Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Featured Content from WESTLAW
Beginning in June, Thomson Reuters News & Insight content will be available exclusively on WestlawNext®, as part of its Practitioner Insights offering. On June 21, the Thomson Reuters News & Insight website, iPhone® app and newsletters will be discontinued. See Frequently Asked Questions to learn more.

Legal

  •  
  •  

A general view of the state courthouse at 60 Centre Street is seen in New York. REUTERS Chip East

Judge must give deposition in 'Law & Order' lawsuit: NY court

12/31/2012 COMMENTS (0)

By Daniel Wiessner

ALBANY, N.Y., Dec 31 (Reuters) - Former New York Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau has been ordered to give a deposition in a defamation case brought by a Manhattan attorney against the hit television show "Law & Order."

Attorney Ravi Batra is pursuing a $15 million defamation suit against NBC and the creators of the show over a 2003 episode he says featured an unflattering doppelganger.

Batra has said the episode, called "Floater," was based on a bribery scandal involving former State Supreme Court Justice Gerald Garson and attorney Paul Siminovsky, according to the order. Batra said news reports falsely linked him to the scandal, the order said. He alleged that "Floater" featured an Indian-American actor and Batra look-alike whose character was named Ravi Patel. The character was arrested in the episode for bribing a judge.

Batra has said he is innocent of wrongdoing and was never charged. Garson was convicted of receiving bribes, according to New York state records. Siminovsky pleaded guilty to giving unlawful gratuities, a misdemeanor, according to the New York Times.

Pfau's involvement stems from a story published in the New York Post in May 2003 which cited anonymous sources saying Pfau had told other judges to stay away from Batra. "If I ever get a call from Ravi Batra, it won't be returned," the sources quoted her as saying. "Anyone who deals with him is on his own."

At the time, Pfau was the administrative judge of the state Supreme Court in Brooklyn. She later served as the state's chief administrative judge from 2007 to 2011.

In the latest development, Supreme Court Justice Lucy Billings last Wednesday denied a motion by Pfau to quash a subpoena in which Batra is seeking Pfau's testimony about her reported comments.

"As long as the deposition is not unduly burdensome or prejudicial to (Pfau), (Batra) is entitled ... to full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution of the action," Billings wrote.

Batra said in an interview Monday that he wants to establish during the deposition whether Pfau actually made the comments, which NBC has cited in court papers as evidence that Batra's reputation was previously tarnished.

Batra said it was incredible that Pfau had made the comments, which he said "would fly in the face of my prior personal interactions" with Pfau.

At an April hearing, Billings said she was convinced that Pfau's testimony would be relevant to the defamation case. But in her order last Wednesday she agreed to limit the time of the deposition in order to "minimize interference" with Pfau's official duties.

In last week's order, Billings limited Batra's questioning of Pfau to 90 minutes; the NBC defendants will get an hour. Pfau and her attorneys have less than three weeks to request a date.

Attorneys for Pfau had sought to quash the subpoena, saying it would interfere with her duties as a judge. Shawn Kerby, an attorney with the Office of Court Administration who is representing Pfau, was not available for comment on Monday.

Pfau and Elizabeth McNamara, who is representing the defendants, did not return requests for comment.

The case is Ravi Batra v. Dick Wolf, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, 116059/2004.

For Batra: pro se.

For the defendants: Elizabeth McNamara of Davis Wright Tremaine.

For the OCA: Shawn Kerby.

(Additional reporting by Joseph Ax)

(An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported that Batra is a Brooklyn lawyer. He is a Manhattan attorney. It also misreported when the episode aired. It aired in 2003. The earlier version reported that the episode was about the sale of judgeships. This version clarifies that the episode was about the Garson-Siminovsky bribery scandal).

Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook  


Register or log in to comment.

© 2013 Thomson Reuters