In re Spargo, 89 N.Y.2d 252 (1996)

A judge may be removed from office for engaging in a pattern of deceptive and untruthful behavior during a judicial conduct investigation, even if the initial misconduct that triggered the investigation might not, on its own, warrant such a severe sanction.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the removal of a Civil Court Judge and Acting Supreme Court Justice, Spargo, based on findings by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission determined Spargo made inappropriate remarks to a female law intern and then engaged in deceptive behavior during the ensuing investigation, including providing false information during a screening process for a potential Supreme Court appointment. The court held that while the initial inappropriate remarks might not have warranted removal, Spargo’s subsequent dishonesty and lack of candor demonstrated a lack of fitness for judicial office, justifying the sanction.

Facts

A complaint was filed against Judge Spargo concerning a note he passed to his court attorney regarding the physical attributes of a female law intern. The complaint also alleged that Spargo jokingly suggested to the intern that she remove an article of clothing in his presence. During the investigation, while seeking an interim appointment to the Supreme Court, Spargo answered “no” to a question on the Governor’s Judicial Screening Committee questionnaire asking if he had ever been the subject of any inquiry or investigation by a federal, state, or local agency. He also delayed returning a waiver of confidentiality regarding Judicial Conduct Commission records to the State Senate Judiciary Committee and falsely told staff counsel for the committee that he was not the subject of any complaints before the Commission.

Procedural History

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct determined that Judge Spargo violated rules requiring judges to uphold high standards of conduct and promote public confidence in the judiciary, recommending his removal from office. A Referee conducted a full evidentiary hearing. The Commission’s determination was based on the Referee’s findings and the Commission’s own review. Judge Spargo then sought review of the Commission’s determination in the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s determination that Judge Spargo should be removed from office is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and whether the sanction of removal is appropriate given Spargo’s conduct.

Holding

Yes, because the Commission’s determination was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and the sanction of removal was appropriate, considering Judge Spargo’s pattern of evasive, deceitful, and untruthful behavior, which evidenced a lack of fitness to hold judicial office.

Court’s Reasoning

The court deferred to the credibility determinations of the Referee and the Commission, finding no reason to disturb their findings that Spargo’s testimony was not credible. The court found that Spargo’s inappropriate note and suggestion to the intern, while deserving of sanction, would not, standing alone, justify removal. However, the court emphasized that Spargo engaged in a pattern of evasive, deceitful, and untruthful behavior, particularly in his attempts to conceal the pending investigation while seeking a Supreme Court appointment. The court rejected Spargo’s explanations for his false statements on the questionnaire and to the Senate Judiciary Committee staff. The court reasoned that “deception is antithetical to the role of a Judge who is sworn to uphold the law and seek the truth,” quoting Matter of Myers, 67 NY2d 550, 554. The court distinguished Spargo’s conduct from instances of mere poor judgment, emphasizing that Spargo was motivated by personal gain to dissimulate. The court acknowledged that removal is reserved for truly egregious conduct, but held that judges must be held to a higher standard, and Spargo’s actions warranted the sanction of removal.