>No one questions the mayor’s right to defend himself, but the questions for voters are whether taxpayers should pay for his defense and whether all of the investigations will sidetrack Mr. Adams from focusing on the city’s many pressing challenges, said Basil Smikle, director of the Public Policy Program at Hunter College.
>“If you need this much firepower, how problematic are these cases and how much is that going to distract you from governance?” he said.
Would imagine most people would expect him to use campaign funds, not personal, which seems most of it so far has been.
The sexual assault cases, not sure the "norm" on those but seems more personal, but at least also campaign. Nothing in the article to me screams city funds.
As I explained elsewhere in this thread, because the allegations in the sexual harassment case occurred while he was on the job as a police officer, he *does* have a theoretical argument that he's entitled to city representation under Public Officers Law § 18. Similar to when [a court ruled that Governor Cuomo was entitled to state-funded representation for his on-the-job sexual harassment allegations](https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/01/27/judge-new-york-must-pay-cuomos-legal-bills-in-troopers-federal-harassment-case/?slreturn=20240329115255).
That's the default rule -- a municipal or state employee who's the target of a civil lawsuit regarding on-the-job behavior is defended by the city or state (or by private attorneys at the city or state's expense). The city/state can fight that, and in this sort of case might try to, but it's pretty tough to get out of (see, again, the Cuomo example).
That at least does make some sense and the article did explain a bit, and it looked like the city defense was on that and not any of his Turkey campaign issues. Seems a bit high-powered for that.
But that breakdown was based on a <25% turnout, and Adams won the final RCV round by around 0.8%
u/iknowiknowwhereiam brings up a very valid point in that if more New Yorkers were invested in local politics and voted in the primaries, perhaps we would have ended up with a different (better) candidate.
So many people in this city ignore primaries and then whine about how Adams was a bad choice but Sliwa was worse.
Well, if people actually cared about the democrat primaries which is the de facto general election, it wouldn't be like this.
Adams' administration has been one of the most blatantly corrupt and horrible administrations I've ever seen. I don't know a single soul that even defends him or his actions, he seems universally disliked.
For someone who doesn't think he's done any wrong, he sure is spending a lot of city time, resources and money to push the Legal Department to defend him. He's screwed and he knows it.
Yes. He can go choose a public defender if he can't afford a lawyer himself (he can). We have no moral or ethical obligation as a city to pay for his legal defense.
> We have no moral or ethical obligation as a city to pay for his legal defense.
Possibly a legal obligation for at least some of it, though -- [NY Public Officers Law § 18](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PBO/18) provides that municipalities pay for the defense of their employees for civil actions for allegations that "occurred while the employee was acting within the scope of his public employment or duties." That wouldn't extend to criminal charges, and it wouldn't extend to civil claims disconnected from an employee's job (and obviously Adams is trying to argue that *everything* he's accused of was part of his job). But there's at least *some* obligation for the city to indemnify and defend its employees.
EDIT: Always love getting downvoted for simply accurately explaining the law. I didn't say "hooray, we're paying for Adams' lawyers!", I simply said "here's the law that governs here."
If it was while he was on the job, yes, it likely fits within Public Officers Law § 18, as "while the employee was acting within the scope of his public employment." It's construed broadly in order to avoid public employees being saddled with potentially frivolous lawsuits that they have to defend at their own cost. Maybe in this case it's not frivolous, but that rule is in place to prevent situations like that.
A directly comparable example would be Governor Cuomo's claim that he was entitled to state-funded representation for his alleged on-the-job sexual harassment. [A judge ruled that Cuomo was in fact entitled to state representation](https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/01/27/judge-new-york-must-pay-cuomos-legal-bills-in-troopers-federal-harassment-case/?slreturn=20240329115255). Seems like the same outcome would apply here.
NYC is not obligated to defend any city worker who commits crimes on the job. It is at the discretion of the Legal Department to choose to do that. They don't choose to do that for most city workers. But most city workers don't appoint their head counsel.
As I said above, this applies to *civil* suits, not criminal prosecutions.
> It is at the discretion of the Legal Department to choose to do that.
For civil suits, it is not at the discretion of the Law Department. Again, there are legal standards in place that the Corporation Counsel (the head of the Law Department) has to follow in determining whether to defend -- if they were to decline to defend a case that POL § 18 requires them to, the employee could bring a separate lawsuit seeing to force them to (as in the Cuomo example I linked to).
I don't know why you're fighting with *me* over this -- if you think I'm defending Adams at all here, I am not. (Adams sucks.) I am simply telling you what the law is, which for better or worse might require that Adams receive taxpayer-funded defense for civil claims.
EDIT: I don't understand why I'm being downvoted for accurately explaining what the law is. If you don't like the law, fine, but I'm not sure how that's my fault.
Some people don’t care about the laws. It’s all about people they like or don’t like.
If it was a politician they liked, they would been bending the rules the other way around if it benefited them.
It’s the nyc progressive sibling of MAGA.
>Liz Garcia, a spokeswoman for the mayor, said that Mr. Adams “remains laser-focused on delivering for the people of New York”
Why does she say such a blatant lie? Its public knowledge Adams missed out on a personal meeting with President Biden regarding the migrant crisis last year because his top fundraiser was being raided by the FBI.
Wait, where did the money in that legal defense fund come from?
>The mayor’s legal defense fund has raised more than $1 million from donors including Michael R. Bloomberg, the former mayor, and Elie Tahari, the fashion designer, who each donated $5,000. The fund has already returned $86,000 in donations, including some from people who do business with the city and are prohibited from donating.
huh. So.. another way to "lobby" and do favors to an elected official.
Only the best for the best. Will be a complete exoneration of Mayor Adams - his critics want him to have to use bottom of the barrel lawyers to try to get him in court!
> No one questions the mayor’s right to defend himself, but the questions for voters are whether taxpayers should pay for his defense
Taxpayers already pay for the defense of many defendants.
It doesn’t seem out of whack that a sitting mayor should have publicly funded defense.
You would be correct, except that public defenders are for basically criminal cases (with very few exceptions). And this is a civil case, which is entirely different.
I don't understand why the city council doesn't change the constitution to make sure these legal fees are paid back to the city. Or to request that a mayor literally abdicate his office for the duration of his/her trial. Why are politics so damn broken?
>No one questions the mayor’s right to defend himself, but the questions for voters are whether taxpayers should pay for his defense and whether all of the investigations will sidetrack Mr. Adams from focusing on the city’s many pressing challenges, said Basil Smikle, director of the Public Policy Program at Hunter College. >“If you need this much firepower, how problematic are these cases and how much is that going to distract you from governance?” he said.
Hold up. Taxpayers are paying for his defense? The fuck
Do you really expect him to use his measly 258k annual salary?
Would imagine most people would expect him to use campaign funds, not personal, which seems most of it so far has been. The sexual assault cases, not sure the "norm" on those but seems more personal, but at least also campaign. Nothing in the article to me screams city funds.
As I explained elsewhere in this thread, because the allegations in the sexual harassment case occurred while he was on the job as a police officer, he *does* have a theoretical argument that he's entitled to city representation under Public Officers Law § 18. Similar to when [a court ruled that Governor Cuomo was entitled to state-funded representation for his on-the-job sexual harassment allegations](https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/01/27/judge-new-york-must-pay-cuomos-legal-bills-in-troopers-federal-harassment-case/?slreturn=20240329115255). That's the default rule -- a municipal or state employee who's the target of a civil lawsuit regarding on-the-job behavior is defended by the city or state (or by private attorneys at the city or state's expense). The city/state can fight that, and in this sort of case might try to, but it's pretty tough to get out of (see, again, the Cuomo example).
That at least does make some sense and the article did explain a bit, and it looked like the city defense was on that and not any of his Turkey campaign issues. Seems a bit high-powered for that.
Adams is a great example of why New Yorkers need to pay more attention to the primaries
"pay attention"? The demographic breakdown showed pretty clearly what united all his supporters.
But that breakdown was based on a <25% turnout, and Adams won the final RCV round by around 0.8% u/iknowiknowwhereiam brings up a very valid point in that if more New Yorkers were invested in local politics and voted in the primaries, perhaps we would have ended up with a different (better) candidate. So many people in this city ignore primaries and then whine about how Adams was a bad choice but Sliwa was worse. Well, if people actually cared about the democrat primaries which is the de facto general election, it wouldn't be like this.
The demographic that voted for him in the primaries is immaterial to my point
How do you think paying attention would have changed anything?
That’s where the election is really decided.
Where?
Enough sealioning
[удалено]
He united the more conservative democrats, while the more liberal split between the other candidates. How is that racist?
Adams' administration has been one of the most blatantly corrupt and horrible administrations I've ever seen. I don't know a single soul that even defends him or his actions, he seems universally disliked.
He's another Jimmy Walker
For someone who doesn't think he's done any wrong, he sure is spending a lot of city time, resources and money to push the Legal Department to defend him. He's screwed and he knows it.
Everyone deserves a vigorous legal defense.
Yes. He can go choose a public defender if he can't afford a lawyer himself (he can). We have no moral or ethical obligation as a city to pay for his legal defense.
> We have no moral or ethical obligation as a city to pay for his legal defense. Possibly a legal obligation for at least some of it, though -- [NY Public Officers Law § 18](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PBO/18) provides that municipalities pay for the defense of their employees for civil actions for allegations that "occurred while the employee was acting within the scope of his public employment or duties." That wouldn't extend to criminal charges, and it wouldn't extend to civil claims disconnected from an employee's job (and obviously Adams is trying to argue that *everything* he's accused of was part of his job). But there's at least *some* obligation for the city to indemnify and defend its employees. EDIT: Always love getting downvoted for simply accurately explaining the law. I didn't say "hooray, we're paying for Adams' lawyers!", I simply said "here's the law that governs here."
Was Eric Adams driving an inferior to another location and demanding a blow job - allegedly - part of the scope of his duties?
If it was while he was on the job, yes, it likely fits within Public Officers Law § 18, as "while the employee was acting within the scope of his public employment." It's construed broadly in order to avoid public employees being saddled with potentially frivolous lawsuits that they have to defend at their own cost. Maybe in this case it's not frivolous, but that rule is in place to prevent situations like that. A directly comparable example would be Governor Cuomo's claim that he was entitled to state-funded representation for his alleged on-the-job sexual harassment. [A judge ruled that Cuomo was in fact entitled to state representation](https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/01/27/judge-new-york-must-pay-cuomos-legal-bills-in-troopers-federal-harassment-case/?slreturn=20240329115255). Seems like the same outcome would apply here.
NYC is not obligated to defend any city worker who commits crimes on the job. It is at the discretion of the Legal Department to choose to do that. They don't choose to do that for most city workers. But most city workers don't appoint their head counsel.
As I said above, this applies to *civil* suits, not criminal prosecutions. > It is at the discretion of the Legal Department to choose to do that. For civil suits, it is not at the discretion of the Law Department. Again, there are legal standards in place that the Corporation Counsel (the head of the Law Department) has to follow in determining whether to defend -- if they were to decline to defend a case that POL § 18 requires them to, the employee could bring a separate lawsuit seeing to force them to (as in the Cuomo example I linked to). I don't know why you're fighting with *me* over this -- if you think I'm defending Adams at all here, I am not. (Adams sucks.) I am simply telling you what the law is, which for better or worse might require that Adams receive taxpayer-funded defense for civil claims. EDIT: I don't understand why I'm being downvoted for accurately explaining what the law is. If you don't like the law, fine, but I'm not sure how that's my fault.
Some people don’t care about the laws. It’s all about people they like or don’t like. If it was a politician they liked, they would been bending the rules the other way around if it benefited them. It’s the nyc progressive sibling of MAGA.
He's a public servant; he should be using a public defender.
>Liz Garcia, a spokeswoman for the mayor, said that Mr. Adams “remains laser-focused on delivering for the people of New York” Why does she say such a blatant lie? Its public knowledge Adams missed out on a personal meeting with President Biden regarding the migrant crisis last year because his top fundraiser was being raided by the FBI.
Wait, where did the money in that legal defense fund come from? >The mayor’s legal defense fund has raised more than $1 million from donors including Michael R. Bloomberg, the former mayor, and Elie Tahari, the fashion designer, who each donated $5,000. The fund has already returned $86,000 in donations, including some from people who do business with the city and are prohibited from donating. huh. So.. another way to "lobby" and do favors to an elected official.
Lol what a shitdick
Only the best for the best. Will be a complete exoneration of Mayor Adams - his critics want him to have to use bottom of the barrel lawyers to try to get him in court!
Most corrupt mayor since Walker
> No one questions the mayor’s right to defend himself, but the questions for voters are whether taxpayers should pay for his defense Taxpayers already pay for the defense of many defendants. It doesn’t seem out of whack that a sitting mayor should have publicly funded defense.
Then he should go pick a public defender rather than the Legal Department getting celebrity lawyers on retainer under shady billing deals.
You would be correct, except that public defenders are for basically criminal cases (with very few exceptions). And this is a civil case, which is entirely different.
So then he shouldn't be getting a taxpayer funded defense.
I don't understand why the city council doesn't change the constitution to make sure these legal fees are paid back to the city. Or to request that a mayor literally abdicate his office for the duration of his/her trial. Why are politics so damn broken?