A Waterbury defense lawyer claims a Derby judge has a grudge against him — partly because of the lawyer’s involvement in the so-called “garden hose cop” case.
The attorney, Rob Serafinowicz, filed an eight-page complaint against Judge Burton Kaplan in September claiming Kaplan has “displayed a clear animus and negative bias” toward him that goes back to 2009.
Serafinowicz claims the alleged grudge has biased Kaplan against his other clients.
The lawyer said it was especially evident while Serafinowicz was representing Mustafa Salahuddin, a former Ansonia police officer exonerated by a jury in March 2010 on charges he stole a $24.99 garden hose from the Ansonia Police Department in May 2008.
Judge Kaplan did not preside over Salahuddin’s trial, but was on the bench for many of Salahuddin’s earlier court dates.
“The animus developed because I was the only one that had the balls to put Salahuddin on the trial list, take it to trial and kick ass,” Serafinowicz said when reached for comment Tuesday.
Judge Kaplan, a former prosecutor, is a respected judge with more than 40 years of legal experience in Connecticut. Colleagues in Norwalk court, where Judge Kaplan worked before arriving in Derby, had nothing but good things to say about him in a 2009 Stamford Advocate article.
Serafinowicz is now representing William LaRovera, a former Derby Middle School dean accused of bringing pain killers into the school. The attorney has a motion pending in Superior Court in Derby asking that Judge Kaplan recuse himself from the LaRovera case.
‘Anything Here Is Confidential’
Serafinowicz said he filed the complaint with the Judicial Review Commission, part of the state’s Office of Governmental Accountability.
Scott Murphy, the council’s executive director, said Tuesday that confidentiality rules governing the complaint process preclude him from confirming or denying the complaint’s existence or disclosing any other information.
“Anything that’s here is confidential,” Murphy said.
Because of the council’s rules, the outcome of Serafinowicz’s complaint may never be publicly known. It is possible the Judicial Review Commission has already tossed the complaint.
Proceedings would only become public if a judge accused of misconduct voluntarily waived confidentiality or if the council determined, during a secret hearing, that there was probable cause to believe a judge engaged in conduct punishable by removal, suspension, or censure.
If the council finds probable cause in such a case, it holds a public hearing. According to the council’s website, there have been just 11 such hearings since February 1989.
The opaque nature of the process makes even basic facts, such as whether Kaplan has ever been notified of the allegations against him, uncertain.
A clerk at Superior Court in Derby referred a reporter seeking comment from Kaplan about the complaint to the Judicial Branch’s External Affairs Division.
An official in that office, Rhonda Stearley-Hebert, said only: “The judge has received no notice of any complaint.”
The Valley Indy also left a message for Judge Kaplan Wednesday morning.
A copy of the complaint’s first page obtained by the Valley Independent Sentinel has a stamp on it marked “RECEIVED SEP 26 2011 JUDICIAL REVIEW COUNCIL.” According to its procedures, the council must notify within five days any judge against whom a complaint is filed.
Told of the apparent discrepancy, Stearley-Hebert said, “All I can tell you is what the judge told me earlier: he has received no notice of it.”
‘I Don’t Play That Way’
Though Serafinowicz said his involvement with the Salahuddin case was the basis for Kaplan’s alleged mistreatment, his complaint also cites a 2009 case he handled in Derby where he claims Kaplan refused to allow a client of his to apply for a diversionary program for which the client was eligible.
During a pre-trial meeting in that case, Serafinowicz’ client hadn’t completed required paperwork. The lawyer said it wasn’t done because of a “cancer scare,” according to the complaint.
Judge Kaplan allegedly began to scream “at the top of his lungs,” according to the complaint.
“In the most unprofessional display of behavior I have seen by any judge he yelled ‘I don’t play that way,’ ‘Counsel you better learn real fast that I don’t play this way,” the complaint says, adding that when Serafinowicz asked what Kaplan meant, the judge “never gave a rational response but continued to yell saying something to the effect that I had done something improper by bringing forward this new information and said it should have been brought up minutes earlier.”
Subsequent to that case, Serafinowicz’s complaint says, “I was rarely allowed to speak or make counter proposals related to dispositions, whereas certain other lawyers, who Judge Kaplan referred to by their first names, were always allowed to speak.””
Later, when Serafinowicz became involved in the LaRovera case, the complaint says Kaplan told Serafinowicz he would not allow that case to become like the Salahuddin matter, where the defendant was placed on administrative leave with pay for almost three years.
The Stamford Advocate article noted that Judge Kaplan was known in Norwalk court for his efficiency in moving cases through the system.
“His words were ‘this case is not going to be like those others from before I got here, it won’t sit on the trial list with him getting paid for two years,’” the complaint said. “One judge cannot decide that one case should be handled differently from all others because of political concerns.”
“Simply put, enough is enough,” the last paragraph of Serafinowicz’s complaint reads, noting that he “was professional and showed extreme restraint” in not bringing a complaint against Kaplan earlier. “It is clear there exists a personal animus towards me and I will not allow this animus to impact my clients or my business.”
