Matter of Hart, 7 N.Y.3d 1 (2006)
A judge’s use of summary contempt power is limited to situations where conduct disrupts proceedings or undermines the court’s dignity, and it cannot be used retributively when an attorney makes a record of events.
Summary
This case concerns a New York State Supreme Court Justice, Duane Hart, who was censured for wrongly holding a litigant in contempt. The litigant, Módica, approached Judge Hart in a parking lot to request an adjournment, leading the judge to consider holding him in contempt. The situation escalated when Módica’s attorney sought to make a record of the incident, prompting Judge Hart to summarily hold Módica in contempt. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the censure, finding that Judge Hart misused his summary contempt power and failed to adhere to proper judicial conduct. The court emphasized the narrow scope of summary contempt and the importance of judicial restraint.
Facts
Judge Hart was presiding over a case, Modica v. Modica. After a court session, litigant John Módica approached Judge Hart in the courthouse parking lot to request an adjournment. The judge had Módica escorted away by a court officer. The next day in court, after initially considering and rejecting holding Módica in contempt, Judge Hart held Módica in contempt when Módica’s attorney insisted on making a record of the parking lot encounter. Judge Hart sentenced Módica to 30 days, suspended pending the trial’s outcome. The judge vacated the contempt finding and dismissed the lawsuit at the end of that day’s proceedings.
Procedural History
The Commission on Judicial Conduct filed a formal written complaint. A Referee designated by the Commission held a hearing and concluded that the charge was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. The Commission heard oral argument and determined that Judge Hart violated several sections of the Rules of Judicial Conduct and Judiciary Law. The Commission imposed a sanction of censure, overriding the Administrator’s recommendation of admonition. Judge Hart then brought this proceeding to review the Commission’s determination.
Issue(s)
Whether Judge Hart acted in excess of his authority by holding Módica in summary contempt for his attorney’s attempt to place the parking lot incident on the record.
Holding
Yes, because summary contempt is permissible only where conduct disrupts proceedings or undermines the court’s dignity, and it cannot be used retributively against a litigant when his attorney makes a record.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals concurred with the Commission’s conclusion that Judge Hart acted in excess of his authority under Judiciary Law § 755, which governs summary contempt power. The court cited Matter of Katz v. Murtagh, explaining that the summary procedure is so expeditious that it precludes evidentiary hearings, counsel, and other procedural safeguards to maintain order. The court found Judge Hart’s actions were seriously flawed and constituted a misuse of judicial power. The court stated summary contempt should be employed where a court reasonably believes that prompt adjudication may aid in restoring order and decorum in the courtroom but may not be employed retributively against a litigant because his attorney makes a record. The court also emphasized that, per section 701.2(a) of the Rules of the Appellate Division, Second Department, the court’s summary power is limited to situations where conduct disrupts proceedings or undermines the dignity of the court. The court found that Módica’s actions had no effect on proceedings and did not undermine the dignity of the court to the extent that court business foundered. Furthermore, the court noted Judge Hart’s failure to recognize the inappropriateness of his actions as an aggravating factor, quoting Matter of Aldrich, “A judge’s ‘fail[ure] to recognize the inappropriateness of his actions or attitudes’ is a significant aggravating factor on the issue of sanctions.”