Randy Mastro, Mayor Eric Adams’ controversial pick to be New York City’s next top lawyer, asked Hizzoner to withdraw his nomination for the post in a letter citing a bruising City Council hearing last month, according to a source familiar with the matter.
The decision came a little more than a day before the City Council was expected to overwhelmingly reject Mastro’s nomination to be the city’s next lead attorney — a position known as corporation counsel — in a vote that was scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 12.
“It is with a heavy heart that I respectfully request you withdraw your nomination of me to become the City’s next Corporation Counsel,” Mastro said in the letter, a copy of which amNewYork Metro obtained late on Tuesday afternoon. “I remain deeply honored and humbled by the confidence you have shown in me to serve the City in this important legal capacity. But it is not to be.”
Mastro’s nomination appeared doomed from the start, as many council members came out against him before Adams even formally nominated him in late July. They cited the seasoned litigator’s time working for former Republican Mayor Rudy Giuliani and on behalf of conservative clients like ex-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — also a Republican — and the oil giant Chevron.
In a statement, Adams blamed Mastro’s decision to withdraw from the race for a political job he has long coveted.
“It’s unfortunate that politics has seeped into this process and, as a result, will deprive New Yorkers of one of the most qualified candidates for this office our city has ever seen,” the mayor said. “I want to thank Randy for his willingness to serve the city he loves and his time and effort over the last few months meeting with members of the City Council to discuss his transformative vision for our esteemed Law Department.”
The Aug. 27 hearing saw one council member after another take Mastro to task over his time working for Giuliani — both as the chief of staff and, later, as a deputy mayor — and his roster of clients over his many years as a white-shoe attorney. They questioned his values and moral character, while repeatedly interrupting his attempts to answer their questions.
Council members also feared that Mastro would serve more as the mayor’s attorney than their own, even though the corporation counsel is supposed to represent all branches of city government.
Even after the hearing, Adams stood by his nomination of Mastro and insisted he was the “right person” for the job.
Mastro, in his missive, blasted the council’s conduct in a hearing he characterized as “anything but fair,” and accused City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams of seemingly stacking the deck against the mayor.
“[City Council] Speaker Adams has now made clear, by the way, she permitted the Council to conduct its hearing on my nomination, that she intends to deny you the nominee of your choice,” Mastro said. “I do not know what possessed the City Council to conduct this confirmation hearing as it did.”
The attorney took particular issue with council members reading prepared remarks opposing his record, while accusing them of delaying his supporters from being able to testify on his behalf.
“Council members grilled me for 8 1/2 straight hours, reading speeches off of prepared scripts and trying to deny me the opportunity to respond,” he wrote. “Even worse, they kept dozens of my supporters (including former Governor David Paterson) who hung in there all day waiting until the evening hours of a late summer hearing to testify, then cut them off at the two-minute mark, without asking any of them a single question.”
In a statement, City Council spokesperson Julia Ago said Mastro’s withdrawal letter only underscored the legislature’s belief that he was not the right fit for the job of corporation counsel.
“From the outset, Council Members raised concerns about his record and the ability to trust that he would be a lawyer for the Council and entire City. Mr. Mastro offered no real accounting or accountability for the areas of his record during the Giuliani Administration and afterwards that many found harmful to Black, Latino, and marginalized communities, while also showing him to be politically loyal,” Agos said. “New York City needs a top attorney who is independent and willing to stand up when the political interests of an administration conflict with the public interests of New Yorkers. Given the challenges raised about his nomination far in advance, it should have been no surprise that his record would be heavily scrutinized at a lengthy hearing.
The council now looks “forward to working with the Administration to advance a nominee who is unifying rather than divisive, has the trust of all city elected officials, and can secure support from the Council,” Agos added.
Updated at 7:15 p.m. on Sept. 10.
