There is something extraordinarily and disgustingly sleazy about an attorney who refuses to comply with discovery obligations and then appears in court to accuse a disabled litigant of willful and contumacious conduct for failing to attend a hearing at which the court refused to provide the disability accommodations necessary for her participation.
That attorney is Adam L. Rodd, of Drake Loeb PLLC.
And Delaware County taxpayers are paying for his legal representation of public officials and governmental entities.
Who Is Adam Rodd Representing, and What Are They Being Sued For?
In Tatiana Neroni v. Amy Merklen et al., Index No. EF2026-213, pending in New York Supreme Court, Delaware County, Rodd represents four defendants:
- Amy Merklen, Delaware County Attorney.
- D. Jeremy Rase, an attorney associated with the Delaware County Attorney's Office.
- Delaware County Attorney's Office, the governmental legal office.
- Wayne Marshfield, Town Supervisor of Hamden and member of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors.
These defendants are being sued under an Amended Verified Complaint, NYSCEF Doc. 28, asserting four causes of action:
- Judiciary Law § 487: attorney deceit.
- Tortious interference with contractual and business relations.
- Abuse of process.
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983: First Amendment retaliation and denial of access to the courts.
These are serious allegations concerning the exercise and alleged misuse of governmental and legal authority.
On July 20, 2026, Rodd submitted a Verified Answer on behalf of these defendants, NYSCEF Doc. 109.
He verified the Answer upon what he identified as “Investigative material contained in my file.”
Naturally, I sought that investigative material through discovery.
Willful and Contumacious: Adam Rodd, First Person Singular
The expression willful and contumacious is a term of art frequently used in New York civil practice in connection with discovery violations.
CPLR 3126 authorizes sanctions when a party refuses to obey an order for disclosure or willfully fails to disclose information that ought to have been disclosed. The available sanctions include striking pleadings and entering judgment against the noncomplying party.
Now consider what Rodd did.
He verified an Answer based on purported investigative material.
I demanded production of that material.
He responded that he did not have it.
He did not produce the evidence upon which he had purportedly relied in verifying his clients' Answer.
He did not answer my interrogatories.
He failed to respond to my notices to admit.
And while leaving these discovery obligations unfulfilled, he moved to dismiss my case.
Then came the October 28, 2026 hearing before Supreme Court Justice Christopher P. Baker.
At that hearing, Rodd characterized my failure to appear as “willful and contumacious” and urged dismissal of my cases.
For what conduct?
For not attending a hearing after the court repeatedly refused to provide the disability accommodations necessary for my participation.
An attorney who refused to comply with discovery obligations was asking a court to punish a disabled litigant for failing to attend a hearing without necessary ADA accommodations.
The pot calling the kettle black — in spades.
The Americans with Disabilities Act Is Federal Law, Not Judicial Charity
The circumstances of the October 28 hearing were known well in advance.
I had repeatedly requested reasonable disability accommodations, including afternoon scheduling and adequate spacing of proceedings. My husband, also disabled, required CART real-time transcription services because of his hearing limitations.
The court scheduled fourteen motions for a single morning hearing, refused the requested afternoon scheduling, and did not arrange the requested CART services.
We were unable to attend.
Rodd urged the court to treat our nonappearance as deliberate disobedience and dismiss our cases.
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, prohibits public entities from excluding qualified individuals with disabilities from participation in their services, programs, or activities by reason of disability.
Its implementing regulations require reasonable modifications when necessary to avoid disability discrimination, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7), and effective communication with individuals with disabilities, 28 C.F.R. § 35.160.
The ADA is a federal statute enacted by Congress. Under Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, federal law is supreme over conflicting state law, and state judges are expressly bound by it.
Compliance with the ADA is not a matter of judicial discretion.
Yet Rodd urged the court to punish - without a notice of motion, mind, completely illegally - two disabled litigants for the consequences of denied accommodations.
This litigation position is not merely bizarre.
It is unlawful.
A court cannot turn the consequences of its refusal to provide legally required accommodations into grounds for punishing the person who needed them.
Nor does an attorney representing public entities acquire authority to disregard federal civil rights obligations by asking a judge to do so.
Is Adam Rodd Protecting His Clients — or Exposing Them to Additional Liability?
Rodd's clients include governmental officials and a governmental legal office.
His litigation strategy raises an elementary question of professional competence.
Why would an attorney representing public entities subject to federal civil rights obligations urge a court to take action that could expose those entities to additional federal civil rights liability?
The ADA is enforceable through judicial remedies, including prospective injunctive relief and, where legally available, compensatory damages and attorney's fees.
An attorney who urges a court to penalize disabled litigants for the consequences of denied accommodations is not merely advancing an aggressive defense.
He is pursuing a position that may generate additional claims against his own clients.
And why? Because he has no chance of winning ethically and lawfully.
/Those claims require legal defense. Legal defense costs money. Adverse judgments and fee awards cost additional money.
And where public entities are responsible for those expenditures, the financial burden falls upon the public.
I do not know what happened to attorney Adam Rodd who I knew more 13 years ago as an opponent in litigation on behalf of my then-clients to be a more or less decent human being - is it so hungry for business now that he falls in lockstep with the known sleazeballs such as Frank Miller and Courtney Heinel?
I do not know that.
What I question though is:
Why Am I As A Taxpayer Is Paying for His Sleazeball Tactics?
I am a Delaware County property owner and taxpayer.
I am also the litigant whose cases Rodd sought to have dismissed.
As a litigant, I have a direct interest in challenging his conduct.
As a taxpayer, I have an equally legitimate interest in questioning why public funds are being expended on legal representation that pursues unlawful positions and exposes public entities to additional liability.
Consider the financial arrangement.
Taxpayers pay for Rodd's legal services.
Taxpayers pay for the litigation he conducts on behalf of governmental defendants.
Taxpayers may then be required to finance additional litigation arising from the very conduct undertaken in defending those defendants.
And if that conduct results in liability, taxpayers may be required to finance the consequences.
We are paying for the privilege of being exposed to additional liability.
This is an extraordinary use of public resources.
Why should Delaware County taxpayers finance an attorney who refuses to comply with discovery, seeks dismissal of claims alleging governmental misconduct, and then urges a court to impose punitive consequences upon disabled litigants for failing to attend a hearing without necessary accommodations?
What public interest does that serve?
Whose interests are being protected?
A Question of Public Accountability
The October 28, 2026 hearing transcript provides a record of Rodd's arguments.
The discovery record documents the demands made upon him, his responses, and his failure to provide the requested discovery.
His Verified Answer, NYSCEF Doc. 109, identifies the purported investigative material upon which his verification was based.
His clients are identified in the public court record.
So are the claims against them.
This is not merely a private disagreement between opposing litigants. It concerns the conduct of an attorney representing public officials and governmental entities, the enforcement of federal disability rights, and the expenditure of taxpayer money.
An attorney paid to defend public entities should not be using public funds to pursue litigation positions that violate federal law and expose those same entities to additional liability.
And when that attorney accuses a disabled litigant of willful and contumacious conduct while refusing to fulfill his own discovery obligations, the public is entitled to examine the contradiction.
I intend to do exactly that.
Because I am not only the person against whom Rodd sought dismissal.
I am also one of the taxpayers paying for it.
And - why wouldn't we the taxpayers demand that our hard earned money paid to this ... representative of his profession for THIS kind of "advocacy" be returned to us.
And - do I know have a new claim accrued against Adam Rodd and his clients? For ADA violations? Yes. 1st Amendment retaliation? Yes. GML 51 taxpayer waste claims? Oh yes. 3 years statute of limitations, ladies and gentlemen.
No comments:
Post a Comment