{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DigitalDocument","altText":"Phaedra_Perry_Bond_Research_Dossier_2026-10-22.pdf","alternateName":"Phaedra_Perry_Bond_Research_Dossier_2026-10-22.pdf","caption":"Phaedra_Perry_Bond_Research_Dossier_2026-10-22.pdf","contentUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/597/raw","datePublished":"2026-10-22T22:02:23+00:00","description":"Phaedra_Perry_Bond_Research_Dossier_2026-10-22.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf","identifier":"597","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/597/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/597/index.md"},"name":"Phaedra_Perry_Bond_Research_Dossier_2026-10-22","ocrStatus":"ready","ocrText":"--- Page 1 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n1\nPUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH / OCTOBER 22, 2026\nPhaedra Fane Perry\nJustice Phaedra F. Perry-Bond\nCareer, political selection, judicial decisions, appellate treatment, and records still worth\nobtaining. Prepared for Richard Luthmann.\nThe most consequential findings\nHer judicial rise is documented. She moved from court employment to an elected Civil Court\nseat, a Bronx Family Court assignment, an acting Supreme Court designation, and election to\nManhattan Supreme Court. Current court materials use Perry-Bond. [1-6]\nThe bar ratings changed. The New York City Bar rated her Not Approved for Civil Court in 2017\nand Approved for Supreme Court in 2023. The public releases do not explain the individual\nreasons. Both ratings belong in any account. [8-9]\nThere is a real reversal to examine. In Omar G., the First Department unanimously reversed\nher child-support ruling. In a separate case, her own later opinion acknowledges that a\ncivil-contempt arrest warrant was reversed on procedural grounds. The latter reversing order\nremains unverified. [18,24]\nThe speech cases resist a simple label. She dismissed Combs's suit against NBCUniversal,\nallowed the Columbia-student claims against Accuracy in Media to proceed, and refused to sign a\nproposed gag order in the Cornell litigation. The standards, evidence, and procedural stages\ndiffer. [12-16]\nThe evidence does not establish corruption. The most productive next work is obtaining\noriginal campaign disclosures, judicial financial statements, nomination records, and the missing\ncontempt-warrant order. Those records can test specific questions without assuming the answer.\nHow to read this dossier\nCourt holdings are identified as such. Published reporting is attributed. Investigative leads remain leads. This is a\nselected public-record review, not a complete docket census or a statistical assessment of reversal rates. No\ninterviews or records requests were sent. No private residential or family information is reproduced.\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n2\nRESEARCH DOSSIER / 02\nIdentity and professional chronology\nThe name supplied in the assignment matches the New York attorney and judge appearing\npublicly as Phaedra F. Perry and Phaedra F. Perry-Bond. Attorney directories use the fuller form\nPhaedra Fane Perry; current court assignments and opinions provide the stronger anchors for her\njudicial identity. [1-4]\nPeriod / credential\nPublicly documented professional history\nEducation and service\nLaw Diary lists University of Wisconsin law school; California State University,\nFullerton, B.A. in Communications/Advertising; University of Southern California,\nM.P.A.; U.S. Air Force service. [4]\n2002-2003\nAssociate, Epstein Becker & Green, according to Law Diary. [4]\n2003\nNew York admission, Second Department, recorded in the judicial directory. [3]\n2004-2005\nCivil Court attorney handling landlord-tenant matters. [4]\n2005-2006\nAssistant district attorney, Westchester County. [4]\n2006-2012\nSpecial counsel to the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, NYC Courts. [4]\n2013-2017\nLaw clerk to Judge Geoffrey Wright. [4]\n2017 election / 2018\nservice\nElected to countywide New York County Civil Court; original term 2018-2027. [3,5]\n2018-2023\nDesignated to Bronx Family Court by Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence K.\nMarks. [3]\n2023 / 2024\nActing Supreme Court designation in 2023; Supreme Court election November\n2023; elected service began January 2024. [3,6-7]\nVerification boundary: The pre-bench employment dates and education are a reputable\ndirectory's account. Obtain her CV and institutional confirmation before treating every date as\nindependently verified. The judicial directory still describes an acting assignment and the old Civil\nCourt term; it should not override the later election record.\nPresent assignment and term\nShe presides over General IAS Part 35, Supreme Court, New York County, at 60 Centre Street,\nCourtroom 252. The court lists chambers in Room 570. [1-2]\nA 2023 election and the ordinary fourteen-year constitutional term imply January 1, 2024 through\nDecember 31, 2037, subject to retirement rules. The 2027 date in older listings belongs to Civil\nCourt. A 2036 date on a secondary profile conflicts with that calculation and should not be\nrepeated without explanation. [3,6-7,27]\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n3\nRESEARCH DOSSIER / 03\nThe political selection and vetting record\nA nomination that effectively settled the general election\nThe Manhattan party's August 11, 2023 announcement says its judicial delegates selected Perry,\nLyle Frank, and Leslie Stroth at the August 10 convention. The official November contest lists\nthose three candidates for three seats. Perry received 103,587 votes in the certified results. They\nfaced no other ballot-listed candidate, although voters could cast write-ins. [6,10]\nThe reporting question is how candidates won the party's support before voters encountered that\nballot. Party screening and a convention nomination are documented institutional steps. Neither\nfact, standing alone, proves improper influence.\nThe two City Bar ratings\nDate / office\nRating and its limits\nNovember 2, 2017\nCivil Court, countywide\nNot Approved. The release identifies Perry but does not publish the\nreason for her individual result. [8]\nOctober 16, 2023\nSupreme Court, First District\nApproved. The bar says approved candidates affirmatively\ndemonstrated qualifications for the office being sought. [9]\nThe six-year change is a strong interview subject. It is not proof that the first evaluation concerned\nethics, that the second was improper, or that the bar reversed a disciplinary determination. Ask\nwhat experience or information changed the evaluation and whether Perry will authorize any\nexplanation the bar can release.\nGeoffrey Wright and Keith Wright: a concrete reporting lead\nLaw Diary lists Perry as Geoffrey Wright's clerk from 2013 to 2017. A May 22, 2016 New York\nPost story is titled Keith Wright accused of playing favorites with judgeship; its indexed text\ndescribes Keith Wright promoting Perry, his brother's clerk, for Civil Court. [4,11]\nThe complete Post article was not retrieved in this review. Obtain it, including the responses it\ncarried, before expanding the account. Seek contemporary endorsements, convention or\nscreening records, and on-record responses from the people involved. Her employment\nrelationship is established by a directory. The alleged favoritism is contemporary reported\ncriticism, not a finding of misconduct.\nWhat this does and does not establish\nThe materials document a professional relationship and party sponsorship. They do not establish a\nbargain, payment for office, donor control, or favoritism in a particular case. Testing those\npropositions requires records connecting a specific actor, benefit, matter, and judicial action.\n\n--- Page 4 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n4\nRESEARCH DOSSIER / 04\nSpeech, reputation, and publicity\nCombs v NBCUniversal: dismissal based on the publication as a whole\nIndex 151935/2025; April 20, 2026; 2026 NY Slip Op 31757(U); NYSCEF 142. She granted\ndismissal under CPLR 3211(g). The independently sufficient ground was Combs's failure to show a\nsubstantial basis for gross irresponsibility. She emphasized verification, disclosed source biases,\ncontrary evidence, and included denials. Her libel-proof and incremental-harm discussion supplied\nan alternative rationale. This was not simply a holding that an unpopular person cannot sue. [12]\nOctober 6 docket reporting says she awarded $477,700.50 of the $990,292 requested in fees,\nreducing hours she considered excessive. The signed fee order was not obtained here. Verify\nNYSCEF 170 and the appellate docket before describing the outcome as final beyond review. [33]\nHafez v Accuracy in Media: anti-SLAPP applied, dismissal denied\nIndex 161112/2023; March 5, 2026; 2026 NY Slip Op 50260(U). The court treated the\nColumbia antisemitism controversy as public-interest speech and applied the heightened\nanti-SLAPP standard. Plaintiffs nevertheless showed a substantial basis to proceed. Alleged\nmistaken affiliations and disputed verification supported further inquiry; the challenged labels\ncould imply undisclosed factual support. Likeness and emotional-distress claims also survived.\nThis was a threshold ruling, not a final finding of falsity, actual malice, or liability. [13]\nSCPS v Kind Law: another anti-SLAPP dismissal\nIndex 152508/2025; March 31, 2026; 2026 NY Slip Op 26049. She dismissed gaming\noperators' claims against firms pursuing customer arbitrations, directed a statutory fee\napplication, and denied separate sanctions/protective relief. This additional decision reinforces the\nneed to compare the actual grounds rather than assign a categorical anti-SLAPP position. [14]\nCornell: restricting disclosure and declining prior restraint\nJane Doe v Cornell University, Inc., Index 161704/2026. October 9 reporting describes\nsealing address-bearing filings after an unrelated person's household received threats, with\nredacted replacements required. [17]\nOn October 16, according to the reproduced decision and corroborating coverage, she declined to\nsign Diego Sarabia's proposed order to show cause seeking restrictions on speech and disclosure.\nShe required serious prejudice, consideration of less restrictive measures, and narrow tailoring.\nShe also criticized premature evidence-destruction accusations and use of the docket for attorney\nattacks. The signed original returned an access error; this account relies on the reproduced text\nand reporting. These rulings decided publicity issues, not whether the alleged assault occurred.\n[15-16]\n\n--- Page 5 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n5\nRESEARCH DOSSIER / 05\nFamily Court and guardianship decisions\nThe accessible appellate decisions contain both a substantial legal correction and endorsements of\nher handling of enforcement, representation, and capacity. A selected sample cannot establish a\nreversal percentage or a systematic preference for one class of litigant.\nOmar G.: unanimous reversal over support and court delay\n200 AD3d 527; December 14, 2021; 2021 NY Slip Op 06956. The First Department reversed\nher denial of objections to dismissal of a DSS support petition. It held that jurisdiction attached\nwhen DSS filed while the child received cash assistance. Later termination of those benefits did\nnot erase jurisdiction. It also said temporary support should have been ordered despite the court's\nadjournments. The dismissal was vacated. This is a verified error of law; the opinion makes no\nmisconduct finding. [18]\nDesiree P.: default protection order and waiver of counsel upheld\n194 AD3d 494; May 11, 2021; 2021 NY Slip Op 02996. The First Department affirmed refusal\nto vacate a five-year protection order entered on default. It found no adequate excuse or\nmeritorious defense, and held that the father knowingly waived counsel after repeated advice and\nopportunities. His bias claim was unpreserved and, alternatively, unsupported by the record. [19]\nSasha R.: coercive child-support incarceration upheld\n191 AD3d 511; February 11, 2021; 2021 NY Slip Op 00916. The appellate court affirmed six\nmonths' commitment unless the father paid $7,500. It relied on willfulness, deficient proof of\ninability to pay, and his stated intention not to pay. The opinion does not support describing the\ncase simply as incarceration for poverty. [20]\nJohn M.: marriage revoked for incapacity, then affirmed\n234 AD3d 487; January 9, 2025; 2025 NY Slip Op 00158. The First Department affirmed her\norder voiding a marriage under Mental Hygiene Law section 81.29(d). It found clear and\nconvincing evidence of incapacity and sustained credibility findings. It also held that medical\nevidence was not indispensable to the capacity determination. [21]\nMaherly M.: a formerly incarcerated father received custody\nNovember 10, 2021; 2021 NY Slip Op 51314(U). After a child's mother and sister were\nmurdered, an aunt sought guardianship. Following hearings, Perry awarded sole legal and\nprimary residential custody to the father, despite his lengthy prior incarceration. The earlier\nextraordinary-circumstances ruling had authorized a best-interests hearing; it did not\npredetermine custody. This case complicates a blanket claim that she disregards biological\nfathers. [22]\n\n--- Page 6 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n6\nRESEARCH DOSSIER / 06\nJudicial authority, recusal, and public\ninstitutions\nAllen v Columbus: the missing warrant order is important\nIndex 156803/2025. In a dangerous-dog proceeding, Perry-Bond denied recusal on July 23, 2025,\nexplaining that challenged exchanges reflected enforcement of orders rather than personal bias.\nThat is her own determination, not an independent appellate endorsement. The opinion discusses\ncounsel's complaints about courtroom treatment and the court's account of noncompliance. [23]\nHer October 22, 2025 amended opinion, 2025 NY Slip Op 34059(U), NYSCEF 316, expressly says\nher June 13 civil-contempt arrest warrant was later reversed on procedural grounds. It cites\ndocuments 77 and 221. Obtain the warrant, reversing order, motion papers, and transcripts before\nidentifying the reversing tribunal or describing the precise defect. Document 77 is identified\nelsewhere as recusal motion material, which makes the citation alone insufficient. [24]\nThis is a specific due-process investigation with an identifiable paper trail. It does not justify\nsubstituting a general accusation of misconduct for the missing order.\nCommission on Racial Equity v Adams: separate the two stages\nIndex 161269/2025. Her April 27, 2026 opinion, 2026 NY Slip Op 31816(U), NYSCEF 33, denied\ndismissal and required an answer. It did not yet grant the full petition. A footnote discusses the\npolitical context of the Adams administration; any causal suggestion there must be identified as\njudicial observation or inference. [25]\nThe August 25 order, NYSCEF 51, granted two mandamus claims. It found Charter-deadline\nfailures by Adams and Mamdani unlawful and required cooperation approving CORE's\nindependent counsel and paying legal fees. It dismissed a duplicative declaratory claim. The\npreliminary plan had already appeared in April; do not describe the August order as simply\ncommanding its initial release. The order distinguishes the ministerial duty to produce a plan from\ndiscretion over its contents. The primary copy was inspected from counsel's website, including its\noperative concluding pages. [26]\nLandlord-tenant litigation: duplicate action dismissed\n783/5 Lex Assoc. LLC v Mezgitic, 2021 NY Slip Op 50809(U), July 20, 2021. She dismissed a\nseparate rent action because an earlier Housing Court case sought substantially the same relief,\neven though that case was stayed under pandemic protections. Dismissal of the second action did\nnot adjudicate away the underlying rent debt. [34]\n\n--- Page 7 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n7\nRESEARCH DOSSIER / 07\nDiscipline, money, and practical court rules\nPublic discipline: report the search limit\nThis review did not locate a public judicial disciplinary determination against her. Scrutinize\nreports zero CJC admonitions or censures in its dataset through October 13, 2026. That is a\nbounded secondary-data result, not certification that no complaint, confidential inquiry, or private\noutcome exists. The CJC's official database and confidentiality rules remain the controlling\nresearch routes. An advocacy-site listing is not itself an official disciplinary finding. [27,30]\nBail data: a lead that requires the underlying cases\nScrutinize classifies 35 of 35 covered bail cases as favoring commercial bonds and 35 of 35 as not\nmaking a partially secured surety bond the cheapest initial option. These are its defined metrics\nfor 2020-2025. Obtain the case identifiers and methodology before attributing a broader practice\nor illegality. The displayed figures do not establish improper relationships with bail companies.\n[27]\nCampaign contributions and financial disclosure\nSearch results identify committees styled Phaedra Perry for Civil Court and Phaedra Perry for\nSupreme Court on Transparency USA. The original state transaction schedules were not obtained.\nNo donor amount, complete campaign total, contributor-case overlap, or recusal failure is treated\nas established in this report. The aggregator is a locator for the original filings, not a substitute.\n[32]\nJudicial financial statements can be requested through the Unified Court System Ethics\nCommission's public-inspection procedure. It maintains the current reporting year and six prior\nreporting years, subject to lawful exclusions. Notices of delinquency are also available for\ninspection. No Perry-Bond statement was obtained in this review. [28]\nNew Jersey registration is a narrower administrative question\nAn official historical Lawyers' Fund ineligibility list includes Phaedra F. Perry, admitted in 2003,\nattorney ID 007632003. Current New Jersey status was not independently verified. Historical\nadministrative ineligibility must not be relabeled disciplinary disbarment. Confirm identity, basis,\ndates, and present status with New Jersey courts before using the item in publication. [31]\nWhat Part 35 tells lawyers to expect\nHer posted rules prohibit substantive ex parte communications, require copied correspondence,\ngenerally decide motions on submission, reserve orders to show cause for emergencies, and\nrequire good-faith discovery conferences before motions. They also warn of sanctions for delay\nand require compelling reasons for final discovery extensions. These written procedures offer a\nbenchmark for examining particular transcripts and orders. [2]\n\n--- Page 8 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n8\nRESEARCH DOSSIER / 08\nPriority records and interview plan\nRank\nRecord / recipient\nWhat it would resolve\n1\nNew York County Clerk / NYSCEF: Allen,\n156803/2025; documents 68, 77, 221, 222 and 316;\nrelevant June-July transcripts.\nWho reversed the warrant, on what\nprocedural ground, and what happened\nafterward.\n2\nNYS Board of Elections: both Perry campaign\ncommittees; registrations; original and amended\nitemized receipts, expenditures, loans and refunds.\nWho funded each campaign and how money\nwas used. Check donor appearances only\nafter verifying transactions.\n3\nUCS Ethics Commission: all available annual\nfinancial disclosure statements and any public\ndelinquency notices under both judicial name\nvariants.\nDisclosed interests or income relevant to\nactual litigants; compliance history.\n4\nManhattan party Judiciary Committee and\nconvention custodians: 2016-2017 and 2022-2023\npublic screening reports, endorsements, delegate\nresults and minutes.\nThe nomination sequence, sponsors, and\nbasis for advancement. These are requests\nto the party, not assumptions of FOIL\naccess.\n5\nOCA: current CV and commission/term information;\ndesignation and assignment orders; available\nadministrative caseflow reports.\nPrecise chronology, term, assignment\nhistory and a denominator for performance\nanalysis.\n6\nNew York County Clerk / appellate docket: Combs\nfee order 170 and appeal; Cornell October 9 and 16\norders and subsequent redacted filings.\nSigned operative language, later changes,\nand current procedural status.\nUse the right records route. OCA administrative records may be requested under FOIL and Part 124. Court case\nrecords instead go through the clerk/NYSCEF and Judiciary Law section 255, subject to access restrictions. Family\nCourt and guardianship materials may require additional authorization. Financial disclosure has its own\npublic-inspection process. [28-29]\nQuestions for an on-record response\nAsk Perry-Bond or the court's press office to confirm her CV and term; explain what can be said\nabout the 2017/2023 ratings; identify the Allen warrant reversal and subsequent safeguards; and\nprovide any published explanation distinguishing Hafez, Combs and the Cornell speech\napplication.\nAsk the party and the Wrights about the documented employment and nomination sequence. Ask\nthe City Bar what its public ratings mean and what, if anything, Perry can authorize it to explain.\nAsk campaign custodians to identify the complete amended disclosure history. Request records\nfirst; frame any eventual accusation around the records actually obtained.\nJournalistic close for any outreach: We intend to publish promptly. Please provide any response, documents,\ndenials, corrections, or statement for publication as soon as possible. If we publish before you respond, we will\nincorporate the statements into a follow-up.\n\n--- Page 9 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n9\nRESEARCH DOSSIER / 09\nSources and document trail\nNumbers correspond to citations in the dossier. Titles are clickable. Primary means the decision or institutional\nrecord itself; reported and indexed items retain their stated limits.\n[1] Current judicial assignments, New York County Supreme Court\nNY courts. Current Part 35 assignment and official business contact.\n[2] Part 35 rules: Hon. Phaedra F. Perry-Bond\nNY courts. Four-page rules, inspected October 22, 2026.\n[3] Judicial directory: Phaedra F. Perry\nNY courts. Admission and earlier designations; current elected status is stale.\n[4] Lawyers Diary and Manual: judicial biographies, printed p. 160\n2024 edition. Secondary career and education source; indexed entry inspected.\n[5] 2017 general election voter guide: other races\nNYC Campaign Finance Board. Civil Court ballot-listed candidates.\n[6] 2023 Supreme Court, First District election results\nNYS Board of Elections; certified NYC recap also reviewed.\n[7] New York Constitution, Article VI, section 6(c)\nOfficial Senate text: ordinary fourteen-year Supreme Court term.\n[8] 2017 City Bar judicial candidate ratings\nNew York City Bar, November 2, 2017: Perry Not Approved.\n[9] 2023 City Bar judicial candidate ratings\nNew York City Bar, October 16, 2023: Perry Approved.\n[10] 2023 Supreme Court judicial convention results\nManhattan party announcement, August 11, 2023. Evidence of party action.\n[11] Keith Wright accused of playing favorites with judgeship\nNew York Post, May 22, 2016. Indexed reporting lead; full article not retrieved.\n[12] Combs v NBCUniversal Media, LLC\n2026 NY Slip Op 31757(U), April 20; 151935/2025, NYSCEF 142. Primary.\n[13] Hafez v Accuracy in Media, Inc.\n2026 NY Slip Op 50260(U), March 5; 161112/2023. Primary.\n[14] SCPS, LLC v Kind Law\n2026 NY Slip Op 26049, March 31; 152508/2025. Primary.\n[15] Cornell gag-order reporting\nABC News, October 17, 2026. Corroborating reported account.\n[16] Cornell order reproduced and analyzed\nPospis Law, October 16, 2026; identifies 161704/2026. Secondary reproduction.\n[17] Cornell address-bearing filings sealed\nSpectrum News, October 9, 2026. Reported account of disclosure order.\n\n--- Page 10 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n10\nRESEARCH DOSSIER / 10\nSources and document trail (continued)\nNumbers correspond to citations in the dossier. Titles are clickable. Primary means the decision or institutional\nrecord itself; reported and indexed items retain their stated limits.\n[18] Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Omar G.\n200 AD3d 527; 2021 NY Slip Op 06956. Primary appellate reversal.\n[19] Matter of Desiree P. v Michael L.\n194 AD3d 494; 2021 NY Slip Op 02996. Primary affirmance.\n[20] Matter of Sasha R. v Marcus L.\n191 AD3d 511; 2021 NY Slip Op 00916. Primary affirmance.\n[21] Matter of John M. (Rebecca L.-Helen E.)\n234 AD3d 487; 2025 NY Slip Op 00158. Primary affirmance.\n[22] Matter of Maherly M. v Kaleb G.\n2021 NY Slip Op 51314(U), November 10. Primary custody ruling.\n[23] Allen v Columbus: recusal motion\n2025 NY Slip Op 32713(U), July 23; NYSCEF 222. Primary.\n[24] Allen v Columbus: amended merits opinion\n2025 NY Slip Op 34059(U), October 22; NYSCEF 316, PDF p. 5. Primary.\n[25] NYC Commission on Racial Equity v Adams: April\n2026 NY Slip Op 31816(U), April 27; 161269/2025, NYSCEF 33. Primary.\n[26] NYC Commission on Racial Equity v Adams: August\nAugust 25, 2026, NYSCEF 51. Primary order hosted by counsel; operative pp. 15-17 inspected.\n[27] Scrutinize: Phaedra F. Perry judicial profile\nSecondary metrics; analysis dated October 14, 2026. Methodology and coverage limits apply.\n[28] UCS Ethics Commission: public inspection\nOfficial financial-disclosure access procedure and phone 212-428-2899.\n[29] OCA: Freedom of Information Law\nOfficial distinction between administrative and court records; records-access contact.\n[30] Commission on Judicial Conduct: determinations\nOfficial database route. Search absence does not resolve confidential matters.\n[31] New Jersey historical Lawyers' Fund ineligibility list\nSeptember 12, 2016 order; Phaedra F. Perry, ID 007632003. Historical administrative lead.\n[32] Transparency USA: Perry, 2024 election cycle\nSecondary locator for campaign committees; original transaction schedules not retrieved.\n[33] Combs fee-award docket report\nDiddy Docket, October 6, 2026; describes NYSCEF 170. Signed order not inspected.\n[34] 783/5 Lex Assoc. LLC v Mezgitic\n2021 NY Slip Op 50809(U), July 20; CV-2417-2021. Primary.","text":"--- Page 1 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n1\nPUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH / OCTOBER 22, 2026\nPhaedra Fane Perry\nJustice Phaedra F. Perry-Bond\nCareer, political selection, judicial decisions, appellate treatment, and records still worth\nobtaining. Prepared for Richard Luthmann.\nThe most consequential findings\nHer judicial rise is documented. She moved from court employment to an elected Civil Court\nseat, a Bronx Family Court assignment, an acting Supreme Court designation, and election to\nManhattan Supreme Court. Current court materials use Perry-Bond. [1-6]\nThe bar ratings changed. The New York City Bar rated her Not Approved for Civil Court in 2017\nand Approved for Supreme Court in 2023. The public releases do not explain the individual\nreasons. Both ratings belong in any account. [8-9]\nThere is a real reversal to examine. In Omar G., the First Department unanimously reversed\nher child-support ruling. In a separate case, her own later opinion acknowledges that a\ncivil-contempt arrest warrant was reversed on procedural grounds. The latter reversing order\nremains unverified. [18,24]\nThe speech cases resist a simple label. She dismissed Combs's suit against NBCUniversal,\nallowed the Columbia-student claims against Accuracy in Media to proceed, and refused to sign a\nproposed gag order in the Cornell litigation. The standards, evidence, and procedural stages\ndiffer. [12-16]\nThe evidence does not establish corruption. The most productive next work is obtaining\noriginal campaign disclosures, judicial financial statements, nomination records, and the missing\ncontempt-warrant order. Those records can test specific questions without assuming the answer.\nHow to read this dossier\nCourt holdings are identified as such. Published reporting is attributed. Investigative leads remain leads. This is a\nselected public-record review, not a complete docket census or a statistical assessment of reversal rates. No\ninterviews or records requests were sent. No private residential or family information is reproduced.\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n2\nRESEARCH DOSSIER / 02\nIdentity and professional chronology\nThe name supplied in the assignment matches the New York attorney and judge appearing\npublicly as Phaedra F. Perry and Phaedra F. Perry-Bond. Attorney directories use the fuller form\nPhaedra Fane Perry; current court assignments and opinions provide the stronger anchors for her\njudicial identity. [1-4]\nPeriod / credential\nPublicly documented professional history\nEducation and service\nLaw Diary lists University of Wisconsin law school; California State University,\nFullerton, B.A. in Communications/Advertising; University of Southern California,\nM.P.A.; U.S. Air Force service. [4]\n2002-2003\nAssociate, Epstein Becker & Green, according to Law Diary. [4]\n2003\nNew York admission, Second Department, recorded in the judicial directory. [3]\n2004-2005\nCivil Court attorney handling landlord-tenant matters. [4]\n2005-2006\nAssistant district attorney, Westchester County. [4]\n2006-2012\nSpecial counsel to the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, NYC Courts. [4]\n2013-2017\nLaw clerk to Judge Geoffrey Wright. [4]\n2017 election / 2018\nservice\nElected to countywide New York County Civil Court; original term 2018-2027. [3,5]\n2018-2023\nDesignated to Bronx Family Court by Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence K.\nMarks. [3]\n2023 / 2024\nActing Supreme Court designation in 2023; Supreme Court election November\n2023; elected service began January 2024. [3,6-7]\nVerification boundary: The pre-bench employment dates and education are a reputable\ndirectory's account. Obtain her CV and institutional confirmation before treating every date as\nindependently verified. The judicial directory still describes an acting assignment and the old Civil\nCourt term; it should not override the later election record.\nPresent assignment and term\nShe presides over General IAS Part 35, Supreme Court, New York County, at 60 Centre Street,\nCourtroom 252. The court lists chambers in Room 570. [1-2]\nA 2023 election and the ordinary fourteen-year constitutional term imply January 1, 2024 through\nDecember 31, 2037, subject to retirement rules. The 2027 date in older listings belongs to Civil\nCourt. A 2036 date on a secondary profile conflicts with that calculation and should not be\nrepeated without explanation. [3,6-7,27]\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n3\nRESEARCH DOSSIER / 03\nThe political selection and vetting record\nA nomination that effectively settled the general election\nThe Manhattan party's August 11, 2023 announcement says its judicial delegates selected Perry,\nLyle Frank, and Leslie Stroth at the August 10 convention. The official November contest lists\nthose three candidates for three seats. Perry received 103,587 votes in the certified results. They\nfaced no other ballot-listed candidate, although voters could cast write-ins. [6,10]\nThe reporting question is how candidates won the party's support before voters encountered that\nballot. Party screening and a convention nomination are documented institutional steps. Neither\nfact, standing alone, proves improper influence.\nThe two City Bar ratings\nDate / office\nRating and its limits\nNovember 2, 2017\nCivil Court, countywide\nNot Approved. The release identifies Perry but does not publish the\nreason for her individual result. [8]\nOctober 16, 2023\nSupreme Court, First District\nApproved. The bar says approved candidates affirmatively\ndemonstrated qualifications for the office being sought. [9]\nThe six-year change is a strong interview subject. It is not proof that the first evaluation concerned\nethics, that the second was improper, or that the bar reversed a disciplinary determination. Ask\nwhat experience or information changed the evaluation and whether Perry will authorize any\nexplanation the bar can release.\nGeoffrey Wright and Keith Wright: a concrete reporting lead\nLaw Diary lists Perry as Geoffrey Wright's clerk from 2013 to 2017. A May 22, 2016 New York\nPost story is titled Keith Wright accused of playing favorites with judgeship; its indexed text\ndescribes Keith Wright promoting Perry, his brother's clerk, for Civil Court. [4,11]\nThe complete Post article was not retrieved in this review. Obtain it, including the responses it\ncarried, before expanding the account. Seek contemporary endorsements, convention or\nscreening records, and on-record responses from the people involved. Her employment\nrelationship is established by a directory. The alleged favoritism is contemporary reported\ncriticism, not a finding of misconduct.\nWhat this does and does not establish\nThe materials document a professional relationship and party sponsorship. They do not establish a\nbargain, payment for office, donor control, or favoritism in a particular case. Testing those\npropositions requires records connecting a specific actor, benefit, matter, and judicial action.\n\n--- Page 4 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n4\nRESEARCH DOSSIER / 04\nSpeech, reputation, and publicity\nCombs v NBCUniversal: dismissal based on the publication as a whole\nIndex 151935/2025; April 20, 2026; 2026 NY Slip Op 31757(U); NYSCEF 142. She granted\ndismissal under CPLR 3211(g). The independently sufficient ground was Combs's failure to show a\nsubstantial basis for gross irresponsibility. She emphasized verification, disclosed source biases,\ncontrary evidence, and included denials. Her libel-proof and incremental-harm discussion supplied\nan alternative rationale. This was not simply a holding that an unpopular person cannot sue. [12]\nOctober 6 docket reporting says she awarded $477,700.50 of the $990,292 requested in fees,\nreducing hours she considered excessive. The signed fee order was not obtained here. Verify\nNYSCEF 170 and the appellate docket before describing the outcome as final beyond review. [33]\nHafez v Accuracy in Media: anti-SLAPP applied, dismissal denied\nIndex 161112/2023; March 5, 2026; 2026 NY Slip Op 50260(U). The court treated the\nColumbia antisemitism controversy as public-interest speech and applied the heightened\nanti-SLAPP standard. Plaintiffs nevertheless showed a substantial basis to proceed. Alleged\nmistaken affiliations and disputed verification supported further inquiry; the challenged labels\ncould imply undisclosed factual support. Likeness and emotional-distress claims also survived.\nThis was a threshold ruling, not a final finding of falsity, actual malice, or liability. [13]\nSCPS v Kind Law: another anti-SLAPP dismissal\nIndex 152508/2025; March 31, 2026; 2026 NY Slip Op 26049. She dismissed gaming\noperators' claims against firms pursuing customer arbitrations, directed a statutory fee\napplication, and denied separate sanctions/protective relief. This additional decision reinforces the\nneed to compare the actual grounds rather than assign a categorical anti-SLAPP position. [14]\nCornell: restricting disclosure and declining prior restraint\nJane Doe v Cornell University, Inc., Index 161704/2026. October 9 reporting describes\nsealing address-bearing filings after an unrelated person's household received threats, with\nredacted replacements required. [17]\nOn October 16, according to the reproduced decision and corroborating coverage, she declined to\nsign Diego Sarabia's proposed order to show cause seeking restrictions on speech and disclosure.\nShe required serious prejudice, consideration of less restrictive measures, and narrow tailoring.\nShe also criticized premature evidence-destruction accusations and use of the docket for attorney\nattacks. The signed original returned an access error; this account relies on the reproduced text\nand reporting. These rulings decided publicity issues, not whether the alleged assault occurred.\n[15-16]\n\n--- Page 5 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n5\nRESEARCH DOSSIER / 05\nFamily Court and guardianship decisions\nThe accessible appellate decisions contain both a substantial legal correction and endorsements of\nher handling of enforcement, representation, and capacity. A selected sample cannot establish a\nreversal percentage or a systematic preference for one class of litigant.\nOmar G.: unanimous reversal over support and court delay\n200 AD3d 527; December 14, 2021; 2021 NY Slip Op 06956. The First Department reversed\nher denial of objections to dismissal of a DSS support petition. It held that jurisdiction attached\nwhen DSS filed while the child received cash assistance. Later termination of those benefits did\nnot erase jurisdiction. It also said temporary support should have been ordered despite the court's\nadjournments. The dismissal was vacated. This is a verified error of law; the opinion makes no\nmisconduct finding. [18]\nDesiree P.: default protection order and waiver of counsel upheld\n194 AD3d 494; May 11, 2021; 2021 NY Slip Op 02996. The First Department affirmed refusal\nto vacate a five-year protection order entered on default. It found no adequate excuse or\nmeritorious defense, and held that the father knowingly waived counsel after repeated advice and\nopportunities. His bias claim was unpreserved and, alternatively, unsupported by the record. [19]\nSasha R.: coercive child-support incarceration upheld\n191 AD3d 511; February 11, 2021; 2021 NY Slip Op 00916. The appellate court affirmed six\nmonths' commitment unless the father paid $7,500. It relied on willfulness, deficient proof of\ninability to pay, and his stated intention not to pay. The opinion does not support describing the\ncase simply as incarceration for poverty. [20]\nJohn M.: marriage revoked for incapacity, then affirmed\n234 AD3d 487; January 9, 2025; 2025 NY Slip Op 00158. The First Department affirmed her\norder voiding a marriage under Mental Hygiene Law section 81.29(d). It found clear and\nconvincing evidence of incapacity and sustained credibility findings. It also held that medical\nevidence was not indispensable to the capacity determination. [21]\nMaherly M.: a formerly incarcerated father received custody\nNovember 10, 2021; 2021 NY Slip Op 51314(U). After a child's mother and sister were\nmurdered, an aunt sought guardianship. Following hearings, Perry awarded sole legal and\nprimary residential custody to the father, despite his lengthy prior incarceration. The earlier\nextraordinary-circumstances ruling had authorized a best-interests hearing; it did not\npredetermine custody. This case complicates a blanket claim that she disregards biological\nfathers. [22]\n\n--- Page 6 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n6\nRESEARCH DOSSIER / 06\nJudicial authority, recusal, and public\ninstitutions\nAllen v Columbus: the missing warrant order is important\nIndex 156803/2025. In a dangerous-dog proceeding, Perry-Bond denied recusal on July 23, 2025,\nexplaining that challenged exchanges reflected enforcement of orders rather than personal bias.\nThat is her own determination, not an independent appellate endorsement. The opinion discusses\ncounsel's complaints about courtroom treatment and the court's account of noncompliance. [23]\nHer October 22, 2025 amended opinion, 2025 NY Slip Op 34059(U), NYSCEF 316, expressly says\nher June 13 civil-contempt arrest warrant was later reversed on procedural grounds. It cites\ndocuments 77 and 221. Obtain the warrant, reversing order, motion papers, and transcripts before\nidentifying the reversing tribunal or describing the precise defect. Document 77 is identified\nelsewhere as recusal motion material, which makes the citation alone insufficient. [24]\nThis is a specific due-process investigation with an identifiable paper trail. It does not justify\nsubstituting a general accusation of misconduct for the missing order.\nCommission on Racial Equity v Adams: separate the two stages\nIndex 161269/2025. Her April 27, 2026 opinion, 2026 NY Slip Op 31816(U), NYSCEF 33, denied\ndismissal and required an answer. It did not yet grant the full petition. A footnote discusses the\npolitical context of the Adams administration; any causal suggestion there must be identified as\njudicial observation or inference. [25]\nThe August 25 order, NYSCEF 51, granted two mandamus claims. It found Charter-deadline\nfailures by Adams and Mamdani unlawful and required cooperation approving CORE's\nindependent counsel and paying legal fees. It dismissed a duplicative declaratory claim. The\npreliminary plan had already appeared in April; do not describe the August order as simply\ncommanding its initial release. The order distinguishes the ministerial duty to produce a plan from\ndiscretion over its contents. The primary copy was inspected from counsel's website, including its\noperative concluding pages. [26]\nLandlord-tenant litigation: duplicate action dismissed\n783/5 Lex Assoc. LLC v Mezgitic, 2021 NY Slip Op 50809(U), July 20, 2021. She dismissed a\nseparate rent action because an earlier Housing Court case sought substantially the same relief,\neven though that case was stayed under pandemic protections. Dismissal of the second action did\nnot adjudicate away the underlying rent debt. [34]\n\n--- Page 7 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n7\nRESEARCH DOSSIER / 07\nDiscipline, money, and practical court rules\nPublic discipline: report the search limit\nThis review did not locate a public judicial disciplinary determination against her. Scrutinize\nreports zero CJC admonitions or censures in its dataset through October 13, 2026. That is a\nbounded secondary-data result, not certification that no complaint, confidential inquiry, or private\noutcome exists. The CJC's official database and confidentiality rules remain the controlling\nresearch routes. An advocacy-site listing is not itself an official disciplinary finding. [27,30]\nBail data: a lead that requires the underlying cases\nScrutinize classifies 35 of 35 covered bail cases as favoring commercial bonds and 35 of 35 as not\nmaking a partially secured surety bond the cheapest initial option. These are its defined metrics\nfor 2020-2025. Obtain the case identifiers and methodology before attributing a broader practice\nor illegality. The displayed figures do not establish improper relationships with bail companies.\n[27]\nCampaign contributions and financial disclosure\nSearch results identify committees styled Phaedra Perry for Civil Court and Phaedra Perry for\nSupreme Court on Transparency USA. The original state transaction schedules were not obtained.\nNo donor amount, complete campaign total, contributor-case overlap, or recusal failure is treated\nas established in this report. The aggregator is a locator for the original filings, not a substitute.\n[32]\nJudicial financial statements can be requested through the Unified Court System Ethics\nCommission's public-inspection procedure. It maintains the current reporting year and six prior\nreporting years, subject to lawful exclusions. Notices of delinquency are also available for\ninspection. No Perry-Bond statement was obtained in this review. [28]\nNew Jersey registration is a narrower administrative question\nAn official historical Lawyers' Fund ineligibility list includes Phaedra F. Perry, admitted in 2003,\nattorney ID 007632003. Current New Jersey status was not independently verified. Historical\nadministrative ineligibility must not be relabeled disciplinary disbarment. Confirm identity, basis,\ndates, and present status with New Jersey courts before using the item in publication. [31]\nWhat Part 35 tells lawyers to expect\nHer posted rules prohibit substantive ex parte communications, require copied correspondence,\ngenerally decide motions on submission, reserve orders to show cause for emergencies, and\nrequire good-faith discovery conferences before motions. They also warn of sanctions for delay\nand require compelling reasons for final discovery extensions. These written procedures offer a\nbenchmark for examining particular transcripts and orders. [2]\n\n--- Page 8 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n8\nRESEARCH DOSSIER / 08\nPriority records and interview plan\nRank\nRecord / recipient\nWhat it would resolve\n1\nNew York County Clerk / NYSCEF: Allen,\n156803/2025; documents 68, 77, 221, 222 and 316;\nrelevant June-July transcripts.\nWho reversed the warrant, on what\nprocedural ground, and what happened\nafterward.\n2\nNYS Board of Elections: both Perry campaign\ncommittees; registrations; original and amended\nitemized receipts, expenditures, loans and refunds.\nWho funded each campaign and how money\nwas used. Check donor appearances only\nafter verifying transactions.\n3\nUCS Ethics Commission: all available annual\nfinancial disclosure statements and any public\ndelinquency notices under both judicial name\nvariants.\nDisclosed interests or income relevant to\nactual litigants; compliance history.\n4\nManhattan party Judiciary Committee and\nconvention custodians: 2016-2017 and 2022-2023\npublic screening reports, endorsements, delegate\nresults and minutes.\nThe nomination sequence, sponsors, and\nbasis for advancement. These are requests\nto the party, not assumptions of FOIL\naccess.\n5\nOCA: current CV and commission/term information;\ndesignation and assignment orders; available\nadministrative caseflow reports.\nPrecise chronology, term, assignment\nhistory and a denominator for performance\nanalysis.\n6\nNew York County Clerk / appellate docket: Combs\nfee order 170 and appeal; Cornell October 9 and 16\norders and subsequent redacted filings.\nSigned operative language, later changes,\nand current procedural status.\nUse the right records route. OCA administrative records may be requested under FOIL and Part 124. Court case\nrecords instead go through the clerk/NYSCEF and Judiciary Law section 255, subject to access restrictions. Family\nCourt and guardianship materials may require additional authorization. Financial disclosure has its own\npublic-inspection process. [28-29]\nQuestions for an on-record response\nAsk Perry-Bond or the court's press office to confirm her CV and term; explain what can be said\nabout the 2017/2023 ratings; identify the Allen warrant reversal and subsequent safeguards; and\nprovide any published explanation distinguishing Hafez, Combs and the Cornell speech\napplication.\nAsk the party and the Wrights about the documented employment and nomination sequence. Ask\nthe City Bar what its public ratings mean and what, if anything, Perry can authorize it to explain.\nAsk campaign custodians to identify the complete amended disclosure history. Request records\nfirst; frame any eventual accusation around the records actually obtained.\nJournalistic close for any outreach: We intend to publish promptly. Please provide any response, documents,\ndenials, corrections, or statement for publication as soon as possible. If we publish before you respond, we will\nincorporate the statements into a follow-up.\n\n--- Page 9 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n9\nRESEARCH DOSSIER / 09\nSources and document trail\nNumbers correspond to citations in the dossier. Titles are clickable. Primary means the decision or institutional\nrecord itself; reported and indexed items retain their stated limits.\n[1] Current judicial assignments, New York County Supreme Court\nNY courts. Current Part 35 assignment and official business contact.\n[2] Part 35 rules: Hon. Phaedra F. Perry-Bond\nNY courts. Four-page rules, inspected October 22, 2026.\n[3] Judicial directory: Phaedra F. Perry\nNY courts. Admission and earlier designations; current elected status is stale.\n[4] Lawyers Diary and Manual: judicial biographies, printed p. 160\n2024 edition. Secondary career and education source; indexed entry inspected.\n[5] 2017 general election voter guide: other races\nNYC Campaign Finance Board. Civil Court ballot-listed candidates.\n[6] 2023 Supreme Court, First District election results\nNYS Board of Elections; certified NYC recap also reviewed.\n[7] New York Constitution, Article VI, section 6(c)\nOfficial Senate text: ordinary fourteen-year Supreme Court term.\n[8] 2017 City Bar judicial candidate ratings\nNew York City Bar, November 2, 2017: Perry Not Approved.\n[9] 2023 City Bar judicial candidate ratings\nNew York City Bar, October 16, 2023: Perry Approved.\n[10] 2023 Supreme Court judicial convention results\nManhattan party announcement, August 11, 2023. Evidence of party action.\n[11] Keith Wright accused of playing favorites with judgeship\nNew York Post, May 22, 2016. Indexed reporting lead; full article not retrieved.\n[12] Combs v NBCUniversal Media, LLC\n2026 NY Slip Op 31757(U), April 20; 151935/2025, NYSCEF 142. Primary.\n[13] Hafez v Accuracy in Media, Inc.\n2026 NY Slip Op 50260(U), March 5; 161112/2023. Primary.\n[14] SCPS, LLC v Kind Law\n2026 NY Slip Op 26049, March 31; 152508/2025. Primary.\n[15] Cornell gag-order reporting\nABC News, October 17, 2026. Corroborating reported account.\n[16] Cornell order reproduced and analyzed\nPospis Law, October 16, 2026; identifies 161704/2026. Secondary reproduction.\n[17] Cornell address-bearing filings sealed\nSpectrum News, October 9, 2026. Reported account of disclosure order.\n\n--- Page 10 ---\nPHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND  |  PUBLIC-RECORD RESEARCH  |  OCTOBER 22, 2026\n10\nRESEARCH DOSSIER / 10\nSources and document trail (continued)\nNumbers correspond to citations in the dossier. Titles are clickable. Primary means the decision or institutional\nrecord itself; reported and indexed items retain their stated limits.\n[18] Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Omar G.\n200 AD3d 527; 2021 NY Slip Op 06956. Primary appellate reversal.\n[19] Matter of Desiree P. v Michael L.\n194 AD3d 494; 2021 NY Slip Op 02996. Primary affirmance.\n[20] Matter of Sasha R. v Marcus L.\n191 AD3d 511; 2021 NY Slip Op 00916. Primary affirmance.\n[21] Matter of John M. (Rebecca L.-Helen E.)\n234 AD3d 487; 2025 NY Slip Op 00158. Primary affirmance.\n[22] Matter of Maherly M. v Kaleb G.\n2021 NY Slip Op 51314(U), November 10. Primary custody ruling.\n[23] Allen v Columbus: recusal motion\n2025 NY Slip Op 32713(U), July 23; NYSCEF 222. Primary.\n[24] Allen v Columbus: amended merits opinion\n2025 NY Slip Op 34059(U), October 22; NYSCEF 316, PDF p. 5. Primary.\n[25] NYC Commission on Racial Equity v Adams: April\n2026 NY Slip Op 31816(U), April 27; 161269/2025, NYSCEF 33. Primary.\n[26] NYC Commission on Racial Equity v Adams: August\nAugust 25, 2026, NYSCEF 51. Primary order hosted by counsel; operative pp. 15-17 inspected.\n[27] Scrutinize: Phaedra F. Perry judicial profile\nSecondary metrics; analysis dated October 14, 2026. Methodology and coverage limits apply.\n[28] UCS Ethics Commission: public inspection\nOfficial financial-disclosure access procedure and phone 212-428-2899.\n[29] OCA: Freedom of Information Law\nOfficial distinction between administrative and court records; records-access contact.\n[30] Commission on Judicial Conduct: determinations\nOfficial database route. Search absence does not resolve confidential matters.\n[31] New Jersey historical Lawyers' Fund ineligibility list\nSeptember 12, 2016 order; Phaedra F. Perry, ID 007632003. Historical administrative lead.\n[32] Transparency USA: Perry, 2024 election cycle\nSecondary locator for campaign committees; original transaction schedules not retrieved.\n[33] Combs fee-award docket report\nDiddy Docket, October 6, 2026; describes NYSCEF 170. Signed order not inspected.\n[34] 783/5 Lex Assoc. LLC v Mezgitic\n2021 NY Slip Op 50809(U), July 20; CV-2417-2021. Primary.","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/597/thumb.webp","transcriptStatus":"not_applicable","transcriptText":"","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/597"}