In February, a Law360 investigation found that DiFiore, who resigned facing ethics charges last August, and her interim replacement Judge Cannataro underreported their compensation to state tax authorities by failing to declare any personal use of their full-time chauffeured cars in 2022. Both were ferried to and from home, trips which are always taxable, experts said.
Law360 recently obtained financial records through a Freedom of Information Law request showing that Judge Cannataro corrected his 2022 income to account for his car and driver benefits. In the amended filing, the judge reported a total of $356.36 in taxable personal use.
Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Deborah A. Kaplan and newly appointed First Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Norman St. George likewise corrected their taxable fringe benefits for car perks, reporting about $1,300 and $200, respectively.
DiFiore, however, did not amend her reported zero dollars in personal use of her cars and drivers.
The former chief judge had an unprecedented escort of six to eight court officers around the clock for nearly seven years until her resignation on Aug. 31. Then, in an unheard of arrangement for the rest of the year, DiFiore kept a detail of state-paid officers on call in the daytime as a private citizen. Past chief judges did not receive such benefits.
A source familiar with Judge Cannataro's arrangements during his seven-month term as acting chief said the judge had a sparingly-used two-driver escort.
The discrepancy in reporting by Judge Cannataro and DiFiore is notable, as both were driven in the same car by some of the same court officers when the judges served in the top job in 2022.
"Chief Judge DiFiore's filings are accurate and complete," DiFiore's representative said. "We can't speak to the other judges' circumstances, use of drivers and or their filings. We are unaware of their specific security situations and threats, which can change how such matters are treated."
Lucian Chalfen, a spokesperson for the state court system, did not address Law360's questions about why the judges failed to initially report their taxable income or why some decided to correct their filings, but said that the Office of Court Administration sends a memo each November "reminding individuals who use these vehicles for approved personal use that they must report it as a taxable fringe benefit and instructing them how to calculate and report that income."
Law360 previously reported that DiFiore's court officer detail cost taxpayers about $1 million a year, four times the value of her annual salary. Despite her departure from office, one of the officers seen escorting the former chief judge from her luxury condo in November set a personal earnings record, more than doubling his salary with $100,000 in overtime compensation in 2022.
DiFiore's declaration of zero dollars in 2022 stands in contrast to past years, where she valued her annual personal use of her official 24/7 mobile security at an average of $580. While IRS rules allow a steep discount for government officials commuting under armed guard due to bona fide security risks — $1.50 per trip — experts said they saw no way to justify reporting zero dollars.
Underreporting compensation to tax authorities can carry civil or criminal penalties. It impacts personal income tax, as well as payroll taxes for state, local, Social Security and Medicare taxes.
Tax experts were most surprised that DiFiore failed to report any taxable income for the four months after she became a private citizen and still enjoyed a two-man court officer detail — a benefit worth about $110,000 in court officer pay alone, according to an estimate based on the 2022 earnings of two officers seen driving DiFiore in November.
Such a valuable service cannot be tax-exempt or discounted for a nonemployee, experts said.
Providing a detail only during daylight provides little meaningful protection for anyone who is truly under serious threat, experts told Law360, highlighting concerns that there was no bona fide security justification.
The experts and former court officials previously told Law360 that DiFiore's permanent escort circumvented protocols for establishing whether a security detail was actually necessary when she first took office in 2016.
DiFiore abruptly resigned in August while facing unrelated ethics charges. Her continued use of court vehicles after her departure violates state court policies barring personal use of state vehicles. Outraged Albany lawmakers bristled at the multimillion-dollar expense for her detail and questioned the continued perk.
Court officials, however, have steadfastly defended DiFiore's post-resignation detail as a necessary security precaution, even as they refused to provide details on the nature of any threats for months. But in response to Law360's reporting, former acting Chief Administrative Judge Tamiko Amaker provided the first accounting of events meant to justify the manpower and expense at a Feb. 7 budget hearing in Albany.
Judge Amaker's harrowing testimony about dire threats, however, misstated key facts and omitted important context, Law360 found. Lawmakers decried the misleading testimony. A court official said the inaccuracies were unintentional and that the judge would privately "clarify the record" for lawmakers.
In response, the state Senate passed a bill in May that would require court officials to report the number of threats, assaults, police reports and judicial employees receiving "extraordinary security measures," such as a "non-courthouse guard detail," as well as the total expense to taxpayers. The first report would require a report covering all of 2022 — capturing the end of DiFiore's term and her continued detail.
"There have been serious questions raised about the propriety of some of this security spending," Deputy Majority Leader Michael Gianaris previously told Law360. "If they're not forthcoming with information, it's impossible to evaluate just how far down the rabbit hole they've gone with this improper spending."
The bill also includes public reporting requirements on judicial training topics, attendance and materials, as well as a searchable report with performance metrics for every judge. To become law, the bill would have to pass the Assembly and be signed by the governor.
Court officials strenuously objected to an earlier version of the measure — which came with a $10 million penalty for failing to comply with the reporting obligation — calling it "unsettling" and arguing that it was an unnecessary burden that threatened judicial independence.
--Editing by Nicole Bleier.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
