By Michael Phillips
In the courtroom of Westchester County’s Judge Susan M. Capeci, one theme has emerged again and again: justice bends toward power, silence shrouds misconduct, and those who cry out for help often end up punished.
Judge Capeci, a former prosecutor turned IDV (Integrated Domestic Violence) Court judge, has developed a reputation among attorneys, litigants, and advocacy organizations for rulings that appear not only biased, but at times dangerous. While her defenders in the system maintain her judicial record is within the bounds of law, critics—including appellate courts, parents, and even former prosecutors—point to a disturbing pattern: children removed from protective parents, disabled litigants stripped of rights, and exculpatory evidence routinely shut down.
A Pattern of Prejudice and Judicial Error
Capeci’s record is not without formal rebuke. In People v. Bradley, 99 A.D.3d 934 (2d Dep’t 2012), the Appellate Division reversed a conviction due to her actions, stating she “improperly precluded the defendant from adducing testimony,” and that this denial of exculpatory evidence deprived the defendant of a fair trial. In another case, People v. Brown, the court sharply criticized a related judicial act that undermined the defendant’s rights—suggesting a systemic failure in similar courtrooms.
While a single reversal could be seen as judicial oversight, a pattern of complaints emerges from litigants and attorneys alike. Marc Fishman, a disabled father profiled on Medium, was cut off from his children based on a false arrest that Capeci used to strip his visitation rights—without due process and despite his documented disabilities under the ADA. Even after the arrest was proven baseless, Capeci failed to restore his rights, a move some see as emblematic of her courtroom: swift to punish, slow—or unwilling—to correct.
The Case That Broke a Lawyer
In June 2025, Judge Capeci’s conduct in a high-conflict domestic violence case led to an explosive and chilling outcome: Yonkers attorney Nicholas Leo was arrested after sending her a string of threatening text messages. The messages—violent, graphic, and now the basis of a felony indictment—were sent after Judge Capeci allegedly ignored evidence, dismissed concerns, and gave decisions that one source claimed, “put lives in danger.” While Leo’s actions are indefensible, the underlying catalyst raises serious questions: what level of judicial overreach or disregard compels an officer of the court to snap?
As one attorney wrote anonymously on The Robing Room, “She picks and chooses who she likes and who she doesn’t. Once she gets slanted against your client, you are done.”
Kassenoff v. Kassenoff: A Conflict Ignored
A newly unearthed email (included above) reveals that Judge Capeci presided over the now-infamous Kassenoff v. Kassenoff case despite glaring conflicts of interest. Christine Paska, an associate of Ms. Kassenoff’s legal team, had just weeks earlier worked as a prosecutor in the same DA’s office that brought—and then dropped—charges against the opposing party.
Judge Capeci herself admitted in the September 2, 2022 email that the conflict was “of grave concern to the Court,” yet she allowed the case to continue, merely offering the chance for a supplemental motion. In a court where protective mothers, like Catherine Kassenoff, were already under extreme pressure, this breach of protocol only added to the sense of institutional betrayal.
Shielded by the System
Despite a growing trail of damaged lives and court rulings flagged for bias, Capeci has remained untouched by oversight. Robert Tembeckjian, Administrator of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, has been widely criticized for protecting judges like Capeci from meaningful consequences. As explored in The Untouchable (Substack, Corrupt Queens Court), Tembeckjian’s commission rarely removes judges—even those found to have repeatedly violated constitutional standards.
Public watchdog sites like Scrutinize.org have documented how Capeci has been strategically reassigned to courts like IDV, where oversight is murkier and appeals are more difficult. A 2009 blog post alleged inappropriate ex parte communications and political favoritism.
And perhaps most chillingly, Capeci made headlines when she ruled that simply tagging someone on Facebook constituted a violation of a restraining order—even without direct communication—expanding the reach of judicial censorship in the digital age.
The Real Cost: Families, Freedom, and Justice
The harm attributed to Judge Capeci’s courtroom decisions is not abstract. It is measured in years lost between parents and children, in court orders that silence abuse victims, in criminal defendants denied a fair trial, and in lawyers pushed to their breaking point. The consequences ripple far beyond her bench.
The public deserves more than silence. It deserves accountability.
Discover more from RIPTIDE
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
