Andrew Cuomo Seeks Gag Order Amid $28M Legal Defense Controversy

Andrew Cuomo Seeks Gag Order Amid $28M Legal Defense Controversy

Edited by: TJVNews.com

Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is attempting to impose a gag order on the lawyers representing sexual harassment accuser Charlotte Bennett, aiming to restrict public discussion about the staggering $28 million in taxpayer money used to defend him and others in related cases. The New York Post reported on Sunday that Cuomo’s legal team claims the public focus on the defense costs is prejudicial and undermines his ability to receive a fair trial.

Cuomo’s legal team, led by attorneys Theresa Trzaskoma and Rita Glavin, argued in a December 3rd letter to Manhattan federal Judge Sarah Cave that the ongoing discussion about taxpayer-funded legal expenses is an intentional strategy by Bennett’s team to sway public opinion and potential jurors. “There is no question that such statements are gratuitous and highly prejudicial to Governor Cuomo [indeed, intentionally so],” the letter states, as reported by The New York Post.

The gag order request comes ahead of a two-day deposition scheduled for December 18 and 19, during which Cuomo’s lawyers will subject Bennett to at least 14 hours of questioning. The deposition is expected to include cross-examinations from other defendants’ attorneys.

Bennett, a former aide, alleges that Cuomo subjected her to sexualized comments, humiliating tasks, and invasive questions about her personal life, including her romantic and sexual history as a survivor of sexual assault. In her original complaint filed in September 2022, Bennett described Cuomo as a “danger” to women, according to the report in The New York Post.

However, Cuomo’s legal team has pushed back with a vigorous defense, claiming that Bennett exhibited “impulsive and reckless personal conduct” in the workplace and experienced a “personal meltdown.” They argue that Cuomo’s interactions with her were intended to provide assistance, not harassment. This counter-narrative seeks to undermine Bennett’s credibility as the legal battle intensifies.

As the report in The New York Post highlighted, the escalating legal battle is not just a personal issue for Cuomo but also a financial burden for New York taxpayers. Data obtained by The New York Post through a legal request reveals that the state has already spent $28 million in defense costs related to Cuomo and his former executive chamber officials.

Of this amount, $16.3 million has been allocated to defending Cuomo and his inner circle, including top aides Melissa DeRosa, Judith Mogul, and Judith DesRosiers, who face accusations of aiding and abetting Cuomo’s actions. This includes $8.2 million for the ongoing “State Trooper 1 v. Cuomo” case and $8.1 million for Bennett’s case. The legal costs, as tracked by State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli’s office, continue to rise, fueling public outrage over the use of taxpayer dollars.

 In a letter to Judge Sarah Cave, Cuomo’s legal team, including lawyers Rita Glavin and Paul Trzaskoma, sought a protective order to prevent further public commentary by Bennett’s lawyers about the defense costs. According to the information provided in The New York Post report, Cuomo’s lawyers argued that public comments by Bennett’s legal representatives, including Deborah Katz, were attempts to “poison any New York jury” and to sway public opinion against the former governor.

Cuomo’s legal team pointed to statements in a New York Times article and a November press release by Katz following a judge’s decision to deny summary judgment in Bennett’s lawsuit. The lawyers claim these remarks were part of a broader effort to pressure Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James into settling the case. “Trying to use defense costs as a way to create public pressure to force a settlement regardless of the merits is a cynical tactic that we’re simply not going to fall prey to,” Cuomo spokesman Richard Azzopardi told The New York Post.

Bennett’s legal team strongly opposed the proposed gag order, calling it an attack on their free speech rights and a strategy to distract from Cuomo’s alleged misconduct. In their Dec. 6 response to Judge Cave, Katz and Herbert Eisenberg described Cuomo’s request as “absurd” and part of a “scorched-earth defense” aimed at deflecting attention from the harassment allegations. “Discussing these costs cannot reasonably be said to influence public perspective on defendants’ liability for sexual harassment and retaliation,” they argued, as quoted by The New York Post.

The broader backdrop of the legal fight includes the findings of Attorney General Letitia James’ investigation, which substantiated claims of sexual misconduct against Cuomo by several women, including Bennett, as per The New York Post report. The report, published in 2021, ultimately led to Cuomo’s resignation under threat of impeachment. Cuomo continues to deny the allegations and insists he will not settle Bennett’s lawsuit. “Governor Cuomo has no interest in settling this lawsuit. He never sexually harassed Ms. Bennett and he has the right to prove his innocence,” his lawyers wrote, as reported by The New York Post.

Cuomo’s legal team has criticized both Bennett’s camp and AG James’ investigation, claiming it inflated costs and lacked thoroughness. Glavin and Trzaskoma emphasized their ongoing efforts to discredit Bennett’s allegations, citing “mountains of contemporaneous video and text message evidence” they allege were never turned over to the Office of the Attorney General. Azzopardi echoed this sentiment, telling The New York Post that the accusations against Cuomo were “proven to be demonstrably false.”

For her part, Bennett maintains that the proposed gag order is a thinly veiled attempt to silence her legal team and shift blame away from Cuomo. The case highlights the complexity and high stakes of legal disputes involving public figures, as well as the intense scrutiny surrounding the use of taxpayer funds in high-profile defenses.

As the legal battle continues, the cost of Cuomo’s defense remains a contentious issue, with both sides leveraging the financial implications to bolster their arguments. According to The New York Post, the escalating expenses and rhetorical sparring suggest that this dispute will remain in the public eye for the foreseeable future.