Contemporary Authors

• My Partner, My Enemy: An Unflinching View of Domestic Violence and New Ways to Protect Victims Rowman & Littlefield (Langham, MD), 2016

• Appellate Division - https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad2/justice_leventhal.shtml

  Hon. John M. Leventhal
  Judicial Offices
  Associate Justice of the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, Brooklyn, New York (January 25, 2008-present)

  Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial District, Brooklyn, New York (elected November 1994)
  June 1996-January 2008: Presided over the nation’s first dedicated felony Domestic Violence “Court”; 2001-January 2008: Presided over Article 81 Guardianship proceedings.

  Other
  Professional Experience
  Rosenthal, Vallario, Leventhal & Coffinas, Esqs., Brooklyn, New York
  Partner (August 1989 - December 1994)

  Law Office of John M. Leventhal
  Private Practitioner (September 1982 - August 1989)

  Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County, Brooklyn, New York
  Law Assistant to Civil Court Judge sitting in Criminal Court (January 1980 - September 1982)

  Admission
  to the Bar
  New York State Bar, February, 1980 (Second Judicial Department)
  United States District Court: E.D.N.Y., May 1980; S.D.N.Y., June 1980
  United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, May 1988
  Education
  Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, NY
  J.D., June 1979

  ntenter College of C.U.N.Y., New York, NY
  M.S. in Urban Affairs, August 1974

  Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
  B.A. in Psychology, June 1970

  Publications &
  Leading Cases
  “The Admission of Evidence in Domestic Violence Cases after Crawford v. Washington: A National Survey,” 11 Berkeley J. of Crim. Law 77(2006) (co- author)

  “Spousal Rights Or Spousal Crimes: When And Where Are the Lines To Be Drawn?” 2006 Utah L. Rev. 351(2006)

  “Observations of a New Country In An Old World and A New Way of Dealing With An Old World Problem,” The Jurist, Summer 2004, p.1

  “Perspective: State’s Bail Statute Must be Amended,” New York Law Journal, March 17, 2004, p.2, col. .2

  “Judicial Selection System Under Attack: An Overview of France v. Pataki”, The Jurist, Spring 1996, p. 11.
  “Do Not Open Unless . . . Review of Civil Rights Law §50-1,” New York Law Journal, September 6, 1995, p. 1, col. 1; The Jurist, Fall/Winter 1995, p.5 (Outside Counsel).

  “Renunciation of Property Interests Under EPTL §2-1.11 ,” New York Law Journal, March 23, 1995, p. 1, col. 1(Outside Counsel).

  “Courtroom Show-Ups: Identification of the Worst Kind,” New York Law Journal, April 27, 1994, p. 1, col. 1 (Outside Counsel).
  “Public Trial: Keeping the Undercover ‘Undercover,’” New York Law Journal,
  November 3, 1992, p. 1, col. 1 (Outside Counsel).

  “Verdict Sheets - Objection and Appeal,” Kings County Criminal Bar Journal, June 1990, vol. 6, no. 1.

  “A Recipe for Understanding a Defendant’s Speedy Trial Rights: Worley,Anderson, and a Touch of Gaggi,” 37 Barrister 101 (1986) (co-author).

  “Burden of Proof and Defenses in Drug Related Forfeiture Proceedings,” Kings County Criminal Bar Journal, January 1986, vol. 2, no. 1 (co-author)

  “Standing of a Passenger to Suppress Evidence and the New York Presumption,”
  35 Barrister 145 (1984).

  “Alibi Witness’ Failure to Come Forward: The New York Rule,” 34 Barrister 104 (1983); Veritas, Spring 1983, vol. 13, no. 1.

  “Photographs, Fingerprints and Suppression: Failure to Comply with 160.50 of the Criminal Procedure Law,” Veritas, Spring 1981, vol. 10, no. 3(co-author).

  “Crime Prevention in New York City,” Rand Institute Working Paper (1974).
  (co-author)

  Professional &
  Civic Activities
  Gender Fairness Committee, Second Judicial District: Chair (1999 - 2002)

  The National Conference of Specialty Court Judges, American Bar Association:
  Delegate (1999 - 2003)

  Assigned Counsel Committee for Appellate Division, Second Department, 2nd and 11th Judicial Districts: Member (1999 - 2008)

  Oversight Committee for Criminal Defense Organizations, for the Appellate Division, Second Department: Member (1997 - 1999)

  Second Judicial District Task Force on Reducing Litigation Cost and Delay:
  Member (1996 - 1997)

  Evidence Curriculum Committee, Judicial Seminars: Member (1996 - 2005)

  Barrister, the legal quarterly publication of the Brooklyn Bar Association:
  Editor-in-Chief (1982 - 1994)

  Veritas, the legal publication of Brooklyn Law School Alumni Association:
  Editor-in-Chief (1982 - 1984)

  Brooklyn Law School Alumni Association: Director (1983 - 2004); Member (1980-present)
  Brooklyn Bar Association: Trustee (1987 - 1994); Member(1980-present)

  Brooklyn Bar Association Grievance Committee: Member (1991 - 1994)
  Association of the Bar of the City of New York: Member (2006-present)
  Association of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the City of New York:
  Treasurer (2008); Member (1995-present)

  Association of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the City of New York:
  Member (1995-present)

  Association of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of New York:
  Member (1995-present)

  Commissioner of Appeals of the Grand Lodge of the State of New York (1997 - Present)

  Grand Representative of the Grand Lodge of South Carolina, A.F.M. near the Grand Lodge of New York (1997 - Present)

  2nd Manhattan Masonic District Blood Drive: Co-Chair (1996 - 2005)

• Ballotpedia - https://ballotpedia.org/John_Leventhal

  John Leventhal
  John M. Leventhal
  Silhouette Placeholder Image.png
  Do you have a photo that could go here? Click here to submit it for this profile!
  Justice
  New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
  Second Department
  Tenure
  2008-2022
  Salary $141,000
  Elections and appointments
  Appointed by Gov. Eliot Spitzer
  Education
  Bachelor's Case Western Reserve University
  Graduate degree Hunter College of the C.U.N.Y.
  J.D. Brooklyn Law School
  Past experience
  Supreme Court Justice, 2nd Judicial District
  January 1995 - January 2008
  Have you heard of The Tap?
  Click here to read the latest edition of Ballotpedia's weekly newsletter.
  John M. Leventhal is a judge on the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. He was appointed to this division by Governor Spitzer and took office on January 25, 2008.[1][2] He was retained to the Supreme Court in 2008[3] for a term ending on December 31, 2022.[4]

  Education

  Judge Leventhal received a B.A. in Psychology from Case Western Reserve University in 1970. He received his M.S. (master of science) degree in Urban Affairs from Hunter College of the C.U.N.Y. in 1974. In 1979, he earned his J.D. degree from Brooklyn Law School.[1]

  Career

  Judge Leventhal began his legal career in January of 1980 as a law assistant to Civil Court Judge Louis Rosenthal. In September of 1982, he started his own law practice. He worked as a private practice lawyer until August of 1989, when he became a partner in the firm Rosenthal, Vallario, Leventhal & Coffinas. While at this firm, he was also part-time counsel to the New York State Assembly from 1991 to 1994. He was elected to the Supreme Court of the State of New York (2nd Judicial District, Brooklyn) in November of 1994 (effective January of 1995) and from June of 1996 to January of 2008, he presided over the nation's first felony Domestic Violence Court.[1][2]

• Center for Court Innovation - http://www.courtinnovation.org/research/judge-john-leventhal-brooklyn-felony-domestic-violence-court

  Judge John Leventhal, Brooklyn Felony Domestic Violence Court

  Judge John Leventhal has presided over the Brooklyn Felony Domestic Violence Court since its opening in June 1996. Leventhal talked with the Center for Court Innovation’s Carolyn Turgeon about his work.

  How does your experience in the domestic violence court compare with your previous experience in a more traditional court?
  In a regular court your main goal is to process cases. Get as many dispositions, trials, pleas as you can. I view our court as having a dual role: not only to protect the constitutional and procedural rights of the defendant, but also to watch out for the complainant’s safety while the case is pending and even after. So we took steps to do that. The two main goals of our court are to have complainant safety and accountability for any person who’s convicted. And while the case is pending and even after when possible, I want to watch them, and keep watching them.

  How do you achieve these goals of complainant safety and defendant accountability?
  First, we have intensive judicial supervision and monitoring. We bring the defendants back every three weeks whether something’s happening or not. In a regular court you arraign a defendant, set a motion schedule, file and argue the motions, set a hearing date, do the hearings, set a trial date, try the case and then, if the person should be convicted, the judge sentences the defendant. If the defendant is not convicted, then it’s over. In my court I bring the people back; I let them know I’m still watching them; I issue an order of protection. As part of bail I put someone in a batterers’ intervention program or a domestic violence accountability program, and I use that as a monitoring device. The defendant attends the program every week as a condition of bail, and then sees me every three weeks as well. So in a three-week period he’s seen the program three times and me once, and I get reports. I remind him when I give the order of protection that it’s my order of protection, not the complainant’s. If she invites him over for dinner, he’s going to have the most expensive dinner he’ll ever eat because he’ll be going to jail the next night. We also remind him the name of the case is the People of the State of New York versus Mr. Smith, not Mrs. Smith versus Mr. Smith.

  When I first started the program I went to visit Quincy, Massachusetts, which didn’t have a domestic violence court but did have a dedicated prosecutorial team. They had one judge who handled the violation of probation in a misdemeanor court. Probation in Massachusetts is a heavy thing because misdemeanors are punishable there by up to two and a half years in jail. In New York it’s only one year. So they had a pretty heavy hammer if you violated. I saw people going to jail for two years for not paying child support, which is a condition of their order of protection, and while I was impressed with that I was also surprised to see such a large violation and probation calendar. I wanted to cut that down. How do we cut that down? We bring them back while they’re on probation, before they’re really violating in a bad way, to keep them on the right track.

  Can you describe this process?
  We started bringing back people every two or three months for the first year or year and a half. This proved to be very successful. For the first four years or five years that we were doing it, we had half the violation rate of the general probation population—which is incredible considering that you have targeted victims and people who know each other. Since then I think our violation rate has gone down even further.

  Parole saw what a good job we were doing with probation and they wanted in on it. When I sentence someone to state prison time, parole puts down as a condition that within a month of the defendant’s release from jail they must come to the court to go over all of their conditions of parole, their curfew, the order of protection, any programs that they’re in, and so on. This reinforces the whole judicial monitoring component: I was the judge who arraigned them, I was the judge who took their plea or tried their case, and now I am the judge who is going over the conditions of their parole with them. When, years ago, Janet Reno gave a speech about the concept of reentry court, we were in negotiations already with parole to make this happen. So we really were the first to do that. When I say we, I am also including my partner and colleague the Hon. Matthew D’Emic who also heads the Brooklyn Mental Health Court.

  There is also, finally, the partnership that we have with the usual suspects: police, parole, the New York State and New York City Departments of Correction, New York City Probation, the D.A.’s office, drug/ alcohol abuse treatment programs, and the defense bar. It’s very important to have the defense bar. It’s good to avoid any appearance of impropriety or favoritism, but we also have issues in common with defense, like mentally ill defendants and battered women defendants. So they’re very happy to have us in those types of cases. It’s most important that we have the defense bar on board even though they don’t embrace us like in drug treatment court, where the object is to divert certain defendants from incarceration.

  Was getting the defense bar on board a challenge initially?
  No, they wanted to come to the table. They were very cooperative but, having said that, they deal with the court in the context of an adversarial system, rather than a team approach that is used in drug treatment courts. A lot of times the prosecutors don’t agree with what I do either. We have to be fair and that was one of my greatest fears when we started this: that as the policies that we were implementing expanded into courts throughout the state, the defense bar would protest some of the things that we did and maybe some of our policies would have to be changed. So far everything has withstood scrutiny and we’ve been in business almost nine years.

  What lessons have you learned, nine years later?
  That you can’t be too confident. I think we’re always a heartbeat away from a tragedy, as much as we do. There’s probably always something we can do better, and we just have to keep trying. We should never think we know everything about domestic violence because you really can’t know all the variables, all the potential scenarios. You know my mother once said you can’t be too rich, too thin, or too smart. Well you can’t be too careful either, I would like to add.

  We’ve also learned to anticipate problems before they become big problems. We learned, for instance, that when someone gets incarcerated in state prison, corrections might not necessarily know it is a domestic violence case, they might just see someone who has been convicted of assault. So for the last five years what we’ve been doing is attaching a copy of the order of protection with the commitment order. So now corrections knows that there’s an order of protection prohibiting the defendant from writing the person, calling the person, and living with the person when they get out. So these are things we all worked out in partnership meetings.

  What more needs to be done to address the problem of domestic violence?
  We have to do more in the civil sector in terms of better shelters, safety plans and alternatives, so women don’t have to leave their homes or make impossible decisions. I think a lot has to be done in terms of support, housing, employment advice, and other types of things to make it easier for women trying to leave abusive relationships.

  What’s the biggest challenge you’ve had to deal with?
  The hardest part was in the aftermath of 9/11. There were a lot of budget retrenchments and we had to really exert whatever muscle we could. Even though the courts are committed and people are theoretically committed, it’s a matter of dollars and cents, where to put the money. So we have to make sure the money is still here and is a priority. We always have to fight. Domestic violence can’t just be the flavor or fad of the day. It can’t just be a big headline case and then disappear.

  Could you talk about the court's planning—how did you get started?
  To tell you the truth, we didn’t have the benefit of all the services the new courts have now. There was a fundamental framework put together by the Center for Court Innovation, but we were the first. We had no extra money. We had no computers. We had no resource coordinator the way every court that starts up now does. We were a pilot project, and then I implemented bringing the probationers back. Then we got a grant for a resource coordinator, a position that has now been institutionalized in the system. A lot of the things that courts are doing now are because of stuff that we developed as we went along. We had a good fundamental framework, and we had very productive and frequent partnership meetings. The first year or two we had them once a month; now we usually have them once every other month. Lastly, but equally important, we had excellent visionary leadership of [Chief] Judge [Judith] Kaye in the very conception of starting a dedicated Domestic Violence Court.

• Brooklyn Law School - https://www.brooklaw.edu/newsandevents/news/2016/01-04-2016

  01.04.16
  Hon. Sterling Johnson Jr. '66 and Hon. John M. Leventhal '79 Honored at Annual Brooklyn Bar Association Foundation Dinner
  Scales of justice
  Hon. Sterling Johnson Jr. ‘66, a Senior Judge in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York; and Hon. John M. Leventhal ‘79, Associate Justice, Appellate Division Second Department were among the six honorees at the Brooklyn Bar Association Foundation Annual Dinner at the New York Marriott at the Brooklyn Bridge Hotel in December.
  A native of Brooklyn, Judge Johnson is a former Marine and spent eight years as a New York City Police Officer, where he was promoted to Detective and later Sergeant. He spent 30 years as an attorney before his federal appointment, specializing in drug enforcement and the prosecution of narcotics cases. As the first Special Narcotics Prosecutor for the City of New York, he supervised assistant district attorneys and investigators responsible for the preparation and prosecution of more than 7,000 criminal cases. He also served as Executive Director of the New York City's Civilian Complaint Review Board – the first African-American to head a major prosecutorial office in New York City. Judge Johnson was named a Brooklyn Law School Alumni of the Year in 1996.
  Judge Leventhal previously served as a New York State Supreme Court Judge for 14 years, where he presided over the nation’s first felony Domestic Violence Court. Today, the court is a model for other judges and court administrators worldwide. He has been honored with numerous awards for his work, including the Distinguished Achievement Medal from the New York State Free and Accepted Masons; the Brooklyn Women’s Bar Association Beatrice M. Judge Recognition Award; and the New York Board of Rabbis and Dayenu Voices of Valor “Elijah Award” for male leadership in ending domestic violence. In 2009, Judge Leventhal was named a Brooklyn Law School Alumni of the Year.
  More than a thousand lawyers, judges, and other leaders in the Brooklyn community, including Dean Nick Allard, attended the dinner. Mayor Bill de Blasio called the gathering a colorful cast of characters that could only be found in Brooklyn.
  Read coverage of the dinner from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, featuring photos of Geraldo Rivera ’69, who introduced honoree Alan Dershowitz; Michael Farkas ’94; Hon. Matthew J. D’Emic ’77; Aimee L. Richter ’93; Albert Tomei ’64; Frank Carone ’94; Rose Ann Branda ’84; Marsha Steinhardt ’72; Andrea Bonina ’92; Joann Monaco ’97; Grace Borrino ’05; Salvatore Scibetta ’06; David Schmidt ’82; John Lonuzzi ’92; and Professor Barry Kamins.

My Partner, My Enemy: An Unflinching View of Domestic
Violence and New Ways to Protect Victims
Publishers Weekly.
263.15 (Apr. 11, 2016): p53.
COPYRIGHT 2016 PWxyz, LLC
http://www.publishersweekly.com/
Full Text: 
My Partner, My Enemy: An Unflinching View of Domestic Violence and New Ways to Protect Victims
John Michael Leventhal. Rowman & Littlefield, $38 (320p) ISBN 978-1-4422-6516-5
As the presiding judge of the Brooklyn Domestic Violence Court (the first of its kind in the nation when it opened in 1996), author Leventhal
certainly knows his stuff. Startling statistics immediately draw readers in--a woman is beaten by her domestic partner every 15 seconds in the
U.S., accounting for at least four million reported incidents against women every year. Domestic violence is a crime "committed across all strata
of the population," and certainly the cases presented by Leventhal reflect that. This is an important book in its field, but here's the strong warning:
pay attention to the "unflinching" adjective in the title. The graphic nature of the cases described will deter many readers. Moreover, alliterative
chapter titles ("Deadly Dave," "Predator Paul") come across as inappropriately jocular. Leventhal does occasionally pause the grim narration to
describe helpful legislation or observe positive changes in procedures, but most of the useful suggestions--such as how police departments and
courts can better protect victims--don't appear until the end. It's clear that books like this are needed to raise awareness; whether many readers
will be able to persevere through its disturbing contents remains to be seen. (June)
Source Citation   (MLA 8th
Edition)
"My Partner, My Enemy: An Unflinching View of Domestic Violence and New Ways to Protect Victims." Publishers Weekly, 11 Apr. 2016, p.
53+. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?
p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA449663015&it=r&asid=5fc731aa3e889b85a361eb1285968e2c. Accessed 6 Feb.
2017.
2/6/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1486394931947 2/2
Gale Document Number: GALE|A449663015

• Brooklyn Daily Eagle
  https://www.brooklyneagle.com/articles/2016/6/15/justice-john-leventhal-brings-attention-domestic-violence-new-book
  Word count: 816

  BROOKLYN TODAY
  Justice John Leventhal brings attention to domestic violence with new book
  Justice John M. Leventhal has written a book about his experience sitting on the bench of the first felony Domestic Violence Court in the country. Eagle photos by Rob Abruzzese
  Justice John M. Leventhal has written a book about his experience sitting on the bench of the first felony Domestic Violence Court in the country. Eagle photos by Rob Abruzzese

  By Rob Abruzzese
  Brooklyn Daily Eagle
  The city of New York and the country in its entirety have made great strides when it comes to domestic violence over the past two decades, but both still have a long way to go, according to Justice John M. Leventhal.

  Leventhal was the first judge to preside over the first felony Domestic Violence Court in the nation, and he has authored a book on the subject, titled “My Partner, My Enemy: An Unflinching View of Domestic Violence and New Ways to Protect Victims,” that hit bookstores on June 16.

  “My Partner, My Enemy: An Unflinching View of Domestic Violence and New Ways to Protect Victims” is now available in bookstores. Photo courtesy of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.“My Partner, My Enemy: An Unflinching View of Domestic Violence and New Ways to Protect Victims” is now available in bookstores. Photo courtesy of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

  “This is a subject that comes up in epic proportions when there are cases like the O.J. Simpson case or the Galina Komar case, and then it fades in the background until a case like Ray Rice brings it up again,” Leventhal said. “I wanted to bring dramatic attention to it. I don't want to sensationalize it, but it's a very important topic.”

  In the book, Leventhal discusses the scope of the problem, which he refers to as an epidemic. He explains why there was a need for a felony Domestic Violence Court and goes into detail about some of the cases, making suggestions on how to improve the laws to better protect victims of domestic violence.

  The late Chief Judge of New York State Judith Kaye, who Leventhal refers to as “the mother of problem-solving courts,” had the chance to review the book before her passing. She noted that even with her experience, the book was a “gripping, emotional, heart-wrenching education in the scourge of domestic violence.” She went on to say that the stories of the people who went in front of Leventhal in the court made the book truly compelling.

  “There is no substitute for actually meeting the participants — victims, batterers, families — who Judge Leventhal powerfully brings to life as he tells a wide variety of tragic stories,” Kaye wrote in her review. “They give true meaning to the gratitude we feel for what’s been accomplished, and the genuine urgency for us all to do much more. The answer to ‘What’s the solution?’ begins with ‘Read this book.’”

  Leventhal explained to the Brooklyn Eagle that he didn’t hesitate to include some of the gory details contained in his book, but did admit that the cases weighed heavily on him, and he tried to quit the court after his first two years. He explained that it was a conversation with Chief Judge Kaye that kept him from walking away.

  “It's a difficult subject,” Leventhal said of domestic violence. “I had murders, attempted murders, tortures, assault. They asked me to do it for a year, so after two years, I was thinking of leaving. Judge Kaye came to visit me; I told her I was leaving to go into a different area, because these people, who are intimately in love with each other, are causing extreme violence. She asked me to stay on; I told her I’d think about it, and I ended up doing it 10 more years after that.”

  Leventhal offered much credit to Kaye for creating the court; after her death in January of this year, he amended the book’s dedication page to include her.

  The toughest part of writing the book, Leventhal explained, was writing the final chapter on what to do with the perpetrators of domestic violence. He said that there is a limit to what the courts can do and asserted that until attitudes and male entitlement are changed, the problem will ultimately not be solved.

  “The problem has lessened somewhat from 1994 to 2010,” Leventhal said. “It's still epidemic proportions. My court started in 1995. I’m not saying that we’re the reason for change, but there has been greater awareness of the problem since about that time. Some people think it is learned behavior. Well, if it is learned, it can be unlearned, and people paying attention to it may stop.”