“We reflect the people we serve,” said Matthews Forbes.

Newburgh’s population is 51% female, according to 2019 data from the US Census Bureau. Almost 60% of residents identify as a race other than white. And 21% of those surveyed from 2015 to 2019 said they were born abroad.

They join the principal judge Paul Trachte. The Newburgh court consists of three judges; one is a 10-year appointment by the city government and the other two are elected positions.

Matthews Forbes and Mohammed are both first generation Americans with close ties to the Newburgh community.

“It’s really a mosaic of people here,” said Matthews Forbes. “We are an inclusive community and I would like to think that we are all working together towards a common good. “

Her father arrived in the United States in the late 1950s and her mother arrived in the 1960s, both from Greece.

Although Matthews Forbes was born and raised in Newburgh, his first language is Greek. She graduated from the Newburgh Free Academy in 1985.

“I consider myself to be a girl from Newburgh,” Matthews Forbes said. “I was created by this city.”

Mohammed, born in the Bronx, came to Orange County with his family and settled in Woodbury. Mohammed moved to Newburgh last month and has volunteered in the community for 11 years, she said.

Mohammed’s father was a Newburgh businessman from Trinidad. He ran a liquor store on Lake Street.

“I think anybody who comes before a judge, at some point, is going to be like ‘Hey, what would it be like to be that person?’ or “How would I have made a different decision?” or whatever thoughts you sometimes have as a lawyer, ”Mohammed said.

Mohammed was appointed by Newburgh Mayor Torrance Harvey to take the seat of Judge Peter Kulkin when he retired earlier this year. She was appointed on July 12.

Mohammed was a lawyer with his own local law firms in Orange County. She had to close her practice when she was appointed a full-time judge.

Matthews Forbes was appointed by city council for her 10-year term in February after Justice E. Loren Williams won an election to the state’s Supreme Court last year.

“I always dreamed, even when I was in law school, of one day becoming a judge,” said Matthews Forbes. “It was the ultimate goal of my career.”

Before becoming a judge, she spent 15 years as a lawyer in a private practice and 15 years working for the justice system. She worked as a legal clerk at the Supreme Court level and worked for the judiciary in the appeal division and surrogate court.

When Williams’ position became open, Matthews Forbes saw it as a “call,” she said.

“Just when I was hoping this could be a good position for me, someone sent me this photo,” said Matthews Forbes.

She held up a framed black-and-white photo of two men standing on the steps of what used to be Broadway School and is now the city’s courthouse.

One of the men was Matthews Forbes’ father.

“When I saw this picture… it was kind of like my dad was like, ‘Yo, go apply for this job,’” Matthews Forbes said.

___

(c) 2021 The Times Herald-Record, Middletown, NY

Visit the Times Herald-Record, Middletown, NY at www.recordonline.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

(Reuters) – The 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals on Friday dismissed for the second time copyright attorney Richard Liebowitz’s challenge to the sanctions in a Manhattan federal court, saying they were justified on the basis of his lies in the district court and other faults.

The opinion, written by U.S. Circuit Chief Justice Debra Ann Livingston for a three-judge panel, reiterated that the nation-wide non-monetary sanctions against Liebowitz were appropriate and confirmed more than $ 100,000 in honoraria d lawyer and other monetary penalties, deeming they were “good in” the United States. At the discretion of District Judge Jesse Furman.

In June, the 2nd Circuit upheld Furman’s non-pecuniary penalties, which required Liebowitz to serve his clients Furman’s order and file a copy of it in his pending cases across the country.

Liebowitz is known to have filed thousands of copyright infringement complaints on behalf of photographers and has faced penalties in several federal courts for misconduct, including lying under oath and violating court orders. The Southern District of New York Grievance Committee suspended Liebowitz from its practice last year, citing its “reluctance to change despite 19 formal sanctions and dozens of other reprimands and warnings from judges across the country.”

Friday’s opinion stems from a lawsuit brought by Liebowitz against Bandshell Artist Management for photographer Arthur Usherson in 2019. McGuireWoods’ Brad Newberg, who represented Bandshell in the underlying case, said in an email that he and his client were “extremely happy” with the decision.

Liebowitz’s attorney, Brian Jacobs of Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello, did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did Liebowitz’s law firm.

Liebowitz was penalized by Furman for falsely claiming that the copyright in question was registered before the complaint was filed, lied to the court and violated court orders. On Friday Livingston, joined by circuit judges Richard Wesley and Susan Carney, confirmed Furman’s full penalties.

Liebowitz’s misconduct “deserved sanctions reserved for lawyers and litigants who demonstrate by their actions that unusual measures are necessary to deter future bad behavior, protect other litigants and maintain the integrity of the judicial system,” said Livingston. .

Liebowitz had challenged Furman’s findings that he lied about a mediation session he and his client had missed and acted in bad faith in pursuing Ushesson’s claim without a registered copyright.

Livingston said Furman had good reason to conclude that Liebowitz’s testimony about mediation was “untrustworthy” based on his “patently unbelievable” claims about it and his contradiction by the mediator himself.

Liebowitz also brought and maintained the lawsuit in bad faith, said Livingston, finding that he knew copyright was not registered during the case, failed to correct his statements in court and has “actively blocked” the discovery, “in the hope of settling the matter before the truth has emerged.”

Livingston rejected Liebowitz’s arguments against attorney fees and said the remaining $ 20,000 in penalties was “modest, in terms of the costs imposed on Bandshell, his attorneys and the court.”

The case is Liebowitz v. Bandshell Artist Mgmt, 2nd US Court of Appeals, # 20-2304

For Liebowitz: Brian Jacobs de Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello

For Bandshell: Brad Newberg of McGuireWoods

Read more:

2nd Circuit Says Nationwide Sanctions Against Copyright Lawyer Liebowitz

2nd Circuit skeptical of copyright lawyer Liebowitz’s sanction appeal

This story was published in partnership with New York Focus, an independent news and investigative site covering New York City and State politics. Subscribe to their newsletter here.

At the end of June, a New York appeals court issued a landmark ruling aimed at preventing people from being unnecessarily homeless or separated from their families during their criminal cases. But a month later, the decision is overturned by the court system, defense lawyers say.

The fight centers on the protection orders that judges routinely impose on defendants, ordering them to stay away from people to whom they pose a potential threat.

In a June 24 ruling in a case known as Crawford, a state appeals court ruled that when a proposed protection order threatens to deprive defendants of “substantial” interests – such as l ‘access to their homes or their children – a court is expected to hold a hearing shortly. after issuance of the order to determine if it is really necessary.

The decision was widely seen as a game changer. “A judge’s order left her homeless. A new decision will help others like her, ”read the headline of a New York Times article recounting the saga of plaintiff Shamika Crawford, who was barred from entering her Bronx home following ‘a complaint from her boyfriend.

Defense lawyers say the ruling brings a long-needed change to a status quo in which judges routinely issue protection orders at the request of prosecutors, without fully considering the negative consequences for defendants.

“These orders have been approved by the courts with no possibility for the defendants to challenge them,” Meghna said. Philip, lawyer with Neighborhood Defender Services. “Our clients are displaced from their homes, unable to see their children or spouses, or to care for their elderly parents.”

Defense lawyers had hoped for an end to such ordeals – and some have successfully called on judges to reconsider the harsh restrictions. But in the weeks after the ruling, they say, many judges barely budged, effectively denying people like Crawford their new right to a review.

“Normal practice”

Judges can draw inspiration from a memorandum produced by the agency that manages New York’s courts, the Office of Court Administration.

Addressed to court administrators by a lawyer in the court system, the memo emphasizes – using bold type – that the decision “should not be read to require live witnesses and / or non-hearsay testimony. This gives judges the ability to hold a hearing that simply uses evidence that prosecutors have already presented in their case.

The memo goes further by discouraging judges from allowing witness testimony – saying that “anything near a full testimony hearing” would be more than the courts can handle, with “a significant negative operational impact.”

“The note is that kind of ahistorical effort to … ask the trial judges to take the most restrictive reading of the decision, whether that reading is actually supported by the case or not,” Jonathan Oberman, professor at the Cardozo Law School specializing in criminal law. law, told New York Focus.

Lucian Chalfen, spokesperson for the Office of Courts Administration, responded that it is “normal practice to issue contextual memos on cases that may have significant operational implications for the courts.”

Some lawyers have had success using the Crawford decision on behalf of their clients. “I got all these emails from attorneys who said, ‘Oh, I used it, that’s awesome! “Legal aid lawyer Corey Stoughton told The New York Times.

And in other cases, the ruling had led some prosecutors and judges to “think twice” before seeking and granting prosecution orders, Philip told New York Focus.

But defense attorneys practicing in several boroughs told New York Focus judges were enforcing the decision very limited, if at all.

“What we have seen so far is disturbing. There is a legitimate concern that the Crawford decision will not be followed, at least initially, in Kings County, ”said Matt Robison, lawyer at Brooklyn Defender Services. Defense attorneys practicing in Queens, Manhattan and the Bronx have expressed similar concerns.

Homeless by judge’s order

Crawford was left homeless for almost three months when a judge issued a protection order against her after her boyfriend accused her of assault. The order denied her access to her own apartment and prevented her from seeing her two children. It was lifted when the criminal complaint against her was dismissed – as most cases involving protection orders ultimately are – 88 days later.

Crawford and his legal team sued the judge who issued the protection order, arguing the court should have held a hearing to determine whether the move was necessary, rather than simply relying on prosecutors’ requests.

“There are certainly situations where full protection orders are warranted and necessary, but that cannot be the default, as there are too many devastating consequences to it,” said Eli Northrup, Crawford’s attorney and attorney. at Bronx Defenders.

In a unanimous decision, a panel of four judges ruled that not only should a judge have held a “speedy” hearing on whether to uphold the protection order, but that all of the trial courts in the state of New York is expected to do so in similar issues. situations.

“If it is not scuttled by the courts, it is a major effort on the part of the First Department [appellate court] to rebalance the rights of indigent people that had been really trivialized by the massive issuance of protection orders, ”Oberman said.

A vague decision

The appeals court declined to detail what hearings reviewing protection orders should look like – opening up the possibility for the Courts Administration Office to give judges its own guidelines on how to conduct such hearings.

The memo is dated June 27, just three days after the Crawford decision was released.

The memo – which Oberman called “one of the most explicitly cynical responses the court administration could give” to the ruling – serves to limit the scope of the ruling in Crawford’s case.

By emphasizing that witness testimony is not necessary, the Crawford Case Note’s view gives judges the latitude to accept a prosecutor giving a second-hand account of the alleged actions, or a police report. uncorroborated from an incident, as sufficient to show that a protection order is warranted. .

Brooklyn Law School professor Kate Mogulescu has questioned whether using unsubstantiated police reports to argue for a protective order is in keeping with the spirit of the ruling.

“This only repeats the facts which are usually recited in the [criminal] complaint. It doesn’t seem to fulfill the role that the Crawford court envisions, ”she said.

Speed ​​review

Per the memo, judges ruled that presenting criminal complaints or police reports was sufficient to meet Crawford’s demands in several hearings since the decision was rendered, defense lawyers have said. In a Bronx Criminal Court hearing attended by a New York Focus reporter, a judge explicitly denied that witness testimony was required to meet Crawford’s claims.

The memo also argues that the Crawford-mandated hearing The decision can be made at arraignment, the initial phase of criminal proceedings in which a judge has a first opportunity to issue a protection order.

But the speed at which indictments are being conducted through New York courts – usually within minutes – would make conducting full hearings at this stage of a criminal proceeding impractical, if not downright impossible, said Northrup.

“This is the problem Crawford is trying to solve. We understand that arrests are a very turbulent time. You need to have a quick evidence hearing right after to make sure [an order of protection] is justified, ”Northrup said.

Kim Barr, a lawyer at Queens Defenders, said that in the days following the Crawford decision, she faced a judge who attempted to complete the required hearing on arraignment.

His elderly client, who uses a wheelchair and is medically disabled, had been charged with assault and harassment by his girlfriend, with whom he shared a rented apartment in his name.

The judge was considering making a full protection order, which would have resulted in Barr’s client being denied access to his home.

When Barr called for a hearing to be scheduled, the judge argued that the arraignment itself was the hearing mandated by the Crawford decision.

“His immediate response was: ‘This is the hearing, the defendant is not entitled to an additional or separate hearing, I have reviewed the defendant’s report card and the allegation in front of me, and I render the full order. ‘”Barr mentioned.

A full protection order has been issued against Barr’s client, who has been banished from his home and is currently awaiting trial while living in a homeless veterans shelter. He hasn’t had a chance to challenge the entire protection order since the arraignment, Barr said.

Robison also described a recent impeachment judge categorically dismissing a request for a hearing when a protection order threatened the ability of two of his clients to see their children.

Although the judge provided a way for clients to see their children without violating the terms of the order, a Crawford hearing was not scheduled.

“The fact that the judge was unwilling to grant the hearing was of great concern,” said Robison. “Given the information presented in court and the stake – a parent’s ability to see their children – Crawford was certainly involved.”