Four Former NYPD Officers Plead Guilty

Four Former NYPD Officers Plead Guilty in Manhattan Federal Court to Participating in Conspiracies to Transport Firearms and/or Stolen Goods 
Nine of the Twelve Defendants Originally Charged Have Now Plead Guilty

U.S. Attorney’s OfficeFebruary 27, 2012

Southern District of New York(212) 637-2600

LINK

Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that former New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) officers GARY ORTIZ, JOSEPH TRISCHITTA, JOHN MAHONEY, and RICHARD MELNIK pled guilty to engaging in conspiracies to transport firearms and/or stolen goods across state lines. Associates MICHAEL GEE and ERIC GOMER also pled guilty to participating in a scheme to transport stolen goods interstate, and GEE pled guilty to participating in a conspiracy to sell a firearm to an out-of-state resident. ORTIZ, TRISCHITTA, MAHONEY, and GEE each pled guilty today, and MELNIK and GOMER pled guilty last week.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “As they admitted today, these police officers moonlighted as criminals, and even planned to use their badges to cover their illegal activity. When officers break the law they swear to uphold, they undermine the public’s confidence, and the damage they cause cannot be overstated. To date, seven law enforcement officers have admitted to violating this sacred trust, and now they must face the consequences of their betrayal.”

According to the Complaint, the plea agreements, the Informations to which each defendant pled, and statements made in court:

From September 2010 to October 2011, ORTIZ and TRISCHITTA participated in a scheme to transport firearms across state lines. ORTIZ, TRISCHITTA, and their co-conspirators helped transport three M-16 rifles, one shotgun, and 16 handguns – the majority of which had been defaced to remove or alter the serial number – from New Jersey to New York. In another scheme, ORTIZ and TRISCHITTA, joined by MAHONEY, MELNIK, GEE, and GOMER, and other co-conspirators, helped transport what they believed were stolen goods, including slot machines and thousands of cartons of cigarettes, as well as various counterfeit merchandise, across state lines. In total, the goods they illegally transported carried a street value of approximately $1 million. GEE also participated in a conspiracy to sell a firearm to an out-ofstate resident.

While participating in the scheme, ORTIZ and MAHONEY were active-duty officers, in Brooklyn’s 71st and 68th precincts, respectively. For part of the time, TRISCHITTA was an active-duty officer in Brooklyn’s 68th precinct. MELNIK was a retired NYPD Officer who had previously worked in Brooklyn’s 68th precinct. The ringleader was William Masso, who was an active-duty officer in Brooklyn’s 68th precinct.

In preparing for, and carrying out this scheme, the defendants specifically discussed using their credentials and knowledge as law enforcement officers. In a meeting on March 24, 2011, Masso told MAHONEY, MELNIK, and TRISCHITTA that they should carry their law enforcement badges during the operation and, if stopped, should say they were police officers working off-duty to deliver items another person had purchased at an auction. At that same meeting, TRISCHITTA discussed a potential problem using a certain brand of rental truck to transport the merchandise since law enforcement is trained to look for that type of truck in connection with potential criminal activity. The following day, after transporting six slot machines they believed to have been stolen from New Jersey to New York, MELNIK said that they needed to coordinate better on future meetings to make sure they were not all in the same parking lot, which made it look like they were scoping out the area.

During their guilty pleas, ORTIZ and TRISCHITTA admitted that they had willfully transported firearms across state lines, in violation of their obligations as NYPD Officers. They, along with MAHONEY, MELNIK, GEE, and GOMER, also admitted that they had knowingly transported what they believed were stolen cigarettes, slot machines, and/or other merchandise across state lines.

* * *

ORTIZ, 28, of Brooklyn, New York, pled guilty today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Theodore H. Katz to one count of conspiracy to transport firearms interstate and one count of conspiracy to transport and receive stolen merchandise. He faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. ORTIZ agreed to a money judgment of $18,000, representing the amount of the crime proceeds, and agreed to forfeit his interest in one gun seized from him at the time of his arrest. He is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Paul G. Gardephe on June 12, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. TRISCHITTA, 42, of Staten Island, New York pled guilty today before Judge Katz to one count of conspiracy to transport firearms interstate and one count of conspiracy to transport and receive stolen merchandise. He faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

TRISCHITTA agreed to a money judgment of $11,500, representing the amount of the crime proceeds, and agreed to forfeit his interest in five guns seized from him at the time of his arrest. He is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley on July 6, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.

MAHONEY, 27, of Staten Island, New York, pled guilty today before U.S. District Judge Richard J. Sullivan to one count of conspiracy to transport and receive stolen merchandise. He faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison. MAHONEY agreed to a money judgment of $4,500, representing the amount of the crime proceeds, and agreed to forfeit his interest in two guns seized from him at the time of his arrest. He is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Sullivan on June 15, 2012 at 11:30 a.m.

GEE, 50, of Staten Island, New York, pled guilty today before Judge Katz to one count of conspiracy to sell a firearm to an out-of-state resident and one count of conspiracy to transport and receive stolen merchandise. He faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. GEE agreed to a money judgment of $5,000, representing the amount of the crime proceeds. He is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. on June 1, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.

MELNIK, 43, of Staten Island, New York, pled guilty on February 24, 2012 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Frank Maas to one count of conspiracy to transport and receive stolen merchandise. He faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison. MELNIK agreed to a money judgment of $5,000, representing the amount of the crime proceeds, and agreed to forfeit his interest in three guns seized from him at the time of his arrest. He is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Barbara S. Jones on July 6, 2012 at 2:30 p.m.

GOMER, 28, of Rhode Island, New York, pled guilty on February 22, 2012 before U.S. District Judge John F. Keenan to one count of conspiracy to transport and receive stolen merchandise. He faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison. GOMER agreed to a money judgment of $5,000, representing the amount of the crime proceeds, and agreed to forfeit his interest in a replica gun seized from him at the time of his arrest. He is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Keenan on May 30, 2012 at 3:00 p.m.

Three defendants previously pled guilty in connection with the case. Masso pled guilty on February 6, 2012 and is scheduled to be sentenced on June 15, 2012. Marco Venezia, a former NYPD Officer, and David Kanwisher, a corrections officer in New Jersey, each pled guilty on February 15, 2012 and are scheduled to be sentenced on June 21, 2012 and May 25, 2012, respectively.

Charges are pending against former NYPD Officers Eddie Goris and Ali Oklu and former NYC Department of Sanitation Police Officer Anthony Santiago. Goris is scheduled to appear in Magistrate Court on March 1, 2012 at 2:30 p.m. for a plea hearing. Santiago is scheduled appear before U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts on March 9, 2012 at 2:30 p.m. for a plea hearing. Oklu is scheduled to appear at a pretrial conference before Judge Pauley on March 23, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. The charges against these co-conspirators are merely accusations, and these defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Mr. Bharara praised the investigative work of the FBI and the Internal Affairs Bureau of the NYPD.

This prosecution is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption and Complex Frauds units. Assistant United States Attorneys Carrie H. Cohen, Brent S. Wible, and Amanda Kramer are in charge of the cases.

12-062

###

Retired Judge, Joins Law Firm Handling A Case Previously Before Him

Firm Disqualified After Hiring Ex-Judge Who Had Heard Client's Case

Andrew Keshner

New York Law Journal

02-24-2012

LINK

A Brooklyn appellate court has disqualified a Long Island law firm from handling a woman's divorce after the judge presiding over the case retired and joined the firm.

In Manditch v. Manditch, 2011-04091, a unanimous panel of the Appellate Division, Second Department, rejected arguments that the former judge had been effectively insulated from the case. It held in a brief, unsigned Feb. 7 decision that a lower court judge had "improvidently exercised its discretion" by declining the husband's motion to disqualify his wife's firm.

Now-retired Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Donald R. Blydenburgh had been presiding over the divorce action between Douglas C. Manditch and his wife, Devon, since its 2007 inception when he filed his retirement papers on Aug. 27, 2010, effective Sept. 30.

Following a Sept. 19, 2010, report in Newsday of the judge's imminent retirement from the bench, Ms. Manditch's attorney, Philip Castrovinci of Castrovinci & Mady in Smithtown, said in court papers that he approached the judge on Sept. 21 about a job.

On Oct. 1, 2010, the judge became a non-equity partner in what became known as Castrovinci, Blydenburgh & Mady.

Attorneys for the husband— the chairman and CEO of Empire National Bank in the still-pending divorce action—unsuccessfully moved for disqualification of the firm before Acting Suffolk County Justice James F. Quinn (See Profile).

On appeal, Mr. Manditch argued in his brief that the "integrity of the judicial process has been eviscerated" by Justice Quinn's refusal to disqualify the firm, later saying "the taint of impropriety is simply overwhelming."

Mr. Manditch added that the Castrovinci firm had not followed requirements to notify its opponents and the court of its intentions to stay on the case after Mr. Blydenburgh joined the firm.

Specifically, Mr. Manditch cited Rule 1.12 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which states that when firms become affiliated with someone who has acted "in a judicial capacity" on a matter, the firm cannot "undertake or continue representation in such a matter unless…the firm acts promptly and reasonably to…give written notice to the parties and any appropriate tribunal to enable it to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this Rule."

Mr. Manditch said purported safeguards to ensure the former judge did not become involved in the case were "at best, vague and at worst, illusory."

But the Castrovinci firm stressed in its own court papers that Mr. Blydenburgh was "totally insulated" from the case, having been excluded from all conversations, never meeting Ms. Manditch and earning a salary instead of fees generated by this case or other cases where he acted as a judge.

See Mr. Manditch's reply brief.

Noting Mr. Manditch's large income, the Castrovinci firm called the appeal "simply another weapon in [Mr. Manditch's] arsenal, calculated to financially exhaust [Ms. Manditch] until she has no choice but to capitulate."

The Castrovinci firm responded in its brief to the issue of notice by arguing there was no case law to buttress the proposition that "such a formality was lauded over substance."

Disqualification of the firm was "punitive, harsh, unnecessary and highly prejudicial," the Castrovinci firm argued. It claimed that with Ms. Manditch's "limited financial means," she could not find new representation, amounting to a "death knell" for her case.

But the panel was not swayed, writing that "under the facts of this case, including that the law firm representing the defendant did not comply with the notice requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule 1.12(d), the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion."

The couple was married in June 2003, the third marriage for Mr. Manditch and the second for Ms. Manditch.

While presiding over the case, Mr. Blydenburgh in April 2010 granted partial summary judgment to Mr. Manditch, ruling that, under a pre-nuptial agreement, it was the intent of the parties that all past, present and future retirement and stock option benefits were separate property.

Following a request for clarification from Ms. Manditch, the judge issued a June 2010 amended order, that according to Mr. Manditch "effectively reversed" the earlier decision. On Sept. 3, 2010, the judge refused to vacate his June 2010 amended order.

Mr. Manditch appealed the refusal to vacate the order. The Second Department affirmed Judge Blydenburgh in a November 2011 ruling.

In the current case, Mr. Manditch argued, "It strains credulity to believe that after the retirement papers were filed on August 27, 2010, the former Judge and Mr. Castrovinci were not discussing, negotiating and planning for him to join the firm" while the judge was writing the Sept. 3 order.

The Castrovinci firm said the September decision only reiterated the June decision—made about four months before Mr. Blydenburgh joined the firm.

Mr. Blydenburgh is no longer with the firm, which is now named Castrovinci & Mady, according to a receptionist at the firm.

Mr. Blydenburgh, 60, served as a Suffolk County Supreme Court justice from January 1997 until his Sept. 2010 retirement. He could not be reached for comment.

Glenn S. Koopersmith of Garden City represented Mr. Manditch on appeal. He said his client was "uncomfortable" with the firm's attempts to stay on the case after hiring the judge.

"Notwithstanding their representation they were not involving him in the representation, that did not make my client feel comfortable, he felt the appearance of impropriety was overwhelming," Mr. Koopersmith said.

Justices Peter B. Skelos (See Profile), Ruth C. Balkin (See Profile), Sheri S. Roman (See Profile) and Sandra L. Sgroi (See Profile) joined the decision.

The case was argued on Jan. 17, though the Castrovinci firm did not appear for oral argument, Mr. Koopersmith said.

Mr. Castrovinci did not respond to a request for comment. Ruth Sovronsky of the Castrovinci firm appeared on the brief.

@|Andrew Keshner can be contacted at akeshner@alm.com.

Judge Kevin Cronin Jails Disabled Mother

Judge Cronin

 ParentingNewsNetwork

LINK

Judge Kevin Cronin of Allegan County, Michigan, sentenced disabled protective mother Maria Melinn to jail for 21 days in response to non-payment of child support. Her disability is reported to be from a broken back allegedly inflicted on her by her ex-husband.

In 2008, Kevin Cronin campaigned against the prior incumbent judge based on a “Family Values” platform. He was endorsed by the religious right American Family Association, the Family Rights Coalition – PAC, and several Father’s Rights groups. His campaign smeared his opponent for being liberal and associated with homosexuals.

In 2009, Dads Of Michigan.org honored Judge Kevin Cronin ”For efforts in maximizing child access to both parents and his work to support both parents involvement in children’s lives.”

Cronin does seem to be concerned with Father’s Rights, but not a child’s right to be with their mother. Compare this disabled mother’s sentence to a father’s sentence Cronin gave to a man whose son was stabbed.

Cronin sentenced the 34-year-old to 90 days in jail, 2 years probation and more than $2,400 in fines and costs for being an accessory after the fact to a felony…

Cronin was struggling with the sentencing, saying he wanted to hand down a substantial punishment for Joseph Embree’s lack of judgment, but realized the three children need to have their father with them.
Harsher punishment would have meant unemployment and loss of the home, Cronin said. “It would destroy your relationship with the children.”

Cronin projects an image of piety, but he really seems to be a man who hates women, at least unmarried women who are mothers. This misogynistic judge does not reflect family values, but patriarchal Father’s Rights.  (Unless “Family Values” is code for patriarchy) This judge is making the United States family court system look like the Judeo-Christian version of Sharia law