MIDDLETOWN, N.Y.—An appeals court has determined that the Orange County District Attorney’s Office and the county itself have no connections to a bribery case allegedly involving a former assistant district attorney for the county.
An appellate court of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled in favor of Orange County Executive Steve Neuhaus’s decision that the county did not need to defend the estate of Stewart Rosenwasser, according to court documents published on April 1.
Neuhaus said that Rosenwasser’s estate was not entitled to defense or indemnification on June 16, 2025, as Rosenwasser had been indicted for bribery and his alleged actions were not part of his official public duties.
The case was appealed to the Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department from the Orange County Supreme Court on Sept. 16, 2025.
A federal grand jury indicted Rosenwasser and Mout’z Soudani in September 2024 for alleged bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery. While Rosenwasser was employed as a prosecutor with the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, he allegedly accepted at least $63,000 in bribes from Mout’z Soudani to use his position to investigate and prosecute Mout’z Soudani’s estranged sister, Eman Soudani, and her son, Martin Soudani.
Mout’z Soudani sought out Rosenwasser’s help to prosecute Martin Soudani for allegedly stealing money.
Mout’z Soudani is a businessman known to have significant family ties to the country of Jordan, and historically held “significant sums of money” in cash to run his businesses, according to court documents. Contact between Mout’z Soudani and Rosenwasser has been traced back to 1990 and 1991, when Rosenwasser represented Mout’z Soudani in 10 separate real estate transactions.
Rosenwasser had served as Orange County Court judge and acting Supreme Court justice for the Ninth Judicial District, and served as prosecutor and special counsel for the Orange County District Attorney’s Office from 2019 to 2024. He died of apparent suicide in September 2024 before he could be arrested for the bribery charges.
A petitioner requested that Rosenwasser’s estate be defended by the county. Neuhaus refused at the advice of the county attorney, saying that Rosenwasser’s alleged acts were not part of his public employment or duty as a prosecutor.
The appellate court document agreed with the county’s original Supreme Court decision, saying that Neuhaus’s decision had factual basis and was not arbitrary or capricious, as Rosenwasser’s actions were not part of his normal duties but were committed in connection with an alleged bribery scheme. Rosenwasser also concealed these activities from the district attorney’s office.





















