F. Stanton Ackerman

Mr. Ackerman is the senior partner at Ackerman, Wachs & DeArmas P.C. Mr. Ackerman has been practicing law for over forty-four (44) years. After graduating from law school Mr. Ackerman worked in the Albany Public Defenders office. Subsequently, he joined the Albany firm Ungerman, Harris and Greenberg. In 1972 the firm became Ungerman and Ackerman, P.C. The firm became what it is known today, Ackerman, Wachs and DeArmas P.C., following the addition of Elliot Wachs in 1985 and Justin DeArmas in 2008 becoming a partner in 2014.

Mr. Ackerman is an avid trial lawyer and has represented clients in thousands of matters. He defends people facing serious criminal charges ranging from drug possession and distribution to homicide. He also represents clients in matrimonial, personal injury and malpractice matters.

Mr. Ackerman was raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is a golf and horse racing enthusiast.


Practice Areas:
Matrimonial & Family Law
Criminal Defense  
Personal Injury
 
Education:
University of Pittsburgh
Albany Law School
 
Admitted to Practice:
New York
United States Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
U.S. Courts, Northern District of New York


Representative Cases for F. Stanton Ackerman 
(Fred Ackerman)

Matrimonial

  • Gadomski v. Gadomski, 256 A.D.2d 675 (App. Div. 1998) holding that the lower court had the power to direct the husband to complete anger management and counseling before he could renew his visitation rights.
  • Lauria v. Lauria, 187 A.D.2d 888 (App. Div. 1992) confirming a spouse’s right to seek retroactive child support and maintenance to the date of filing the summons, provided that the request was made in the Complaint.

Criminal

  • People v. Hyndman, 753 N.Y.S.2d 811 (Schty Cty 2002) (dismissing indictment where prosecution failed to provide defendant with drug test result prior to jury selection).
  • People v. Alexander, 727 N.E.2d 109 (N.Y. 1999) (holding that it was not harmless error for the prosecution to urge the jury to give added credit to a witness’ identification of defendant because witness and defendant were both African American).
  • People v. Latham, 689 N.E.2d 527 (N.Y. 1997) (recognizing that it is mandatory for a judge to tell defendant that his guilty plea can used against him in a subsequent case.)
  • People v. Doyne, 178 A.D.2d 870 (App. Div. 1991) (appeal denied from order suppressing statements made by defendant during barn burning incident.  Defendant ultimately acquitted of charges because defendant was intoxicated during incident and therefore, there was no intentional burning).

Personal Injury

  • Successful in obtaining $6.9M settlement on behalf of client.
  • Participated in obtaining $7.3M settlement in matter originating in Newton, MA.
  • Obtained $19.6M jury verdict.