Law Offices of
Rob Serafinowicz, LLC
52 Holmes AvenueWaterbury, CT 06702WWW.RAS-LAW.COM (203) 755-0267RS9907@GMAIL.COM
Mobile
(203) 206-9907
Fax
(203) 528-4302
_______________________________________________________________________ _
I first appeared before Judge Burton Kaplan soon after being admitted to practiceon a case that was held within the confines of the New Haven Juvenile court. This matter was resolved via agreement with the representative of the Attorney General’s Officehandling the matter and I did not have any interaction with Judge Kaplan at this time. Ihad no further dealings with him at the Juvenile Court or while he was sitting in Norwalk.My first dealings of any substance took place when he was assigned to Geographic Area5 in Derby. Since that time he has displayed a clear animus and negative bias towardsme, a full explanation of which is contained below and organized under case headings inthe order in which this conduct occurred. The conduct detailed below illustratesviolations of
Rules 2.2 , 2.3 (a) (b), 2.4 (a)(b)(c), 2.10 (a) (b), and 2.11 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. State of Connecticut v. Amy Bartolomeo
The first case for which I appeared before Judge Kaplan in Geographic Area 5was
State of Connecticut v. Amy Bartolomeo
. I became involved in this case in late fallof 2009, early Winter 2010 and it involved a personal friend of mine charged withoperating a motor vehicle while under suspension. The facts of this case involved myclient being eligible for a work permit yet the paperwork had not been correctlysubmitted. My client was eligible for a work permit and the reason it was not issued wasthe fact the Department of Motor Vehicles returned the application stating that it was notcorrectly completed. At this time the case was handled by another lawyer, who was onvacation in Paris France at the time this issue arose, and who had always informed thecourt of his mistake. She had believed he would address it and this did not happen as hewas representing her on the underlying charge of driving while intoxicated which washandled in Geographic Area 9. This person was working two jobs and attending schoolto become a nurse. She attempted to do everything the right way and administrative error and not negligence or a disregard of the law created this situation. I brought upAccelerated Rehabilitation with the State’s Attorney and they did not oppose such adisposition. I also provided a specific case where this program was employed, that case being
State of Connecticut v. Angela Muzzillo
. This case was pending in Waterbury andthe defendant, Ms. Muzzillo, was given entry into this program for the same charge. Shewas later arrested for charges occurring in the Danbury Judicial District and I agreed torepresent her, which is how I learned of how the matter in Waterbury had been handled1
as these charges led to that case being returned to the docket. My client in Derby waseligible for a diversionary program yet Judge Kaplan refused to allow or hear anyapplication for such a program citing them being discretionary in nature. The program inWaterbury had been presided over by Judge Iannotti. The fact that Judge Iannotti took such action was brought to the attention of the State’s Attorney, and the response was thisshould be brought to the attention of Judge Kaplan as he had a great deal of respect for Judge Iannotti. I brought this and all the other factors to Judge Kaplan’s attention and herefused to even consider this option and consider an application for this program.At this time it became clear that Judge Kaplan had a personal issue with me andthis is illustrated by the following events, which took place during pre-trial discussions.As we began discussions in this case I laid out the facts as they related to my client. Asdiscussions continued I referred to my notes, as this was not a trial and I had not yetmemorized all this information. It is my practice to do this for purposes of trial presentation so as to never have to fumble through notes. While this may be repetitiveagain this case involved a young lady arrested for driving under suspension. She had been eligible for a work permit and had filled out the required paperwork to obtain one.The paperwork was not completed correctly so it was returned. This person did notrealize this and when the issue as to why she did not realize this was brought up I looked back at my notes and saw that around this time my client had a cancer “scare” in that shewas being tested for cancer. I brought this up and the response from Judge Kaplan was toscream at me at the top of his lungs. In the most unprofessional display of behavior Ihave seen by any Judge he yelled “I don’t play that way”, “Counsel you better learn realfast that I don’t play this way” at the top of his lungs. I immediately asked him what hemeant by this. He never gave a rational response but continued to yell saying somethingto the effect that I had done something improper by bringing forward this newinformation and said it should have been brought up minutes earlier. It should be notedthat even if I recalled this fact when I initially spoke, it would not have mattered, as I wasnot able to complete my thoughts as Judge Kaplan had cut me off. I asked him to explainhis position and how forgetting something contained in one’s notes amounts to doingsomething wrong. At this time the State’s Attorney made the decision to end thediscussion.In subsequent dealings I was rarely allowed to speak or make counter proposalsrelated to dispositions, whereas certain other lawyers, who Judge Kaplan referred to bytheir first names, were always allowed to speak. In this same case I brought up acharitable donation as a method of disposition. His response was to immediately startyelling at me and state that my doing so amounted to a rejection of his offer of disposition. I had witnessed many lawyers make counter proposals and when theselawyers made counter proposals Judge Kaplan listened but that was not the case when itcame to me. Brother counsel in the State’s Attorney’s office soon saw what the situationhad become and took measures to minimize Judge Kaplan’s involvement in my cases andwhen possible, that being when a case was not going to be placed on the trial list, we began to work out resolutions on our own. One such case was
State of Connecticut v.Chris Pelatowski
, which took place in late Spring 2010.2
State of Connecticut v. Mustafa Salahuddin
The worst kept secret at the courthouse, and in the surrounding towns, was thefact Judge Kaplan targeted me because of my defense of Ansonia Police Officer MustafaSalahuddin. My client had been accused of stealing a garden hose as a pretext to institutetermination proceedings against him. This case was specifically manufactured to harmhim, I had stated this numerous times in the press and eventually tried the case, obtainedan acquittal and his employer was required to pay my bill, which they did. This casereceived a great deal of media attention on both a local and national level. In a prior discussion involving Judge Sequino, Judge Kaplan’s predecessor, she had stated the Statehad to prove a permanent intent to deprive and she did not know how they could do this.This case was simply one of those rare cases where after an arrest was made the caseeither had to be dismissed or resolve via a trial. There were employment implicationsand the governing contract stated that to take any negative employment action with thisas a basis there must be a conviction.The case had been pre-tried numerous times with Judge Sequino and then placedon the firm jury list. Despite the fact it was clear that we would proceed to trial on thismatter, and despite the fact this position would not and could not because of present andfuture employment implications, the matter was called in for discussion. Judge Kaplanmade it clear that he had a problem with me with his conduct during State v. Bartolomeoand attempted to bully me in an attempt to try and scare me about trying this case, yellingthat it would go forward soon and if my client wants a trial there will be no going back.Considering I had won three consecutive criminal trials, this did not really concern me asI knew what needed to be done and this was the planned course of action all along. Theattempt to intimidate me did not work and during these conversations Judge Kaplanstated that my client’s time on administrative leave with pay would be coming to an endas he would be contacting Judge Rodriguez immediately to schedule a trial. The caseneeded to resolve via trial, we knew this, and at no time did he ever bring up the State notgoing forward despite the case being the weakest that was ever tried within the JudicialDistrict. I was yelled at, yet a party with more discretion as to the resolution was allowedto simply sit and perform their duties. As I had won three consecutive criminal trialsagainst no losses, both my client and I were very happy this case would be going to trialsoon. This case was a trial from the beginning and neither Judge Sequino, or JudgeRodriguez in their dealings involving this case showed any behavior remotely similar toJudge Kaplan. I was later told by a number of individuals that comments about “me being put in my place regarding this case” had been made upon Judge Kaplan’sassignment to Derby. I was not “put in my place” regarding this case and what happenedwas my client and I prevailed and proved everything we had said about this matter wastrue. As stated before I had not appeared before him prior to
State v. Bartolomeo
and theSalahuddin case had long been on the trial list prior to his arrival. There was no reasonfor Judge Kaplan to ever address this case as it had been decided it would proceed to trial,this would not change, it was currently on the trial list, and all pre-trial motions had beentimely filed. This along with all of the others makes it clear that he has and displays ananimus towards me.3
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
