In re Roberts, 91 N.Y.2d 94 (1997)
A judge’s actions demonstrating a demonstrable lack of fitness for judicial office, including abusing judicial authority, displaying gross insensitivity in domestic abuse matters, and failing to disclose potential conflicts of interest, warrant removal from judicial office.
Summary
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct determined that Justice Donald R. Roberts should be removed from his position as Justice of the Malone Village Court. The charges stemmed from various instances of misconduct in 1994. The Court of Appeals upheld the Commission’s determination, finding that the sustained charges, in the aggregate, demonstrated a lack of fitness for judicial office, justifying removal and a ban from future judicial service. The Court emphasized the egregious nature of the Justice’s actions, including abuse of authority and insensitivity in domestic abuse cases.
Facts
Justice Roberts directed the arrest and sentencing of an individual to 89 days in jail for failing to pay the full amount of a court-ordered surcharge related to a theft of services charge (a $1.50 cab fare), without affording the individual basic constitutional and procedural safeguards. The individual had already paid the restitution for the original charge, but was unable to pay the full $90 surcharge immediately. Justice Roberts made callous comments regarding domestic abuse, suggesting that orders of protection are worthless and failing to issue an appropriate protective order in a relevant case. He also failed to inform a litigant of a potential basis for recusal, creating an appearance of impropriety.
Procedural History
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct investigated Justice Roberts and preferred five specifications of judicial misconduct. The Hearing Officer and the Commission sustained four of the charges. Justice Roberts sought review of the Commission’s determination in the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals conducted a plenary review of the record and upheld the Commission’s decision to remove Justice Roberts from office.
Issue(s)
1. Whether Justice Roberts’ actions, including the unlawful jailing of a defendant for failure to pay a surcharge, his callous comments and actions regarding domestic abuse matters, and his failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest, constitute judicial misconduct.
2. Whether the sustained charges of judicial misconduct warrant the sanction of removal from judicial office.
Holding
1. Yes, because Justice Roberts’ actions demonstrated a gross abuse of judicial authority, insensitivity to domestic abuse issues, and a disregard for proper judicial conduct, all of which constitute judicial misconduct.
2. Yes, because the aggregate of the sustained charges reveals a demonstrable lack of fitness for judicial office, justifying the ultimate discipline of removal.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that Justice Roberts committed a “most serious abuse of judicial authority” by ordering the arrest and sentencing of an individual without due process for failing to pay a surcharge. The Court noted that the Justice treated the matter as a personal affront and disregarded the judicial function. The Court also found that Justice Roberts demonstrated gross insensitivity in domestic abuse matters, citing his callous comments and failure to issue a protective order. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial demeanor and temperament, noting Justice Roberts’ failure to inform a litigant of a potential basis for recusal, which created an impermissible appearance of impropriety. The Court stated, “Together with charges one and four, these additional charges paint a picture of an individual who is unable to appreciate the unique judicial role, does not measure or control his conduct, and dispositionally or predispositionally disregards protocols and procedures.” The Court concluded that Justice Roberts’ actions demonstrated an inability to appreciate the judicial role and a disregard for proper procedures, warranting removal from office.