2 N.Y.3d 478 (2004)
A judge’s repeated misconduct, even if individual instances might not warrant removal, can collectively demonstrate an unfitness for judicial office justifying removal, especially when coupled with financial impropriety.
Summary
A Justice of the Mount Kisco Town Court sought review of a determination by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct recommending his removal. The Commission’s decision was based on conduct as an attorney involving the conversion of escrow funds and conduct as a judge demonstrating retaliatory intent against the Westchester County District Attorney. This case was the petitioner’s sixth encounter with judicial discipline. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Commission’s findings and accepted the sanction of removal, holding that the judge’s extensive prior history and the nature of the misconduct demonstrated an unfitness for judicial office.
Facts
The Justice, while representing the executrix of an estate in 1999, deposited a tax refund check made out to the executrix into his escrow account without her knowledge or consent. He then wrote a check to himself from that account for his attorney’s fee. Separately, the Justice demonstrated displeasure with the Westchester County District Attorney due to a prior complaint filed against him. He distributed form letters to defense attorneys asking them to disclaim any relationship with him, made remarks about the District Attorney in open court, recused himself from cases, and claimed his phone was tapped and he was being watched.
Procedural History
The State Commission on Judicial Conduct determined the Justice should be removed from office. The Appellate Division suspended the Justice from practicing law for one year due to the escrow account incident. The Justice sought review of the Commission’s determination before the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the sanction of removal from judicial office is excessive given the Justice’s misconduct and prior disciplinary history.
Holding
No, because considering both the severity of the misconduct in this proceeding and the Justice’s extensive prior history, the determined sanction should be accepted.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that removal is an extreme sanction reserved for egregious circumstances. The court acknowledged prior cases where removal was rejected for failings of judgment. However, this case involved the conversion of client funds. More importantly, this was the Justice’s sixth encounter with judicial discipline. The Court stated, “petitioner seems incapable of understanding, despite repeated warnings, that a judge performing judicial duties must both act and appear to act as an impartial arbiter serving the public interest, not someone with an axe to grind.” The Court reasoned that the Justice’s repeated misconduct, taken as a whole, demonstrated a lack of fitness for judicial office. Despite the absence of “venality” found by the appellate division, the court found the extensive history of misconduct sufficient to warrant removal. The Court stated a judge “who does not know this, and is not capable of learning it, should not be on the bench.”