SKELOSES HIT AS SLIMY ‘PARTNERS’ AT RETRIAL

Like crooked father, like crooked son, prosecutors said Wednesday in the retrial of former state Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos and his ne’er-do-well son.

Prosecutors called the once-powerful pol’s adult son his “partner in crime” on the first day of their retrial on corruption charges.

“This case is about the corruption caused by a politician and his son who thought they were entitled to more, just because they had power,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas Zolkind said in Manhattan Federal Court. “Ladies and gentlemen, what the defendants did wasn’t just wrong — it wasn’t business as usual — it was corrupt, it was criminal.”

Skelos, 70, is accused of strong-arming companies with business before the state into giving his troubled son, Adam Skelos, 35, no-show jobs.

“It was the price (the companies) had to pay to ensure that Sen. Skelos used his official power to benefit them and not to crush them.” Zolkind said.

Dean Skelos’ attorney, Robert Gage, argued that the companies claimed they were extorted to avoid being prosecuted.

“When he had a discussion about a job for Adam, it wasn’t extortion,” he said. “There was no exchange — let alone criminal exchange.”

The government’s first witness, Chris Curcio, 47, testified he was technically Adam Skelos’ supervisor at the medical malpractice firm PRI.

But on his first day of the job as a program manager, Adam Skelos made clear he didn’t answer to Curcio, the witness said.

“He came into my office and said, ‘You know who I am, right? Adam Skelos,’ ” Curcio recalled the son saying on Jan. 2, 2013. “He seemed arrogant.”

Adam Skelos was paid $78,000 per year, though he wasn’t qualified, Curcio said. On the second day of the job, he said, Adam didn’t even show up.

The government says PRI’s then-CEO, Anthony Bonomo gave Adam Skelos the job at the behest of his father, who was once the state’s most powerful Republican.

The father and son were convicted in a 2016 corruption trial. Their verdicts were thrown out due to a Supreme Court decision redefining what constitutes bribery of a public official, resulting in their retrial.