Overview
Disabled New Yorker Marc Fishman, a father and long-time advocate for disability rights, faces 45 days in jail following a flawed prosecution in Westchester County, despite exonerating evidence and a federal court order affirming his right to accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Mr. Fishman lives with traumatic brain injury, tinnitus, and post-concussion syndrome, conditions that substantially affect his ability to process auditory information. In Case No. 20-1300 (July 16, 2021), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that he must be provided real-time transcription and communication accommodations in all court proceedings.

To date, the Westchester courts have refused to comply with that order:

Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Violations
At the time of the 2021 federal ruling, Nancy Barry, then the District Executive for New York’s Ninth Judicial District, denied Mr. Fishman’s ADA accommodations. Ms. Barry also authored an unqualified letter claiming his hearing disability “did not impede his ability to hear,” despite not being a medical professional.

Ms. Barry now serves as Chief of Staff to Westchester District Attorney Susan Cacace, making her the third-highest-ranking attorney in the DA’s Office—the same office now prosecuting Mr. Fishman.

This situation presents a direct conflict of interest. A court administrator who was once sued for ADA violations and subject to a federal order is now positioned in the very office seeking Mr. Fishman’s incarceration. Ethically and legally, the District Attorney’s Office should recuse itself from the case.

Withheld Evidence and Due Process Concerns
The arresting officer in Mr. Fishman’s case, Lane Schlesinger, was later terminated and formally found by Attorney General Letitia James to have engaged in a “pattern of misconduct involving abuse of authority.”

That finding was withheld from Mr. Fishman’s defense and jury—constituting a violation of Brady v. Maryland and depriving him of the right to a fair trial.

Over seven years, Mr. Fishman has faced financial loss, prolonged separation from his children, and worsening medical conditions, all while fighting for recognition of his federally protected rights.

What We Are Demanding
We, the undersigned, call upon state and federal officials to act immediately to protect the integrity of the justice system and uphold the rule of law.

1. Grant an immediate stay of Mr. Fishman’s 45-day jail sentence pending review by the New York Court of Appeals.
2. Initiate an independent investigation by the New York Attorney General’s Office or the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division into:
   
   1. Violations of the ADA by the Westchester courts and District Attorney’s Office;
   2. The conflict of interest involving Nancy Barry and DA Susan Cacace;
   3. The withholding of misconduct evidence relating to Officer Schlesinger.
3.  Establish statewide ADA compliance oversight within the New York Unified Court System to ensure all disabled litigants receive the accommodations guaranteed by law.
4. Conduct a review of all convictions associated with Officer Schlesinger under Executive Law §75(5)(b).

Why This Case Matters
Fishman’s case represents more than one individual’s struggle—it exposes a deeper problem within New York’s courts. When a federal disability order can be ignored, and those who violated it rise to positions of authority, public trust in the justice system erodes.

If this can happen to a documented ADA plaintiff, it can happen to any disabled parent, worker, or community member in New York. Justice must mean due process, accessibility, and accountability—not punishment for asserting your rights.

About the Petition

A Landmark Test of Disability Rights and Judicial Integrity
This petition is organized by advocates for equal access to justice in New York in support of Marc Fishman, a disabled father and long-time advocate for disability rights. His case stands as a defining test of whether New York’s courts will uphold federal protections for disabled individuals and maintain the integrity of their judicial processes.

A Federal Court Order Ignored by Westchester County
In 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Case No. 20-1300, ruled that Mr. Fishman was entitled to real-time transcription and other communication accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Despite that order, Westchester County officials have refused to comply, continuing to deny him the basic access to justice guaranteed by federal law.

A Conflict of Interest at the Highest Levels
At the time of the federal ruling, Nancy Barry, then District Executive for New York’s Ninth Judicial District, denied Marc Fishman’s accommodation requests and later issued an unqualified letter asserting that his hearing disability “did not impede his ability to hear.” She has no medical training and was not qualified to make such determinations. Ms. Barry now serves as Chief of Staff to Westchester District Attorney Susan Cacace, making her one of the highest-ranking officials in the very office prosecuting Marc Fishman. This overlap presents a profound conflict of interest and raises serious ethical concerns regarding the impartiality of Westchester’s legal proceedings.

A Call for Oversight, Accountability, and Reform
This petition calls upon state and federal authorities to intervene. It seeks an immediate stay of Mr. Fishman’s sentence, a full investigation into ADA violations and conflicts of interest within the Westchester County Courts and the County's District Attorney Office, and the establishment of statewide ADA compliance oversight. The case underscores the urgent need for transparency and reform in how New York’s judicial system serves individuals with disabilities.

Why This Case Matters For All of Us
Fishman’s situation is not isolated—it reflects a broader pattern of inaccessibility and systemic disregard for disability rights. Ensuring justice for Marc Fishman means ensuring that every disabled litigant in New York is treated with fairness, dignity, and respect under the law. This case has the potential to reaffirm the fundamental principles of due process and equal protection that define our justice system.