In the Matter of Cerbone, 61 N.Y.2d 93 (1984)
A judge’s conduct, even outside of the courtroom, must be temperate and respectful to foster public confidence in the judiciary; intemperate, abusive, or racially charged behavior demonstrates unfitness to serve as a judge.
Summary
This case concerns a Town Court Justice, Cerbone, who was removed from office due to misconduct. The incident occurred at a bar where Cerbone, during a heated argument with patrons, used abusive language, racial slurs, and made threats while proclaiming his judicial status. Cerbone attempted to justify his behavior by claiming he witnessed a drug transaction and felt he needed to stand his ground to avoid appearing intimidated. The Court of Appeals found these justifications unpersuasive and upheld the removal, emphasizing that respect for the judiciary is fostered by temperate conduct, not by aggressive reactions. The court determined the charges were supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Facts
On October 25, 1981, Cerbone, a Town Court Justice, entered a tavern in Mount Kisco to meet a client. He became involved in a confrontation with several black patrons. During the argument, Cerbone used abusive and profane language, announced he was a judge, and threatened the patrons with how he would treat them in court. Witnesses testified that Cerbone used racial epithets. Cerbone either struck or pushed one of the customers. The police intervened twice, and Cerbone eventually left with his brother. Cerbone was not intoxicated.
Procedural History
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Cerbone. A referee initially heard the matter and determined the charges were supported by clear and convincing evidence. The determination was reviewed, and the sanction of removal from office was accepted by the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether Cerbone’s conduct in the bar, including the use of abusive language, racial slurs, and threats while identifying himself as a judge, constituted judicial misconduct warranting removal from office.
2. Whether the standard of proof in judicial disciplinary proceedings should be preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.
Holding
1. Yes, because a judge’s behavior, even outside the courtroom, should promote public confidence in the judiciary, and Cerbone’s actions demonstrated unfitness for judicial office.
2. It is unnecessary to determine whether a higher standard should be applied because the charges are supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found Cerbone’s justifications for his behavior unpersuasive. His claim of witnessing a drug transaction did not excuse his abusive language and racial slurs; he could have addressed the situation without resorting to such conduct. The court rejected his argument that he needed to stand his ground to avoid appearing intimidated, stating that the judiciary has progressed beyond needing to prove its fortitude through physical or verbal confrontations. The court emphasized that respect for the judiciary is better fostered by temperate conduct. The court stated, “respect for the judiciary is better fostered by temperate conduct, not by hot-headed reactions to goading remarks in a bar.” The court concluded that Cerbone’s actions demonstrated that he was unfit to serve the public trust as a judge. Even applying a clear and convincing evidence standard, the court found that the charges were sufficiently supported.