'Tomato' Remark About Italians Leads Divorce Judge To Recuse

, New Jersey Law Journal


A New Jersey family court judge who referred to Italian-American litigants as "tomatoes" has recused from a divorce case, despite insisting he acted without bias.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Tobia Ippolito

    The Honorable Phillip J. Maenza states that my allegations are "devoid of merit" and also said they are lacking a bias or "hatred" of any sort. Maybe he did not listen to the audio recording of himself posted on nj.com or read the rock solid proof in my Motion for Recusal. He also states that he, "has always maintained a focus upon the economic realities of the marital estate". This man is delusional.

    For those readers who hopefully have law degrees, they can understand what I mean by saying that at this point in the litigation, we have not completed discovery, had a single plenary hearing or a trial. The Judge would not allow it. With that being said, let me summarize what the Honorable Phillip J. Maenza has ordered to date.

    He has not permitted a good man to see his children for almost 15 months including Christmas and their birthdays. He as ordered his wife and children to occupy a mansion that they never lived in as a family, he ordered the his wife take equitable distribution one month into the divorce for the value of the mansion. He ordered the wife to have complete control and unfettered use of the parties investment portfolio. He ordered the two other residences that don't have mortgages on them and in my possession to be listed and sold with their contents to be appraised and sold. He ordered that I pay my wife $55,000 per month, YES PER MONTH, in pendente lite support directly to her even though the marital assets have been used to pay such for several years since I retired. So, as it stands today, my wife lives in a mansion, with unfettered use of millions of dollars. On the other hand, I have no place to live, I have no money, I am insolvent to the tune of almost a million dollars and my parents pay for my food and shelter as I live in the home I grew up in. So, as a joint owner of an estate worth well over $10 million, I am individually financially devastated.

    So, now all you lawyers can be the Judge. Does this sound like "the economic realities of the marital estate"? Does this sound like the law has been appropriately applied here. Not even close. This guy needs to be removed from the bench as he has disgraced the profession that you all are members of. And Billy Laufer needs to review the RPC.

    Please feel free to contact me at Tobiaipp@aol.com as I have rock solid proof of every statement made here.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202622749412

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.