Matter of Alessandro, 13 N.Y.3d 230 (2009)

Judges must adhere to high standards of conduct, and deception or intentional dishonesty in financial dealings, disclosure statements, or loan applications can warrant removal from office; however, less severe sanctions like admonishment are appropriate when misconduct involves carelessness or poor judgment without intent to deceive.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the determinations of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct regarding two brothers, Joseph and Francis Alessandro, both judges, for alleged judicial misconduct. Joseph was accused of attempting to defraud a lender, giving false testimony, and filing incomplete financial disclosures. Francis was accused of filing incomplete financial disclosures and submitting inaccurate loan applications. The court upheld Joseph’s removal from office, finding a pattern of deception. However, it reduced Francis’s sanction to admonishment, citing a lack of evidence of intentional deceit, attributing his errors to carelessness.

Facts

Joseph Alessandro, a Supreme Court Justice, accepted a $250,000 loan from his campaign manager, Barbara Battista, for his 2003 election campaign, promising repayment within a year. He failed to repay the loan on time and misled Battista about his efforts to secure financing. He later used an affidavit obtained from Battista under questionable circumstances against her in a foreclosure action. Joseph also failed to disclose the Battista mortgage and other liabilities in his financial disclosure statements and loan applications. Francis Alessandro, a Civil Court Judge, co-signed the initial loan documents as an accommodation to his brother. Francis also failed to disclose the Battista mortgage and other assets/liabilities on financial disclosure statements and loan applications.

Procedural History

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct investigated both Joseph and Francis Alessandro. The Commission sustained charges against both, recommending removal for each. The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the Commission’s determinations de novo. The Court of Appeals accepted the determined sanction for Joseph, removing him from office. However, the court rejected the determined sanction for Francis and instead imposed a sanction of admonition.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Joseph Alessandro’s actions, including his dealings with Battista, false testimony, and incomplete disclosures, constitute judicial misconduct warranting removal from office?

2. Whether Francis Alessandro’s incomplete financial disclosures and inaccurate loan applications constitute judicial misconduct warranting removal from office?

Holding

1. Yes, because Joseph Alessandro engaged in a pattern of deception and dishonesty, including misleading Battista, giving false testimony, and intentionally failing to disclose liabilities, which is antithetical to the role of a judge.

2. No, because while Francis Alessandro’s actions constituted misconduct, they stemmed from carelessness and poor judgment rather than an intent to deceive, making removal an overly harsh sanction.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that Joseph Alessandro’s actions demonstrated a pattern of deception, including misleading Battista about repaying the loan, using the affidavit against her, and providing inconsistent testimony. The court emphasized that judges are held to higher standards of conduct, and deception is antithetical to their role. The court noted that Joseph’s failure to disclose the Battista mortgage and other liabilities in his financial disclosure statement and loan applications was consistent with a pattern of avoiding his repayment obligation.

Regarding Francis Alessandro, the court found that his omissions in financial disclosure statements and loan applications, while serious, did not demonstrate an intent to deceive. The court noted that Francis’s omission of assets, as well as liabilities, undermined the argument that he was intentionally misrepresenting his financial situation to improve his chances of getting a loan. The court concluded that Francis’s actions amounted to carelessness rather than deliberate concealment, and therefore did not warrant removal from office. “Careless omissions from a financial disclosure statement are not the type of ‘truly egregious’ conduct that warrants removal from judicial office.”