US News

COURTING DISASTER – MAN MAKES FIRST BID TO KO ALL RULINGS BY ‘CONFLICT’ JUDGE

A Manhattan man wants an appeals court to toss all of an embattled judge’s rulings against him because of her alleged undisclosed conflicts of interest – the first in what could be a flood of such claims, The Post has learned.

Anthony DeRosa filed papers with the state Appellate Division arguing all of Justice Marylin Diamond’s rulings in his case should be declared “null and void” because she didn’t disclose that she owned stock in – and had other ties to – his opponent in the case, JPMorgan Chase Bank.

That omission violates judicial law, the appeal says.

If successful, DeRosa’s appeal could open the door to numerous other litigants to look to vacate rulings in other cases Diamond has presided over involving companies she owns stock in.

“It could certainly have ramifications,” said DeRosa’s lawyer, Tom Shanahan. “Anytime there’s even the potential for a conflict of interest, it has to be disclosed.”

DeRosa, 37, brought suit against Chase in 2001 after the bank tried to foreclose on his apartment. The case was assigned to Diamond, who eventually ruled for the bank.

DeRosa says she ignored evidence of the bank having handled the foreclosure improperly.

DeRosa, a Wall Street researcher, turned his talents on the judge, and found her retired judge husband, Franklin Weissberg, was doing work for a law firm that did work for Chase.

He then looked at their state financial disclosure records, which showed both owned stock in the bank.

Those ties had never been disclosed to DeRosa, an apparent violation of state judiciary law, which requires a judge to reveal “ownership of shares of stock or other securities of a corporate litigant,” the appeal says.

Monroe Freedman, a judicial ethics expert, said DeRosa should win his appeal.

“A judge should not have any financial interest in the matter,” he said.

He added that if the judge failed to make disclosures in this and other cases, that could lead to disqualifications where “the judgment is vacated and the case starts all over again from scratch” before another judge, even if it’s years old.

Diamond has presided over nine Chase cases since 2000, and five cases involving Verizon, another company she has a financial interest in. The Post reported last month that the lawyers in the Verizon cases were unaware of that interest.

Diamond recused herself from the Verizon cases a day after The Post story, and she’s now recused herself from all Chase cases.

Lawyers for Diamond and JPMorgan Chase didn’t return calls.

The FBI and state Commission on Judicial Conduct are investigating the conflict claims.