In the Matter of Robert M. Corning, Sr., 96 N.Y.2d 451 (2001)

A judge may be removed from office for misconduct that demonstrates a pattern of serious disregard for the standards of judicial conduct, abuse of power, lack of judicial temperament, and mishandling of public funds.

Summary

Robert M. Corning, Sr., a Town Justice, was removed from office following a determination by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct sustaining five charges of misconduct. The charges included mishandling court funds, engaging in unprofessional conduct toward an attorney representing an opposing party, retaliating against an attorney for a past complaint, and improperly suspending a defendant’s driver’s license due to animosity toward the defendant’s attorney. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the Commission’s determination, finding a pattern of serious disregard for judicial conduct standards.

Facts

Robert Corning, as Town Justice, failed to deposit court funds within 72 hours and remit them to the State Comptroller as required. His court account was deficient by $2,886.64, and he failed to report any funds to the State Comptroller, leading to a suspension of his salary. He also engaged in a dispute with an attorney representing a funeral home in a case against him, making threatening and derogatory remarks. He retaliated against another attorney who had previously filed a complaint against him. Finally, he suspended a traffic defendant’s driver’s license out of animosity for the defendant’s attorney, even after initially agreeing to recuse himself from the case.

Procedural History

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct investigated Corning based on complaints received. The Commission sustained five charges of misconduct. Corning sought review by the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Commission’s determination and the record of the proceedings.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the evidence supported the Commission’s findings that Corning violated regulations governing the handling of court funds.
2. Whether Corning’s conduct toward attorneys and litigants constituted judicial misconduct.
3. Whether the appropriate sanction for Corning’s misconduct was removal from office.

Holding

1. Yes, because Corning admitted to deficiencies in his court account and failure to remit funds, providing no valid excuse.
2. Yes, because Corning abused the power of his office and demonstrated a lack of judicial temperament in his interactions with attorneys and litigants.
3. Yes, because Corning’s actions demonstrated a pattern of serious disregard for the standards of judicial conduct, warranting removal from office.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that judges must observe high standards of conduct to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary, citing 22 NYCRR 100.1. The court found that Corning’s actions, both on and off the bench, demonstrated a pattern of serious disregard for these standards. The court highlighted that Corning repeatedly abused the power of his office, demonstrated a lack of judicial temperament, and mishandled public funds. The court stated that these standards “exist to maintain respect toward everyone who appears in a court and to encourage respect for the operation of the judicial process at all levels of the system” (Matter of Roberts, 91 NY2d 93, 97). The Court deferred to the Commission’s determination that removal was the appropriate sanction, finding it justified based on the severity and pattern of Corning’s misconduct.