Austerity, Largesse and Cool Whip

“Getting married is like trading in the adoration of many for the sarcasm of one.” Mae West
“I never hated a man enough to give him diamonds back.” Zsa Zsa Gabor
“This budget request is austere, as is required by the State’s fiscal outlook, and will require that the court system continue to reduce costs …The budget provides the minimum funds the Judiciary needs; any further reduction would seriously jeopardize the ability of the courts to fulfill their core mission.” Executive Summary, New York State Unified Court System Budget, Fiscal Year 2013-2014.
Apparently the “core mission” of the cash strapped Unified Court System this year is to dole out an additional $15 million more than in 2012-2013 to some pretty lucky organizations. Why? In a line item in the austere Budget cleverly called “Judiciary Wide Maintenance – Undistributed” was an extra $15 million “to assuring that the Judiciary meets its constitutional mission to ensure equal justice for all.” In other words, the trough was open for whoever stood in line with their hand out. Now we know who received the largesse of the Office of Confused Adults. How? Well, they brag about it on the website, and why not? In a report of something called the “Oversight Board of Judiciary Legal Services” the winners were announced. And just who are these guys on the Oversight Board? It is hard to say. But their nifty 27 page “Application Forms and Instruction Booklet” says that the money is to “ensure that the ‘essentials of life’ – housing, family matters, access to health care and education, and subsistence income – are provided for throughout the state.” I’m not sure when that became a function of the court system, but here it is.
The winner is (envelope please) Legal Services NYC with $1,632,033. A self-proclaimed Voice for Justice and a Force for Change, this organization has a nice link to an explanation of the Marriage Equality Act that asks, ”Should I get married?” I love that one. The answer? “Marriage is a profound emotional, social, and legal commitment to another person.” Thanks for clearing that one up.
But after all, there are other winners too. 54 of them. And just who is scoffing up the crumbs of our judicial austerity? How about Day One, “the only organization in New York City solely devoted to the issue of teen dating violence.” Sounds good to me. Or something called “CAMBA” which is a “non-profit agency that provides services that connect people with opportunities to enhance their quality of life.” OK. Or how about Journey’s End Refugee Services, a not for profit organization “formed to sponsor and resettle refugees to Western New York.” I’m glad my Judiciary is involved in that task. OCA provides over half of the “contributions and grants” reported on their tax return. How about my favorite, The Door, which provides counseling services for the “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or Questioning (LGBTQ)” members. Count me in the Questioning category there. These are certainly fine organizations, but I am not sure what part of the mission of the Judicial System allows OCA to dole out $15 million for this stuff. I’ve taken a gander at Article VI of the New York State Constitution which creates the Judiciary, and I really cannot find this form of payola as part of the Prime Directive or as they put it, their “constitutional mission.” Maybe it is somewhere else.
Well, enough of that. On a better note, in a surprise to me, the Second Department wrote the following in August: “Thus, we are in agreement with our colleagues in the Appellate Division, Third Department…” See, all that “you guys got it wrong” nonsense is just that. And they said it would never happen. The issue here was whether a court could grant relief that is not contained in a Notice of Cross Motion. The answer is “yes” in the court’s discretion, but is always better to let them know what you want in the Notice of Motion.
Seven days later, the Second Department gave us a nice Child Support Standards Act gem in the Beroza v. Hendler. Here, the mom earned $487,000 and the dad had imputed income of $259,000. The Support Magistrate and the Family Court capped the combined income for child support at $255,000 after considering and explaining the appropriate statutory factors. Not enough for the Second Department, and they moved the cap to $400,000 since the capped figure was “an amount which was only marginally higher than the plaintiff's net annual income of $248,721.00. The capped amount, in effect, improperly excluded consideration of the mother's net annual income of $487,693, contrary to the cost-sharing scheme directed by the CSSA.” Now, I am unaware of any cost-sharing scheme directed by the CSSA as child support is generally a function of income, as here. Also, just how is the mother’s net annual income excluded by a cap on combined income? So, the Second Department now has new factors for application of the cap, so let’s all take note. Hopefully the colleagues in the Third Department will not agree. The result of this decision is that dad must now pay just shy of $40,000 tax free to supplement mom’s paltry $487,000 income. It was an increase of about $15,000 per year presumably retroactive to 2007 or over $120,000. Ouch.
For all you Black Keys fans, did you see that lead singer Dan Auerbach had to part with some of Bob Dylan’s hair in his final divorce settlement with his ex-wife Stephanie Gonis? That plus $5 million and a Toyota Highlander. All from the guy who sings “someone said true love was dead.” Well, maybe it is.
Do you like Cool Whip? Me too, especially Extra Creamy. Did you know it is made in Avon, New York? Avon is a town of about 7,000 people in Livingston County south of Rochester. Not much happens there other than Cool Whip manufacturing, but that didn’t stop the gremlins from the Commission on Judicial Conduct from snooping around. And what did they find? My hero of the month, the Hon. Michael A. Torregiano. For ten years he has been the Town Justice of the Town of Avon with an unblemished record. Judge Torregiano is not a lawyer, but most of the town justices in New York are non-lawyers. Just before New Year’s Eve in 2010, the Town Board of Avon went into executive session to consider whether to raise the pay of Judge Torregiano. When they declined to give Judge Torregiano any more money, he reminded one of the councilmen that he had taken care of his daughter’s ticket and that the Board had “shoved it up my ass.” Now the councilman’s daughter did not receive any special treatment or consideration, but what the heck. To the Commission, these comments merited a Public Censure. Geez. And just what part of the Judicial Code was violated by Judge Torregiano’s expressions of opinion? Failing to “uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary by failing to maintain high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary would be preserved.” Sure. The integrity of the judiciary was really harmed by the “shoving it up” comment of Justice Torregiano? Do you think there may be a judge or two in New York who has had similar sentiments about the Commission? One wonders what it cost the taxpayers for that investigation. Maybe if Judge Torregiano wants a little more money he should fill out an application with the Oversight Board of Judiciary Legal Services. It couldn’t hurt.

http://www.nycourts.gov/reports/trialcourtrestructuring/ctmerger2802.pdf
Fried v. Jacob Holding, Inc., __ A.D.3rd __ (2nd Dept., August 7, 2013).
__ A.D.3rd __ (2nd Dept., August 14, 2013).