In the Matter of Ernest J. Conti, 80 N.Y.2d 418 (1992)

A judge’s dishonesty and lack of judgment, particularly in the context of ticket-fixing and false explanations, warrant removal from judicial office.

Summary

Judge Conti was charged with misconduct for improperly handling two speeding tickets and dismissing 31 cases without notifying the prosecutor, violating CPL 170.45, 170.55, and 210.45. The Judicial Conduct Commission sustained the charges, citing his false explanations as an exacerbating factor and recommending removal. The New York Court of Appeals agreed, finding Conti’s conduct demonstrated unacceptable dishonesty and lack of judgment for a member of the judiciary. The court emphasized the seriousness of ticket-fixing, compounded by Conti’s dishonesty and insensitivity to judicial ethics.

Facts

Judge Conti was accused of misconduct related to two speeding tickets. The first involved John Reedy, son of a former Town Justice. Evidence suggested the ticket was altered to a lesser charge (“unsafe tire”) and then dismissed by Conti, even though the case was not properly before him. The second ticket was issued to a local attorney who was representing Conti on personal matters. Conti dismissed this ticket without notifying the prosecution. He claimed the issuing officer told him the ticket would be dismissed due to radar failure, but the officer denied this.

Procedural History

The Judicial Conduct Commission conducted a hearing, sustained the charges against Judge Conti, and recommended his removal from judicial office. Judge Conti appealed this determination to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether Judge Conti’s actions, specifically the handling of the two speeding tickets and his subsequent explanations, constituted judicial misconduct warranting removal from office.

Holding

Yes, because Judge Conti’s actions, involving ticket-fixing, dishonesty, and a lack of judgment, demonstrated a level of misconduct unacceptable for a member of the judiciary.

Court’s Reasoning

The court found the evidence against Conti convincing. Regarding the Reedy ticket, the testimony strongly suggested that the ticket was altered and improperly dismissed under Conti’s direction. The court deemed Conti’s explanation incredible. Similarly, the court rejected Conti’s explanation for dismissing the attorney’s ticket, finding the officer’s testimony more credible. The court emphasized that ticket-fixing is a serious impropriety that can warrant removal, citing Matter of Reedy, 64 NY2d 299. Here, Conti’s actions were aggravated by his dishonesty in altering a ticket and providing false explanations. Furthermore, Conti demonstrated insensitivity to judicial ethics by adjudicating his personal attorney’s traffic case. The court quoted: “[s]uch deception is antithetical to the role of a judge who is sworn to uphold the law and seek the truth”. Even if the attorney’s ticket had to be dismissed, Conti’s handling of the matter created an appearance of impropriety and a potential conflict of interest. Therefore, the court accepted the Commission’s recommendation of removal.