Opinion warns of pro-crime judges if Mamdani wins, urging scrutiny of mayoral influence on judiciary

A New York Post opinion column published Sept. 22, 2025 argues that a victory by Mayor Zohran Mamdani could usher in a generation of judges who favor leniency over accountability, potentially altering New York City’s approach to crime. The piece contends that the mayor’s influence over the judiciary would shape who sits on the bench for years, limiting prosecutors’ leverage and public safety options. Central to the argument is the case of Cornell Neilly, the so‑called “Burberry Bandit,” a serial bank robber whose distinctive attire has become a symbol of alleged lax enforcement. The column notes Neilly had 34 prior arrests and was released on supervised release after a 2021 bank robbery, only to be arrested again for a new string of robberies in August and September. It frames his release as emblematic of a therapeutic approach to crime that the op-ed says Mamdani could expand if he tilts the judiciary toward leniency.

The column links the Neilly case to broader concerns about the future composition of New York’s courts under Mamdani, arguing that the decisions of judges appointed by the mayor would carry long shadow over public safety. It highlights Manhattan Judge Jeffrey Gershuny as a figure representative of the type of rulings the author fears could proliferate under Mamdani’s administration. The op-ed notes that Gershuny was involved in a controversial moment in which he reportedly carried a personal firearm into a courtroom, an incident that prosecutors and observers have cited when questioning courtroom safety and judicial independence. The column states Gershuny’s actions contributed to questions about his suitability for handling felony cases, and it notes he was reportedly barred from overseeing such cases after the firearm incident.

The author emphasizes that the judge who presides over a case is less constrained by formal confirmation processes than elected officials overseeing other parts of government. In New York City, billable selection of criminal court judges is filtered through the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary, a panel the column says is largely composed of individuals chosen or screened by the mayor. The piece argues that this structure allows a mayor to shape the bench without a robust confirmation hurdle, potentially locking in a moderation-or-leniency philosophy for years. The implication drawn is that if Mamdani wins in November, the committee would be inclined to select judges who share or tolerate a softer-on-crime stance, thus extending influence beyond a single term.

The column further contends that the practical effect of such control would be a judiciary more inclined to give second chances and lighter treatment to repeat offenders. It references Neilly as a case study illustrating the potential consequences of lenient judicial decisions, arguing that a sustained pattern of release and leniency could heighten risks to residents and businesses. The piece warns readers to consider how a mayor’s judicial picks could shape policy and public safety long after the next election, framing Mamdani’s victory as a turning point in the city’s approach to crime and punishment.

In closing, the author asserts that the combination of a mayorally controlled advisory panel and the absence of a formal confirmation process makes it likely that, under Mamdani, a steady stream of judges with leniency-oriented philosophies could take the bench. While the op-ed does not provide a counterpoint, it positions the issue as a defining choice for voters concerned about crime and accountability in New York’s justice system. The piece ends with a warning that the effects of such judicial appointments would extend well beyond a single term, potentially reshaping how the city responds to crime for years to come.