|
RCBJ-Audible (Listen For Free)
 |
Eisenpress Agrees To Retire In April, Admitting No Wrongdoing, Despite Multiple Allegations Of Breaches Of Judicial Conduct
Sherri L. Eisenpress, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Ninth Judicial District, Rockland County – who was charged with misconduct by the Commission on Judicial Conduct for failing to disclose personal relationships and other conflicts with numerous attorneys who appeared before her – has agreed to retire and never return to the bench, according to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
“For the public to have confidence in the courts, judges must be and appear to be impartial. That means stepping aside from cases where they have clear conflicts and disclosing arguably disqualifying conflicts so the parties have an opportunity to ask that the judge step aside,” said Commission Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian. “The allegations against Judge Eisenpress were serious, and her permanent departure from office is appropriate.”
A resignation stipulation, executed on January 28, 2026, was accepted by the Commission on January 29. Judge Eisenpress submitted a formal resignation letter on January 29, 2026, to the Chief Administrative Judge, as required by law.
Eisenpress is retiring April 28, 2026, and will never seek or accept judicial office in the future. The agreement is not a “determination on the merits,” and contains “no admission of misconduct.”
In a resignation letter dated Jan 29, 2026 to Justice Joseph A. Zayas, Chief Administrative Judge, Eisenpress wrote, “I have decided to retire from the bench and, as required by law, hereby give notice of my resignation from judicial office effective the close of business, April 28, 2026.”
“During my tenure, I was mindful of the responsibility that comes with expanding access to justice and strengthening public trust in the courts.”
In August 2025, Judge Eisenpress was served with formal disciplinary charges, alleging as follows:
From 2019 to 2024, she presided over at least 55 cases involving attorneys with whom she maintained close personal and social relationships, and failed to disclose those relationships or to recuse herself. From 2016 to 2025, she presided over at least 41 cases involving the law firm of her principal law clerk’s spouse and failed to disclose the relationship and to insulate law clerk from involvement in those cases.
Eisenpress failed to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary by failing to maintain high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary would be preserved, failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, in that she failed to respect and comply with the law and failed to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; and failed to perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently, in that she failed to disqualify herself in proceedings in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned, according to the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
The amended formal written complaint says Justice Eisenpress was acquainted and friendly with the following attorneys, all of whom practiced matrimonial law before her and other judge: Amy M. Eisenberg of Eisenberg Yellen, LLP (formerly of Johnson & Cohen, LLP); Ilene Graff of the Law Offices of Eric Ole Thorsen; Siobhan T. O’Grady of Miller Zeiderman LLP; Ashley Kersting of Miller Zeiderman LLP; and Christine K. Wienberg, a solo practitioner.
The complaint also says Eisenpress was acquainted and friendly with the following court staff: Dara Warren, Respondent’s principal court attorney; Shira Krance, Respondent’s former court assistant and now Supreme Court Justice Rachel E. Tanguay’s principal court attorney; and Aimee M. Pollak, a part-time Justice of the Clarkstown Town Court and the principal court attorney to Surrogate’s Court Judge Keith J. Cornell.
From 2019 to 2024, the complaint says, Eisenpress fraternized with many of the above-named professionals in a group text message chain, shared confidences and shared social and travel plans, as well as “invitations, gossip, memes, photos, off-color jokes, and sexually graphic images.” From 2019 to 2024, Eisenpress travelled at least six times with some combination of the above-named attorneys and court staff who participated in the text message chain.
On March 20, 2019, Eisenpress traveled to Punta Cana in the Dominican Republic to celebrate O’Grady’s 40th birthday. Graff, Kersting, Wienberg, Warren, Krance, and Pollak stayed together at the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino. Eisenpress and Wienberg booked their trip together and shared a room. Eisenberg posted photos of the Punta Cana trip on Facebook, according to the complaint.
In November 2021, 2022, and 2023, Eisenpress and six members of the group text message chain O’Grady, Eisenberg, Graff, Warren, Krance, and Pollak – vacationed in Mexico. On each trip, Eisenpress and her travel companions stayed together at a Vidanta resort. Eisenpress “is a paid member of the Vidanta vacation club, which gives her access to luxury resorts at a discounted rate. As a club member, Respondent made the room reservations for her travel companions for the trips to Mexico,” the complaint says. “All expenses and purchases such as food, drink and spa services incurred at the resort were charged to Respondent’s room. After the trips, Respondent calculated the shared costs among all the travelers in her group and was reimbursed pro rata by them,” the complaint says.
A fourth trip to Mexico was planned for in or about November 2-9, 2024, but was cancelled after Eisenpress learned of the Commission’s investigation into her conduct.
From 2019 to 2024, Eisenpress joined in birthday celebrations, meals, drinks, personal and family milestone events, Zoom get togethers, political discussions, social events at private homes, and performances that included, at various times with her colleagues. She also received gifts and invitations to contribute to gifts in honor of significant life events – such as weddings, bereavements, and get-well wishes – and received or extended invitations to attend social events
Eisenpress, the Commission says, presided over at least 41 cases involving the law firm of her court attorney’s husband, failing to disclose that her court attorney was married to counsel who was practicing before her, failed to insulate her court attorney from participating. Dara Warren has worked as Respondent’s court attorney since approximately 2016. She is married to David Warren. Warren and attorney Alan Rosenblatt have been law partners at he firm of Rosenblatt Warren LLP since 2022. They are the only two attorneys at the firm. Prior to opening their own practice, Warren and Mr. Rosenblatt were law partners at the law firm of Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C. Eisenpress did not disqualify herself in the cases in which Warren or Rosenblatt appeared before her in 30 of those 41 cases. The justice failed to disclose to the parties and counsel that Dara Warren was married to David Warren.
In 2022, Eisenpress failed to disqualify herself from a matrimonial matter where one of the plaintiff’s attorneys, Lisa Zeiderman, agreed to host a fundraiser in her home in support of her 2022 campaign, and where two other attorney’s working on the case for the plaintiff were friends and traveling companions of the Eisenpress. In that case, Eisenpress was accused of entering an unsolicited order granting the plaintiff temporary physical and legal custody of the couple’s children. When defense counsel learned of the upcoming fundraiser and sought recusal, Eisenpress ultimately recused herself.
In 2024, she presided over a matter in which a party was represented by her law clerk’s husband, she denied a request that she disqualify herself and later stepped aside for unrelated reasons.
Judge Eisenpress waived the statutory provision of confidentiality applicable to Commission proceedings, to the limited extent that the stipulation and the Commission’s order accepting it would be public.
Judge Eisenpress has served as a Justice of the Supreme Court, 9th Judicial District, Rockland County, since 2023, having previously served as a Judge of the Family Court from 2012 to 2022, and an Acting Supreme Court Justice in Rockland County, from 2014 to 2022. Her current term would have expired on December 31, 2036.
The Commission has accepted 161 such permanent resignation stipulations since the procedure was instituted in 2003. Since 1978, the Commission has also issued 291 determinations of admonition against judges in New York State, 358 determinations of censure and 185 determinations of removal.
The Court of Appeals has reviewed 102 Commission determinations. The results are available on the Commission’s website at “Appealed Decisions.”
Judge Eisenpress was represented by Beth B. Finkelstein of the Law Office of Beth Finkelstein, P.C., 337 North Main Street, Suite 2 New City, New York 10956, (845) 499-2331.
The Commission was represented by Deputy Administrator Mark H. Levine, Principal Attorneys Pamela Tishman and Vickie Ma, Staff Attorney Adam Kahan, and Investigator Annie Hagerty.
