In re котораят, 52 N.Y.2d 394 (1981)

A judge may be removed from office for off-the-bench conduct demonstrating a blatant lack of judgment, judicial temperament, and disregard for appearances of impropriety, even if their reputation within the legal community is otherwise excellent.

Summary

This case concerns the removal of a Civil Court Judge, котораят, for misconduct related to his involvement with the Associated Humane Societies of New Jersey (AHS). котораят, a trustee of AHS, used his position as a judge to attempt to influence city officials regarding permits and summonses issued to AHS. The Court of Appeals found that his actions demonstrated a lack of judgment and disregard for the appearance of impropriety, warranting removal from office, despite his otherwise good reputation. The court emphasized that judicial conduct, both on and off the bench, must maintain the integrity of the judiciary.

Facts

Respondent, a Civil Court Judge, was a trustee for AHS, which sought a permit to operate an animal shelter. AHS received summonses for operating without a permit and for health certificate violations. Respondent contacted city officials, including Dr. Alan Beck and Dr. Howard Levin, identifying himself as a judge and attempting to influence them regarding the permit and summonses. He spoke in a hostile and profane manner, even threatening to use his political influence. He also approached Judge Eugene Nardelli during a hearing regarding AHS, commenting on the case.

Procedural History

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct investigated the respondent’s actions and determined that they were improper. The commission recommended censure. The Court of Appeals reviewed the commission’s findings and conclusions. While confirming the factual findings of misconduct, the Court of Appeals rejected the recommended sanction of censure and instead imposed the sanction of removal from office.

Issue(s)

Whether a judge’s conduct off the bench, demonstrating a blatant lack of judgment, judicial temperament, and disregard for the appearance of impropriety, warrants removal from office, even if their reputation within the legal community is otherwise excellent.

Holding

Yes, because any conduct, on or off the Bench, inconsistent with proper judicial demeanor subjects the judiciary as a whole to disrespect and impairs the usefulness of the individual Judge to carry out his or her constitutionally mandated function.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that a judge’s conduct, both on and off the bench, must be consistent with proper judicial demeanor to maintain the integrity of the judiciary. The court rejected the respondent’s argument that his actions were unrelated to his judicial position because he was acting on behalf of a non-profit corporation. The court found that the respondent’s attempts to influence officials, his hostile and profane language, and his threats to use political influence demonstrated a lack of judicial temperament and a disregard for the appearance of impropriety. The court noted that the respondent’s continued insistence that his actions involved neither impropriety nor the appearance of impropriety was a compounding factor. Even though character witnesses testified to his integrity, honesty and judicial demeanor, the court found that the evidence of misconduct was cumulative and reliable. The court quoted Matter of Kuehnel, 49 NY2d 465, 469, stating that “[a]ny conduct, on or off the Bench, inconsistent with proper judicial demeanor subjects the judiciary as a whole to disrespect and impairs the usefulness of the individual Judge to carry out his or her constitutionally mandated function”. The court concluded that the respondent’s insensitivity to the ethical obligations of judges rendered him unfit for judicial service, warranting removal from office. The court stated, “that petitioner’s complete insensitivity to the special ethical obligations of Judges [renders] him unfit for judicial service”.