other Nassau County.

Kravitz was given a chance to contest her potential removal. She voluntarily resigned from the appointments list, Arzt said.

Between 2010 and mid-2024, there were only nine other instances where OCA sent such a letter to an appointee in a guardianship case, records show.

Tens of Millions of Dollars in Queens

Three decades ago, critics held up Gerard Sweeney’s appointment in Queens as a prime example of patronage.

The appointment continues to this day — and so does criticism.

Sweeney was once law chair of the county Democratic Party, as well as the campaign treasurer for US Representative Thomas Manton, the party chair during the 1990s.

Then, in 1992, the borough’s Surrogate’s Court judge handed Sweeney perhaps the most lucrative judicial appointment in the entire state: counsel to the Queens County Public Administrator.

When a person dies without a will in Queens, the publicly funded office is called in to pay the estate’s bills, locate heirs, and assist the court in sorting out who should inherit. But surrogate judges also retain private attorneys to perform this work, and in Queens, Sweeney has been the office’s appointed counsel for more than three decades.

Sweeney’s law firm, Sweeney, Reich & Bolz, has reaped many tens of millions of dollars from the post, including more than $3.2 million in 2023.

In 2006, a Kaye amendment to the anti-patronage rules threatened Sweeney’s position.

The rules added “counsel to the public administration” to the list of posts that could not be held by an attorney who worked at a law firm “associated” with a political party chair or executive director.

The change forced the then-chair of the Queens Democratic Party, Manton, to step down as a partner in Sweeney, Reich & Bolz in 2006. If Manton had not resigned, Sweeney would have had to choose between serving as Manton’s law firm partner or as counsel to the public administrator.

That wasn’t the only connection barred by Kaye’s rules. They also prohibited a counsel to the public administrator from working at a law firm associated with someone who is the “equivalent” of political party chair or executive director.

No one holds the formal title of “executive director” in the Queens Democratic Party. But the partners at Sweeney, Reich & Bolz have long played a major role in the Queens Democratic Party’s operations.

Sweeney does not hold a formal party title, but has long been a crucial behind-the-scenes strategist to county leaders, and has deep relationships in the judiciary. His opinion about judicial endorsements is known to carry significant weight. Another partner, Frank Bolz, is the current party law chair.

The third partner, Michael Reich, is the party’s longtime “executive secretary” and plays an especially prominent part. Reich has served as a party spokesperson and, at times, election lawyer; has overseen party judicial convention meetings; and, along with Bolz, constitutes two-thirds of a panel that screens potential judges during the Queens Democratic Party’s endorsement process.

But Reich does not hold the title of “executive director,” and a 2016 revision to the court rules — which expounded on what could be considered the “equivalent” of a chair or executive director — did not cover Reich, either.

The recently departed Queens Surrogate’s Court judge, Peter Kelly, had the power to remove Sweeney as counsel to the public administration. Kelly did not do so, and said in an email that the issue “pertaining to Mr. Sweeney’s role as counsel to the Public Administrator has been hashed over numerous times.”

“My reading of the law, based on my impression that Congressman [Gregory] Meeks has been elected county chair and Mr. Reich is simply appointed as party secretary, is that Mr. Sweeney is entitled to continue in that role,” Kelly said. “If I thought otherwise, he would have been replaced.”

Kelly was referring to the state’s Public Officers Law, which defines a “political party chairman” as someone who is “elected” or exerts certain formal party powers. That’s important, because the 2016 amendment to the court rules defines the “equivalent” of a chair or executive director as “including” the Public Officers Law definitions.

Under the Queens Democratic Party’s bylaws, Reich is appointed as the executive secretary, not elected, and doesn’t have formal powers. So Reich doesn’t meet the definition of a party “chairman” under state law.

At the same time, many political parties in New York include an official whose formal title is “executive director.” And in many instances, including within the state Democratic Party, that executive director is appointed — not elected — and does not exert formal powers.

The Office of Court Administration again declined to comment on the issue.

Kelly said during his 14-year tenure, Queens had distributed more money to family members they’ve located than the other four New York City counties combined, among other achievements.

“The records are clear,” Kelly said. “So, while Mr. Sweeney may be politically supportive of the Queens County Democratic organization, he and [Queens Public Administrator Lois Rosenblatt] are unquestionably running the best public administrator’s office in the state.”

The long-running appointment of this politically influential figure, however, can leave the court open to allegations of favoritism.

Last year, Kelly faced a federal lawsuit alleging he’d improperly advocated for Sweeney’s negotiating position, in a case where Sweeney was serving as counsel to the public administrator.

At a settlement conference, Kelly allegedly stated in a “loud and extremely hostile and rude manner” that he “absolutely would not allow for any settlement” giving a Queens woman more than a 30 percent interest in a home, allegedly threatening that if the woman didn’t take that deal, she could get nothing.

In the lawsuit, Sweeney’s political ties to the judge were used to cast doubt on Kelly’s impartiality. The woman’s attorney contended the root cause of Kelly’s behavior was an “old-time but still operational” political machine in which a “select group of individuals maintain tight control” over a “massive patronage mill.”

The lawsuit was quickly dismissed by a Brooklyn judge, who found the judge enjoyed “judicial immunity” from being sued for official actions taken in his courtroom. With Kelly set to decide the matter at trial, the woman settled for the terms sought by Sweeney.

In January, a new Queens Surrogate’s Court judge took over for Kelly, who was nearing the mandatory retirement age for that office.

During a contested Democratic primary last year, candidate Wendy Li promised that, if elected, the court would be “independent from political influence” and that all the appointments would be based on “qualification,” not “political connections.” The Queens Democratic Party-backed candidate, Cassandra Johnson, won instead.

Unlike other boroughs, where the counsel to the public administrator work is split between private law firms, in Queens, Sweeney’s has been granted all of it, the Daily News reported in 2017.

In June, Johnson told City & State that she was open to spreading out the legal work in Queens but had not made a final decision.

Johnson, who assumed duties as Queens Surrogate’s judge on January 1, did not respond to a question from New York Focus about whether Sweeney, Reich & Bolz would maintain a monopoly.

A Major Force in the Bronx

When the Bronx Democratic Party has held its annual judicial nomination convention in recent years, Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz has sat at the front of the room, helping oversee the meeting as the party’s secretary. He is also on the party’s “executive committee,” which advises party chair Jamaal Bailey on judicial endorsements.

After winning election, a number of judges in the borough have then appointed Dinowitz to serve in guardianship and Surrogate’s Court cases. Since 2010, he has received 40 appointments from Bronx judges, as well as 33 from those outside the borough.

On his most recent financial disclosure form, Dinowitz reported making between $5,000 and $20,000 from court appointments in 2023.

In total, between 2012 and 2023, Dinowitz earned somewhere between $171,000 and $415,000, according to his financial disclosure statements.

Dinowitz once held a higher title within the party, serving for years as the chairperson of the Bronx Democratic County Committee. That is the second-highest position within the party structure, behind the chair of the executive committee.

In October 2016, Dinowitz resigned as chair of the county committee because of an amendment to the court rules, and a determination that he was too powerful in that role to continue landing appointments.

Three months before his resignation, then-Chief Judge Janet DiFiore issued the amendment delineating who could be considered the “equivalent” of a party chair or executive director.

“While I disagreed with their interpretation of the rule, OCA claimed it covered me as chair of the Bronx Democratic County Committee,” Dinowitz said via email. “Therefore, I resigned.”

According to court rules, a “party chair,” or the equivalent cannot land court appointments until they’ve been out of the position for two years.

During the two years following his resignation, however, Dinowitz gained 20 appointments, according to state records.

Dinowitz said the Office of Court Administration gave him the green light to go forward with appointments during the two year window.

“OCA approved everything,” Dinowitz said. “I would have to check my records and remember what happened nine years ago. I assume that since they changed the rules in the middle of the game, they didn’t penalize me for holding a position that was never subject to the rule, but instead applied it in the future.”

In response to a follow-up question, Dinowitz’s office did not provide New York Focus with records related to the OCA approval.

These days, it’s clearly legal for Dinowitz to gain appointments, and irrespective of his formal party title, he remains influential. He is a major force in the northwest Bronx neighborhood of Riverdale, and has served in the Assembly since 1994.

“I try to have some input and influence in the election of judges,” Dinowitz told New York Focus. “Still, I suspect whatever influence I may have is based on my long-term political activity in the Bronx, including 31 years as an assemblyman, more so than any ceremonial title I may have within the party.”

In 2013, Dinowitz told the Riverdale Press that people with political clout should neither be favored nor excluded from gaining court appointments.

“If you do a good job, and if you’re not a pig about it, then I don’t see the problem,” he told the newspaper.

Questions have been raised, however, about the performance of several other politically connected lawyers.