Atesa signed up Cedeño to be attorney for her in a divorce court proceeding against Anthony at a time when Atesa was undoubtedly insecure, both emotionally and fiscally. She dealt with, inter alia, a pending divorce court proceeding, potential loss of child custody, a criminal matter stemming from a recent arrest for assault in regarding to the divorce court proceeding, and a then-ongoing ACS investigating procedure that endangered her relationship with her child.
Cedeño, a accredited fiduciary with respect to many of these types of issues, emphasized his capacity to attain positive results for Atesa. Cedeño leveraged particularly sensitive very personal details learned in the frame of reference of the attorney-client relationship, not to accelerate Atesa’s legitimate concerns but in an eventually fruitful attempt to establish a sexual partnership with Atesa.
To even further this aspiration Cedeño obstructed the cases, lying to the court and to the parties at the same time. He used the delays he wrongfully created to get closer personally to Atesa. And Cedeño’s efforts to further a sexual relationship with Atesa only intensified after Cedeño discovered that the Litigants were actually trying to reconcile.
Cedeño never developed, and given his role and the inherent power imbalance in the relationship could never develop, a consensual sexual relationship with Atesa. And surprisingly , instead Cedeño sexually assaulted Atesa.
The sexual aggression, the willful hold-ups which came before it, and the scrupulous hindrance with Anthony’s and Atesa’s attempts to resolve have caused the Litigants to suffer great emotional and monetary damages. Without a doubt, Cedeño’s continual toying with his client, and his pursuit to form a sexual relationship with her, prove that he put his individual private interests ahead of those of his vulnerable client, a falling-out of his fiduciary obligations .
In accordance with it, Cedeño and his law office should really be held accountable for sex-related assault/battery, dereliction of fiduciary duty, nonobservances of Judiciary Law 487, intentional infliction of psychological torment, and loss of consortium, and be required to pay for proportionate absolute and amercements.