New York City’s top lawyer is asking a State Supreme Court to let the city walk away from its legal defense of former Mayor Eric Adams in a civil lawsuit accusing him of sexual assault, citing new evidence that he says changes the calculus of the city’s obligation to represent him.
“Based on my review of new evidence since the original decision to represent him was made, I have determined that he is not entitled to representation by the city in this matter,” Corporation Counsel Steve Banks said in a statement Monday. Banks did not specify what the new evidence is.
The lawsuit, filed in 2024, was brought by Lorna Beach-Mathura, a former colleague who alleges Adams pressured her in 1993 to perform oral sex in a car after she sought career advice from him. According to the complaint, Adams then grabbed her hand and placed it on his erect penis, and when she refused, he masturbated in front of her. Adams was employed by the NYPD transit bureau at the time of the alleged incident.
It was that employment connection that former Corporation Counsel Sylvia Hinds-Radix, an Adams appointee, used to justify giving him city-funded representation in the first place. Her argument hinged on the idea that the law department was obligated to represent him because the alleged incident occurred while he was on the city’s payroll.
But the General Municipal Law does not require blanket representation. The city is only obligated to represent employees accused of acts committed during the discharge of their official duties and only when those acts did not violate the rules and regulations of their agencies. That language gives the Corporation Counsel considerable room to decide which employees actually qualify for public legal defense. Banks is now using that room.
A spokesperson for Adams, Todd Shapiro, said the former mayor “has been proven innocent before and remains confident that the facts will ultimately prevail.”
The move against Adams is part of a broader pattern taking shape under the Mamdani administration. Last week, the Law Department also withdrew city-funded representation from former senior Adams advisor Timothy Pearson and former NYPD Chief of Department Jeffrey Maddrey, both of whom face separate allegations of repeated sexual misconduct in the workplace.
The price tag on these defenses has drawn growing outrage. Taxpayers have already paid more than $761,000 to the law firm Wilson Elser to represent Pearson alone. The total amounts paid out for Adams and Maddrey were not immediately available. The question of why New Yorkers were funding these legal bills came up directly during the City Council confirmation hearing for Banks.
Council Speaker Julie Menin praised the earlier withdrawal of Pearson and Maddrey last week. “New Yorkers should not be footing the bill for legal defenses tied to allegations of workplace misconduct,” she said.
The legal fallout from dropping these defenses is already landing in court. The attorney representing Roxanne Ludemann, a former NYPD officer who alleges Pearson sexually harassed her and retaliated against her after she complained about his behavior, filed a motion Tuesday seeking a judgment against both the city and the Economic Development Corporation, the quasi-city agency where Pearson was employed.
Losing city-funded counsel can create serious complications for the individuals left without representation. The city’s law firm resources and institutional knowledge of municipal litigation carry real advantages that private attorneys, paid out of pocket, may struggle to replicate quickly.
A Law Department spokesperson said Banks is not currently planning to pull city representation in any other cases beyond those already announced.
What this episode lays bare is how much the prior administration’s legal decisions will continue to cost the city, financially and reputationally. Hinds-Radix made the original call to represent Adams, and that judgment is now being publicly reversed by her successor. The new evidence Banks cites remains undisclosed, which means New Yorkers will have to wait to understand exactly what changed. But the message from the Mamdani administration is clear: the era of reflexive city-funded legal cover for officials facing serious misconduct allegations appears to be over.
