Judge orders psychiatric evaluation after late, confrontational court appearance in $40 million defamation case
Court hearing involving Anne Marie Bompart over defamation suits by two New York lesbian bars prompts potential outpatient mental-health evaluation.
A New York civil court hearing on a $40 million defamation lawsuit filed by two historic lesbian bars against Anne Marie Bompart stretched long after its scheduled start on Wednesday, as Bompart arrived nearly two hours late and confronted the plaintiff in plain view of court officers and Bompart’s mother. The suits — brought by Cubbyhole manager Vic Smith, Cubbyhole owner Lisa Menchino, Henrietta Hudson employee Hutch Hutchinson and Lisa Cannistraci, owner of Henrietta Hudson — allege that Bompart sent hundreds of offensive emails and threats as part of a public campaign targeting the bars.
When Bompart finally appeared, she entered the courtroom with three court officers and her mother trailing behind. Minutes later, she grabbed Smith by the shoulder as he stood near the plaintiff’s table and, in view of a New York Post photographer, formed a heart with her hands and then flashed a pair of extended middle fingers. The disruption occurred after Bompart had spent weeks to months outside regular contact with her attorney, according to court filings, and with her lawyer seeking to be relieved from representing her in the matter. Judge James d’Auguste began the session without Bompart, saying the purpose was not to jail her but to explore why she behaves in a way he called “irrational.”
The hearing is part of ongoing civil litigation tied to Bompart’s alleged pattern of harassment and defamation against the bars. Court records show that Bompart has repeatedly violated civil orders intended to bar contact with the plaintiffs, with at least 70 documented instances. Clerks described Bompart’s email traffic as so voluminous that outgoing messages were detected as spam, complicating the court’s management of communications. In light of these concerns, d’Auguste signaled that Bompart could be referred for an outpatient 730 psychiatric evaluation, a step the judge described as a diagnostic effort to address underlying issues rather than punishment.
As Bompart requested to speak, she launched into a conspiratorial tirade accusing Shanahan, the bars’ attorney, of moral culpability and alleging collusion with the district attorney to seize her cell phone. “I have experienced lots of consequences,” Bompart said, describing her life as “destroyed” and asserting that people “love me” in the courtroom. The judge pressed back, remarking, “If you wouldn’t have sent the emails, you literally wouldn’t be here today.”
“Do not touch me,” shouted Smith, as the exchange unfolded in front of the judge, multiple court officers, supporters of the bars and Bompart’s mother. The interaction occurred against the backdrop of a broader dispute over a protective order and prior criminal complaints related to stalking and harassment Bompart faced earlier in the year. Smith has a separate criminal harassment complaint on file after receiving at least 70 emails from Bompart, some of which violated the civil order of no contact. Bompart’s attorney, Gerard Lucciola, has indicated he is seeking relief from representation, complicating the procedural posture of the defamation actions.
Bompart invoked a personal narrative during the session, arguing that Shanahan’s conduct and “evil” collaborators were responsible for her legal jeopardy. In response, Shanahan described Bompart’s behavior as a troubling pattern that undermines the proceedings and warned that the court must assess whether the conduct constitutes a systemic problem rather than a one-off incident. Bompart has not been charged or convicted of a felony, though she has faced prior arrest on stalking and harassment allegations. The judge, noting the complexity of Bompart’s situation, offered cautious optimism that the underlying issues could be addressed through mental-health evaluation rather than punitive sanctions, describing Bompart as “an intelligent person” whose actions required further review before more drastic steps could be considered.
The defamation suits against Bompart were brought by Cubbyhole and Henrietta Hudson entities, alleging that her communications harmed the bars’ reputations and business prospects. Attorneys for the bars say the cases will continue as the court weighs mental-health considerations, protective orders, and other remedies as part of the pre-trial process. Bompart’s mother, who attended the hearing, has publicly urged her daughter to cease the prohibited messages, according to screenshots provided by Bompart. The proceedings reflect a broader tension between civil-liberties concerns and public-spirited caution when online campaigns escalate into direct confrontations with plaintiffs and court staff.
As the court moves forward, observers will be watching for how the judge interprets the potential outpatient evaluation and whether any additional restrictions or sanctions are warranted to ensure orderly proceedings and protect all parties involved. The outcome could influence how similar cases are managed when a defendant’s communications and behavior raise questions about safety, rationality and the boundaries of civil discourse in high-profile defamation disputes.
