Eric Adams faces increasing opposition to his legal pick within City Council

NEW YORK — Eric Adams has a City Council problem.

The New York City mayor is facing yet another showdown with the legislative body, this time over his presumed pick to become his administration’s lead attorney. Just this weekend, council Speaker Adrienne Adams told the mayor of her displeasure over his intended hire in a phone call, someone with knowledge of the conversation and granted anonymity to speak freely told POLITICO.

A council spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment, and a mayoral representative said, “We don’t comment on private conversations.”

The 51 council members are mostly Democrats, like the mayor. They’re run by one of his high school classmates, who endorsed him in the multi-candidate, bare-knuckle 2021 primary. By order of the city charter, they hold far less power than the city’s top executive. And yet Adams — a talented public communicator who rose through similarly local legislative positions — has faced one problem after another within the council.

The latest trouble over his expected appointment of controversial lawyer Randy Mastro — a big-personality New York attorney who worked in Rudy Giuliani’s City Hall — escalated on Tuesday with another public statement of admonition from members of the council’s Black, Latino and Asian Caucus.

“The considered nomination of Randy Mastro as Corporation Counsel is an affront to the principles of public service we all hold dear,” the caucus wrote. “Given his professional track record representing dubious clients, which has included bringing numerous lawsuits against the City of New York, Mastro is unfit to serve as the city’s chief lawyer.”

Two people familiar with the internal deliberations said about half of that caucus supported the release of the statement.

The letter did more than add names to the list of opponents to the position over which the council has confirmation power. It undermined Team Adams’ go-to argument that opposition to his agenda stems from far-left progressives.

Some of the Black, Latino and Asian Caucus members belong to the council’s Progressive Caucus, whose participants have voiced opposition to the potential appointment of Mastro — a lawyer some Council members have had run-ins with over the years. In addition to working for Giuliani, Mastro worked for Republican former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on the “Bridgegate” scandal, oil giant Chevron and an Upper West Side group that tried to get homeless New Yorkers out of the Lucerne Hotel amid the Covid pandemic.

Several council members who do not align with the Progressive Caucus told POLITICO on the condition of anonymity that they are concerned with the possible appointment — which comes as federal investigators probe allegations of corruption related to Adams’ 2021 campaign. (The mayor has denied wrongdoing and has not been named in any investigation, but three close associates’ homes have been raided.)

Despite the opposition, Adams is doubling down on the appointment.

“We are going to follow the process. As we always said, we must have stated this a million times, that until a confirmation, or until an appointment is made, we won’t go into it,” he said during a press conference Tuesday. “To go after an attorney based on the cases they represent is a slippery slope. We cannot say everyone has a right to due process, and that it is important that they have their day to be represented — it is a slippery slope to go after attorneys for representing their clients. So we’re going to let the process move forward.”

The Council has relatively new statutory authority to approve a mayor's appointment to lead the Law Department, an agency of more than 1,600 lawyers and support staff who represent City Hall and its dozens of agencies in litigation. The prestigious position is held by Sylvia Hinds-Radix, who is leaving amid reports of internal dissent.

The mayor's staff told the Council speaker's team about plans to appoint Mastro days before The New York Times broke the story. During the conversation, the Council representative made clear the lawmakers would have concerns, according to someone familiar with the talk who was granted anonymity to speak freely about a private conversation.