Monday Morning In Judge Scarpino’s Matrimonial Court
Westchester Supreme Court, Matrimonial Part
Judge Anthony Scarpino Presiding

Last Monday morning The Westchester Guardian was present in what some folks might have called “Tony Scarpino’s Divorce Court.” In all candor, if we visit the County Courthouse on a Monday it is usually to cover one or more of the criminal courts. However, in light of the recent letter from Debra Weissman to Judge Jonathan Lippman, reproduced on our front page a few weeks earlier, we believed that it would be appropriate to attend the next court appearance of the parties involved. As luck would have it, Weissman v Weissman was case number 24 on a calendar with nearly thirty items, and we were afforded a more extended opportunity to witness the Court than we had anticipated.

Booth v Booth

A couple divorced in 1998 involved in an apparent dispute over the financing of their seventeen-year-old son’s tuition to New York University, apparently felt they needed the wisdom and authority of the Court to resolve the matter quickly enough to permit the boy’s entrance in September. Realizing that the parents had virtually thrust their child’s educational prospects into his lap, Scarpino said, “This is your child. For you to come to me to make a decision where he goes, is not something I prefer to do. You are a team with regard to your child, though you’re apart. Remember, he may decide what nursing home you go to one day.”

To another couple each of whom were appearing pro se, and had a tendency to speak over one another Scarpino quipped, “Slow down, I’m not Judge Judy here.” To the attorney for the former wife in a later case that was more than seven years old, who asked almost rhetorically, “When does this process stop?” Scarpino remarked, “When do matrimonials stop? They never stop. They go on for years and years, sometimes fifteen
or twenty years.”

Kramer v Kramer

Predictably, case number 15 brought a quick, “Saw that one,” from the Judge, who then got serious, warning the pro se former husband that his former wife’s contempt proceeding could have incarcerative consequences for him, if successful.

White v White

After listening to the opening remarks of each attorney in what was clearly a ‘tug of war’ scenario, Scarpino attempted to redirect the litigants, coaxing, “You have two quality lawyers. It seems to me it’s more about control than about what’s best for the children.”

Weissman v Weissman

Having sat through most of the card, at last the main event; Debra Weissman, represented by Marcia Kusnetz and Carol Most, opposing Ronald Weissman, represented by Willem Gravett of Bender, Miano & Colangelo. Marcia Kusnetz would do most of the talking, informing Judge Scarpino that their client was before him with two Motions to Show Cause, and a Motion to Re-argue. There followed some discussion about a guardian ad litem, another attorney who had apparently been assigned to Debra Weissman because of cerebral injuries sustained seven years ago. With regard to the Motion to Re-argue, Scarpino said, “If I feel that I’ve made a error I will take corrective action.”

Then, in response to Mr. Gravett’s pulling out of a copy of The Westchester Guardian, featuring the Weissman v Weissman letter, Attorney Kusnetz suggested to Scarpino that the attorneys have a confab in chambers about the matter. The Judge, raising his eyebrows, as well as his voice, remarked, “If you think for one second that I am going to go into a back room to discuss this case, I would wonder what you had in your coffee.”

At one point Scarpino raised the issue of the tapes allegedly implicating judicial personnel that were referenced in Debra Weissman’s letter to Judge Lippman. Kusnetz quickly replied, “That’s between her and the Inspector General’s Office. My Client never accused Your Honor of being involved in any wrongdoing.” Continuing to advocate, and turning more passionate, she went on, “My main concern is that the house, (the marital house) be
finally sold. She cannot carry the expenses of the house for more than two and a half years. She cannot survive in this situation.” In response to another objection by Mr. Gravett to the coverage in The Guardian, Judge Scarpino assured him, “If your client wants to write to the newspaper, he can.” Turning to Debra Weissman, following her comment that she was “working with Sherrill Spatz” (the Inspector Genereal of the State Office Of Court Administration), the Judge asked, “Have the tapes been turned over to the press?” Debra Weissman responded, “No.”

Scarpino then came back with, “It would be fine with me whether Judge Pfau (the newly appointed Chief Administrative Judge of The State Court System) takes over the case or not, it’s fine with me.”

Now, Attorney Gravett, having thus far made no headway, insisted, “Mrs. Weissman is not before this Court with clean hands, Your Honor.” Pressing his point, with reference to her having given a copy of her letter to Judge Lippman to The Guardian for publication, Gravett persisted, “It is a clear and unambiguous violation of the divorce agreement.

Whatever her personal feelings may be, her contempt is egregious and atrocious.” Obviously not wishing to continue Mr. Gravett’s line of discussion, the Judge now declared, “I’m going to mark this Application for Re-argument fully submitted.”

He then addressed an application from Debra Weissman’s attorneys, and turning her way, stated, “Now I must deal with the Application to be relieved from representing you.” He then asked her if she could abide with her attorneys’ request, to which she emphatically responded, “No.”

Scarpino then inquired of her attorneys if “the mere publication of the article in The Guardian” was the reason for their desire to be relieved? Attorney Kusnetz responded, “There’s a process by which such complaints should be
made. We don’t agree with the action she has taken. We do believe that she should prevail. She hasn’t had her day in Court. But, we feel uncomfortable as a law firm.”

Then, in an obvious effort to assist Debra Weissman with a difficult circumstance, made more difficult by the expressed desire of her attorneys to separate from her case, Scarpino, once again addressing her directly, said, “You’ve already stated some very compelling reasons why you do not want your attorneys relieved. I want it in writing.”

Weissman spontaneously declared, “I want to keep these attorneys because they have been fearless, and they understand.” Judge Scarpino, perhaps sensing a need for closure on the subject, remarked, “I don’t take offense with the stuff in the press. It’s part of being a judge. I’m not offended by it; it’s one side of the story.” With that he gave Deborah Weissman two weeks to submit her objections to the relieving of her attorneys, in writing.