Matter of Reedy, 64 N.Y.2d 309 (1985)
Ticket-fixing by a judge, especially when compounded by prior disciplinary actions, constitutes serious judicial misconduct warranting removal from office.
Summary
This case involves a Town and Village Justice, James H. Reedy, who engaged in misconduct by improperly handling traffic tickets issued to his son and his son’s friend. Reedy transferred the cases to another judge but then contacted that judge, misrepresented an agreement from the District Attorney’s office, and influenced the reduction of charges. The Court of Appeals upheld the Commission on Judicial Conduct’s determination to remove Reedy from office, emphasizing that ticket-fixing is a grave offense, particularly in light of Reedy’s prior censure for similar misconduct. The court found that Reedy’s actions compromised the integrity of the judicial system and justified the severe sanction of removal.
Facts
James H. Reedy was a Town Justice of the Town of Galway and a Village Justice of the Village of Galway.
On April 2, 1982, Reedy’s son and a friend received speeding tickets in the village.
The tickets were returnable before Reedy, and he transferred the cases to Justice Norman Neahr in the adjoining Town of Providence.
Reedy contacted Judge Neahr and informed him that the defendants were his son and his son’s friend, asking him to accept the transfer.
Reedy later called Judge Neahr again, falsely stated that an Assistant District Attorney had agreed to reduce the speeding charges to illegal parking if Judge Neahr agreed, and inquired about the sentence.
Judge Neahr agreed to the reduction, setting the fine at $25 per defendant.
At Reedy’s request, Judge Neahr picked up the case papers at Reedy’s home and found the tickets and simplified informations, along with $50 in cash.
The tickets had been signed by the defendants, and the speeding charge on the informations had been altered to a parking violation, without the State trooper’s consent.
Neither defendant appeared before Judge Neahr, nor did an attorney on their behalf.
Procedural History
The Commission on Judicial Conduct investigated Reedy’s actions.
The Commission found Reedy guilty of misconduct.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the Commission’s determination under Article VI, § 22 of the NY Constitution and § 44 of the Judiciary Law.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s finding of misconduct and accepted the determined sanction of removal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether falsely informing a judge about an agreement with the District Attorney’s office to reduce charges and influencing the reduction of those charges constitutes judicial misconduct.
2. Whether the sanction of removal from office is excessive for a judge who engaged in ticket-fixing, especially considering a prior censure for similar misconduct.
Holding
1. Yes, because a judge’s intercession in a case involving family members and misrepresentation of agreements constitutes misconduct. The court stated that “petitioner’s intercession would constitute misconduct even if the statement were true.”
2. No, because ticket-fixing is a grave offense warranting removal, particularly when compounded by prior disciplinary actions. The court stated that “Ticket-fixing is misconduct of such gravity as to warrant removal, even if this matter were petitioner’s only transgression.”
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals determined that Reedy’s actions constituted serious judicial misconduct. Even if Reedy had not falsely informed Judge Neahr about the Assistant District Attorney’s agreement, his attempt to influence the outcome of the cases involving his son and his son’s friend was itself misconduct.
The court emphasized that the circumstantial evidence strongly suggested that Reedy altered the informations and sent the $50 to Judge Neahr, which further supported the finding of misconduct. The court relied on the fact that Reedy did not present any evidence refuting the charges against him.
The court found that the sanction of removal was appropriate, citing that ticket-fixing is a serious offense that undermines the integrity of the judicial system. Given Reedy’s prior censure in 1979 for similar misconduct involving attempts to influence other judges, the court concluded that removal was justified.
The court reasoned that a judge must maintain impartiality and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Reedy’s actions in this case violated this principle and warranted the severe sanction imposed.