Tax Watch: Judge Judy's son to get his day in court against Sheriff Smith Tax Watch columnist David McKay Wilson previews next week's defamation trial in Putnam County.

The Journal News

Show Caption Hide Caption VIDEO: Judge Judy's son gets his day in court Former Putnam County DA Adam Levy will get his day in court next week when his defamation case against Sheriff Don Smith goes to trial.

Judge Judy’s son is finally getting his day in court.

Former Putnam County District Attorney Adam Levy will face off in state Supreme Court next week against Putnam County Sheriff Don Smith.

FEDERAL CASE: $45 million case against Putnam County proceeds

FEDERAL DECISION: US District Court Judge Cathy Seibel's May 22 decision

LEVY TESTIFIES: About relationship with ex-trainer

It promises to a battle royale between the Republican crime-fighters.

In a jury trial before state Supreme Court Justice Robert DiBella, Levy’s defamation lawsuit against the four-term sheriff will finally unfold. Levy alleges that Smith’s actions maliciously maligned him in the child-rape case he brought against Levy’s former personal trainer, Alexandru Hossu, an undocumented Romanian immigrant who was acquitted at trial.

Levy, the son of the television star, “Judge Judy” Scheindlin, was ousted in a bruising 2015 re-election campaign, in which the Hossu case was fodder for DA Robert Tendy’s successful campaign.

Here’s five things to know about the trial between two Putnam County titans, which starts Friday, with jury selection at state Supreme Court in Carmel.

1. Don’t expect a last-minute settlement

The all-Republican County Legislature is in no mood to settle the case – to limit the potential damages, and spare Smith from having his office’s dirty linen combed through in open court. Attempts to settle the case fell apart last month after Smith rejected the legislature’s settlement demand.

2. There’s no more counter-suit by Smith against Levy

After Levy filed his $5 million defamation suit in 2013, Smith responded with a counter-suit in a tit-for-tat legal maneuver that tempered Levy’s critique of what the sheriff had done to him.

Over the course of litigation, Smith’s case against Levy devolved to one statement made by Levy – that Smith was a “bold-faced liar.”

On Tuesday, Smith’s attorney, Joseph Tacopina, announced that the sheriff had withdrawn his suit. The announcement followed subpoenas to several Sheriff’s Department employees and Putnam County Executive MaryEllen Odell, who would be questioned on the stand regarding Smith’s veracity.

“At this point, the sheriff believes the people of Putnam county are better served having him spend his time caring out his duties in the sheriff’s office, rather than spend additional time in the court room,” said Tacopina.

3. It’s all about the press release

Levy’s defamation case against Smith focuses on the news release issued in March, 2013 following Hossu’s arrest. The press release stated that Hossu resided with Levy, who had interfered in the investigation. It also said that Levy had not been the person who initiated the process of recusing his office from prosecuting Hossu.

The statement that Hossu lived with the district attorney was the most incendiary claim in Smith’s news release. It certainly put Levy in a bad light – the sitting district attorney harboring an undocumented immigrant accused of raping a 13-year-old girl in 2010.

Hossu didn’t live in Levy’s home on Indian Wells Road in Southeast at the time of his arrest. In fact, the sheriff’s Department arrested Hossu at Clocktower Commons in Southeast, a commercial building where he had set up residence. That’s where the sheriff’s department had earlier responded to a dispute involving Hossu.

While Hossu listed Levy’s address on his driver’s license, and Hossu stayed overnight there as a guest while he was dating Levy’s nanny, there’s no evidence in court papers that show Hossu was living there in March, 2013.

4. Smith’s defense in the defamation case

Smith has contended that the press release should be considered “opinion,” and that what he wrote about Hossu’s living situation was “substantially true” because he had slept at Levy’s residence and used it on his driver’s license and to receive mail.

Smith, meanwhile, was incensed that Levy issued a press release on District Attorney’s letterhead after his recusal from the case, noting that Hossu was arrested at Clocktower Commons, where he was living at the time. Smith says that’s proof that Levy had interfered.

5. Levy v. Smith isn’t the last you’ll hear of Alexandru Hossu

Levy’s former personal trainer was incarcerated for more than a year, pending his trial on the rape charges.

Hossu’s $45 million federal lawsuit against Putnam County, Smith, lead investigator Steven Tricinelli, and senior investigator Patrick Castaldo cleared a significant hurdle in US District Court in late May, when US District Court Judge Cathy Seibel ruled that the case can move forward.

Attorney Michael Sussman, who represents Levy, is also Hossu’s attorney. Depositions that Sussman took in the defamation case have served as the foundation for his federal civil rights case.

Seibel’s May 22 ruling delves into the investigation of the alleged rape, and details how Castaldo and Tricinelli were aware that there were major concerns with the credibility of the teenager who made the complaint.

She found that Sussman had plausibly alleged that the county lacked “probable cause” in arresting Hossu and had engaged in malicious prosecution. Now Sussman has to prove it.

Putnam taxpayers could be walloped if Hossu prevails. The county’s insurance policy tops out at $6 million.

David McKay Wilson is the Tax Watch columnist at The Journal News/lohud.com.