In the Matter of Josephine D. Tyler, 75 N.Y.2d 525 (1990)

A judge’s actions demonstrating partiality, abuse of power, and failure to uphold the integrity of the judiciary warrant severe sanctions, including removal from office.

Summary

This case involves a review of a determination by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to remove Justice Josephine Tyler from her position as a Town Court Justice. The Commission found her guilty of multiple acts of misconduct, including presiding over a case involving her husband, improperly ordering child support, using court stationery for personal matters, and striking a defendant. The New York Court of Appeals upheld most of the Commission’s findings and agreed that removal was the appropriate sanction, emphasizing the importance of impartiality and fairness in the judicial system.

Facts

Josephine Tyler, a Justice of the Caneadea Town Court, engaged in the following actions:

1. Issued an arrest warrant for a defendant who gave her husband a dishonored check and then presided over the arraignment, setting bail at $5,000 and failing to appoint counsel, despite being advised to disqualify herself.
2. Improperly ordered a defendant charged with harassment to pay child support.
3. Sent a letter on court stationery to a contractor regarding a dispute over the installation of a septic tank at her father’s property.
4. Requested a young man she had sentenced to return to court and struck him with a telephone directory after accusing him of vandalism.
5. Sent a personal letter in a Town Court envelope to tenants of an apartment building owned by her father regarding water usage and also sent a letter to an attorney concerning the water quality.

Procedural History

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct investigated Justice Tyler and sustained five of seven charges of misconduct. The Commission determined that removal from office was the appropriate sanction. Justice Tyler then sought review of the Commission’s determination in the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the evidence substantiates the Commission’s findings of judicial misconduct.
2. Whether the sanction of removal from office is an appropriate punishment for the sustained charges of misconduct.

Holding

1. Yes, because the evidence supports the Commission’s findings regarding charges I, V, VI, and supplemental charge I. Charge III was not supported by sufficient evidence.
2. Yes, because Justice Tyler’s actions demonstrated a lack of fairness, impartiality, and self-restraint, posing a threat to the proper administration of justice.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record, giving due deference to the Commission’s determination. It found sufficient evidence to support most of the charges. The Court emphasized that Justice Tyler’s actions, particularly her handling of the dishonored check case involving her husband, displayed a clear lack of impartiality. The court cited Matter of VonderHeide, 72 NY2d 658, 661, noting that the judge’s continuance in office would pose a threat to the proper administration of justice.

Regarding the child support order (charge III), the Court agreed with Justice Tyler that it was an error of law rather than intentional misconduct. However, the Court found that the other actions sufficiently demonstrated a pattern of abuse of power and disregard for judicial ethics. The Court highlighted her failure to heed the advice of the District Attorney and a County Court Judge to disqualify herself. The Court concluded that “her conduct displayed a lack of the basic qualities of fairness, impartiality and self-restraint which are essential for judicial office.” This behavior violated multiple sections of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Therefore, the Court accepted the Commission’s determined sanction of removal from office, without costs.