Attorneys for Eric Adams told a Manhattan judge Wednesday that not only was the Mamdani administration’s March move to stop representing the former mayor in his sexual assault suit improper; it should also have to foot the bill for his new private lawyer.
Adams’ newly-hired attorney, Alan Samuel Futerfas, argued that the city’s move to drop Adams as a client was purely political during oral arguments over whether the court should accept the NYC Law Department’s application to end its representation of the former mayor against allegations that he sexually assaulted a female NYPD officer when he was her superior in 1993.
Moreover, by publicly filing to stop representing Adams, Futerfas argued the city created a conflict of interest in its representation of him. That means Futerfas is not arguing the city should simply withdraw its application to drop Adams as a client, but that it should now be obligated to pay for his private attorney.
City attorney Max Leighton told the judge the city moved to stop representing Adams after the Law Department’s new corporation counsel, Steven Banks, reviewed the case upon coming into office and decided the city had no legal obligation to provide Adams counsel. That’s because the city must only defend employees for actions they took while acting in the scope of their employment, and Adams sexually assaulting someone wouldn’t fall within his job description.
Leighton emphasized that Banks was well within his rights to review cases upon taking office and said there was no reason for the city to pay for what was essentially a private dispute.
“When the corporation counsel arrives and takes stock of the city’s cases … arriving at a determination that [this case] is outside the scope [of what we should take on] is not arbitrary. It is not capricious,” Leighton said.
Futerfas, well known for representing the Trump family in politically charged cases, told the judge that the city is “flying directly in the face” of legal precedent by moving to drop Adams after representing him in the case since 2023.
“If you’re representing someone for three years, you can’t come in and say, ‘I woke up one morning and had a new reassessment of the case.’ That’s not going to do it,” said Futerfas. “You can’t say, ‘There’s a new guy in office, he took a look at the file and said, ‘No thanks, we’re good.’”
It is not uncommon for attorneys to move to withdraw from representing clients for various reasons.
Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Brendan Lantry said the argument was a “unique area of the law” and that he’d make his decision after close consideration. Lantry didn’t provide a date by which he’d do that, saying that he couldn’t tell attorneys on the case when they’d know who would represent Adams.
The city is still obligated to represent Adams unless Lantry accepts its withdrawal application.
The suit Adams’ representation is in question in stems from allegations made by Lorna Beach-Mathura, a Black woman who claims Adams drove her to a vacant lot and requested oral sex from her when she asked him for career advice, as she’d been passed over for a promotion multiple times in 1993.
Attributing the decision not to promote her to sexism and racism within the department, she sought Adams’ support, since he “held himself out to be an advocate for equality and fair treatment for Black employees,” her suit, filed under the Adult Survivors Act lookback window, says.
When Beach-Mathura refused to give him oral sex, Adams forcibly pushed her hand onto his erect penis and ejaculated on her, according to court filings.
The parties are due back in Lantry’s court May 20 for further arguments.
