Great Neck native Jesse Friedman on Thursday took back his claim that Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice hired a $1,000 per hour law firm at the expense of Nassau County taxpayers to defend her from a defamation lawsuit filed by Friedman three weeks ago.
Acting Nassau County Attorney Carnell Foskey confirmed in a letter that Andrew Levine, of law firm Debevoise & Plimpton law firm, located at 919 Third Avenue in Manhattan, is working for Rice on a pro-bono basis.
Ron Kuby, Friedman’s lawyer, claimed on Monday that Levine’s legal costs would’ve cost Nassau County taxpayers well “into the millions of dollars.”
Kuby on Thursday said “apparently Debevoise & Plimpton is branching out from traditional pro-bono work… to take on the job of defending Rice, the controversial Nassau DA and congressional candidate.”
Paul Leonard, a spokesman for Rice, said on Monday that Friedman and Kuby’s original claim that the firm’s expense would be passed on to taxpayers was false.
“Debevoise & Plimpton is defending against this meritless lawsuit pro bono, at no cost to the taxpayers,” Leonard said.
Leonard called the press release sent out by Friedman and Kuby on Monday “another ridiculous attention grab by the Friedman team.”
The defamation lawsuit, filed by Friedman on June 19 in Nassau County Supreme Court, states that comments made and distributed by Rice’s office “did harm Friedman in his reputation, enjoyment of life, quality of life and economic interests” and that they “constitute the tort of libel.”
Friedman and his father, Arnold Friedman, were arrested and pleaded guilty in 1988 to sexually abusing young boys enrolled in a computer class in their family’s Great Neck home.
Jesse Friedman was released on parole in 2001 and soon retracted on his guilty plea, claiming that his confession was coerced from law enforcement officials and that police manipulated false abuse claims from the alleged victims.
A report released in 2013 by Rice’s office after a three-year review of the case reaffirmed Friedman’s 1989 conviction. Rice conducted the review of Friedman’s case after a Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2010 indicated that some evidence suggested he might have been wrongfully convicted.
The June 19 lawsuit states that within Rice’s report, the district attorney, who on Tuesday defeated Nassau County Legislature Minority Leader Kevan Abrahams for the Democratic nomination for the 4th congressional district, made “materially false statements about Friedman and his prison disciplinary record” that she “knew were false.”
Among those statements, the lawsuit states, is that Friedman wrote pornographic stories during his time in prison “that described violent and disturbing sexual acts.”
The lawsuit also names John Byrne, Rice’s former public information officer, and Tarek, the current public information officer, as defendants for allegedly disseminating the information and other “false” statements to the New York Times, New York Post and other media outlets.
Leonard said in a statement three weeks ago that all three defendants view the libel lawsuit as “meritless and will defend zealously against its allegations.”
Kuby is asking the courts to award Friedman “damages to be determined at trial” and “ordering the retraction and correction of those statements” listed in the lawsuit.
In an ongoing effort to clear his name, Friedman has requested that Rice hand over his criminal case file.
Justice Dana Winslow, a state Supreme Court Judge in Mineola, ruled in August that Rice had to hand over “every piece of paper” of Friedman’s case file, with the exception of the victims’ names.
Rice appealed Winslow’s ruling in October.
Friedman and Kuby on Dec. 20 filed a legal brief asking the Appellate Division in Brooklyn to uphold Winslow’s decision.
Kuby said in a December interview that Winslow’s ruling on his and Friedman’s Freedom of Information request “accurately and fairly gave voice to the concerns the defense has always had.” The ruling, he said, was one of the “high points” in Friedman’s attempt to clear his name.
In response to the brief, a spokesman for Rice’s office said in an e-mail “The question here is whether Mr. Friedman, after pleading guilty to and serving time for these very serious crimes, should have access to witness statements and grand jury records that are generally deemed confidential by law – law intended to protect the privacy of crime victims and to keep them from being victimized again.”
