Matter of Jung v. State Commn. on Jud. Conduct, 11 N.Y.3d 365 (2008)
A judge’s persistent denial of due process rights, including the right to be heard and the right to counsel, to litigants in Family Court, coupled with a failure to recognize the impropriety of such actions, warrants removal from judicial office.
Summary
Judge Jung was removed from his position as a Family Court Judge due to a pattern of violating litigants’ due process rights. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct sustained five charges against him, finding that he denied litigants their right to be heard and right to counsel in multiple cases. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the Commission’s decision, emphasizing that the judge’s systematic errors and unwillingness to acknowledge their impropriety posed a threat to the proper administration of justice, particularly in the sensitive context of Family Court proceedings. The court found Jung’s policies resulted in repeated deprivations of fundamental rights.
Facts
Judge Jung, a Family Court Judge in Fulton County, presided over several cases in 2005 that led to misconduct charges. In DeMagistris, he sentenced a defendant to jail in absentia while the defendant was in a holding cell at the courthouse. In Constantino and DaCorsi, he sentenced incarcerated individuals to jail in absentia, based on a policy requiring incarcerated litigants to request to be produced in court. In Smith, he denied a litigant’s request for assigned counsel as untimely. In Foote, he denied a litigant, who he knew had reading difficulties, the right to counsel and sentenced her to jail.
Procedural History
The State Commission on Judicial Conduct filed a formal complaint against Judge Jung. A Referee sustained all five charges after a hearing. The Commission unanimously sustained the charges and recommended removal. Judge Jung then sought review of the Commission’s determination in the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
- Whether Judge Jung’s actions violated litigants’ due process rights, specifically the right to be heard and the right to counsel, thereby constituting judicial misconduct.
- Whether the sanction of removal from judicial office was appropriate given the sustained charges of judicial misconduct.
Holding
- Yes, because Judge Jung’s persistent denial of fundamental due process rights, stemming from established policies, constituted judicial misconduct.
- Yes, because Judge Jung’s pattern of injudicious behavior and unwillingness to acknowledge the impropriety of his actions demonstrated a threat to the proper administration of justice.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the fundamental nature of the right to be heard and the right to counsel, especially in family offense proceedings. It stated that parents have a fundamental interest in the liberty, care, and control of their children. The court found that Judge Jung’s policies, such as requiring incarcerated litigants to request to be produced and imposing a strict two-week deadline for requesting counsel, created unfair burdens and resulted in gross deprivations of these rights. The court noted that these policies demonstrated a “pattern of injudicious behavior” that could not be sustained. Furthermore, the court found significant Judge Jung’s response to Appellate Division decisions reversing his rulings on habeas corpus petitions, noting that he modified his policies but continued to place the burden on incarcerated litigants and considered discontinuing confirmation hearings where litigants could invoke their right to counsel. The court quoted Matter of Reeves, stating that the errors were fundamental, the pattern of repeating them, coupled with an unwillingness to recognize their impropriety, indicate that the judge poses a threat to the proper administration of justice. The Court concluded that Judge Jung’s adherence to policies that seriously compromised due process rights justified removal, even acknowledging that removal is an “extreme sanction” reserved for truly egregious circumstances.