Matter of Myers, 67 N.Y.2d 11 (1986)

A pattern of judicial misconduct, including deliberate falsification of court records, failure to advise litigants of their rights, and disregard of statutory procedures, warrants removal from judicial office to safeguard the integrity of the bench.

Summary

This case involves a Judge of the Rensselaer County Family Court, who was found by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to have engaged in a course of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The charges included falsifying court reports, failing to advise litigants of their rights, disregarding statutory procedures, and engaging in improper ex parte communication. The Court of Appeals upheld the Commission’s determination that the judge’s misconduct warranted removal from office, emphasizing the need to safeguard the bench from unfit incumbents.

Facts

The Judge was elected to the Rensselaer County Family Court in 1977. In 1982, the Commission on Judicial Conduct filed a complaint alleging 20 counts of misconduct. These counts included directing a court clerk to falsify court reports to the Office of Court Administration (OCA) regarding pending cases, failing to advise litigants of their right to counsel and a hearing, failing to require sworn financial disclosure statements, entering dispositional orders without jurisdiction, initiating improper ex parte communication, refusing to allow an attorney to appear, and refusing to work due to staffing issues.

Procedural History

A referee initially found that none of the counts were sustained, attributing the judge’s actions to good faith mistakes, misapprehension of legal issues, poor judgment, or lack of experience. The Commission on Judicial Conduct moved to disaffirm the referee’s findings. The Commission found the judge guilty of 9 of the 20 counts. Subsequently, the Commission determined that the misconduct warranted removal from office, a decision which was then reviewed by the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the evidence supports the Commission’s finding that the judge deliberately falsified reports to the Office of Court Administration.
2. Whether the judge’s repeated failure to advise litigants of their constitutional and statutory rights constitutes judicial misconduct warranting disciplinary action.
3. Whether the judge’s disregard of important statutory procedures, such as failing to require sworn financial disclosure statements and entering dispositional orders without jurisdiction, constitutes judicial misconduct.
4. Whether the sanction of removal is excessive, given the judge’s alleged inexperience, court congestion, and personal conflicts with court staff.

Holding

1. Yes, because the testimony of the deputy clerk, corroborated by the chief clerk, established that the judge directed the falsification of court records to conceal the number of cases exceeding OCA deadlines.
2. Yes, because a repeated pattern of failing to advise litigants of their constitutional and statutory rights is a serious violation that undermines the fairness of the judicial process.
3. Yes, because the judge’s consistent disregard of statutory procedures, coupled with an unwillingness to recognize the impropriety, indicates a threat to the proper administration of justice.
4. No, because the judge’s actions, including the deliberate falsification of court records and the disregard of litigants’ rights, are inconsistent with the fair and proper administration of justice, rendering him unfit to remain in office.

Court’s Reasoning

The court found that the judge directed a deputy clerk to falsify reports to the OCA, which demonstrated a deliberate attempt to deceive the court administration. The court emphasized the deputy clerk’s credible testimony, which was partially corroborated by another court employee. The court stated, “Having examined the relevant testimony on this point, we conclude that the Commission’s finding of deliberate falsification was correct”.

The court noted the judge’s repeated failure to advise litigants of their rights to counsel and to remain silent, especially in cases involving child custody and paternity. The court distinguished this case from situations involving mere errors of law, stating, “A repeated pattern of failing to advise litigants of their constitutional and statutory rights, however, is serious misconduct”. The court found that these omissions caused serious damage, even if the judge was not abusive to the litigants.

The court highlighted the judge’s disregard of statutory procedures, such as failing to require sworn financial disclosure statements and entering orders without jurisdiction. These errors, the court stated, were fundamental and, when coupled with the judge’s unwillingness to acknowledge their impropriety, indicated a threat to the administration of justice. The court cited Matter of Aldrich v State Comm. on Judicial Conduct, 58 NY2d 279 and Matter of Shilling, 51 NY2d 397 in support of this conclusion.

Addressing the sanction of removal, the court stated that the purpose of judicial disciplinary proceedings is “not punishment but the imposition of sanctions where necessary to safeguard the Bench from unfit incumbents”. The court rejected the judge’s argument that his misconduct was due to inexperience, court congestion, or personal feuds. The court found that these factors did not excuse the deliberate falsification of records and the disregard for litigants’ rights. The court concluded that the judge’s conduct was inconsistent with the fair administration of justice and rendered him unfit to remain in office.