58 N.Y.2d 279 (1983)

A judge’s misconduct, even if influenced by alcoholism, warrants removal from office when the conduct is serious, public, and results in an irretrievable loss of public confidence in their ability to perform judicial duties.

Summary

Judge Aldrich was removed from his position as a County Court Judge due to two incidents of misconduct while under the influence of alcohol. These incidents included using profane and racially charged language in court, threatening a security guard with a knife, and being incoherent during official duties. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s decision to remove Aldrich, rejecting his argument that his alcoholism should mitigate the sanction. The court emphasized the high standards of conduct expected of judges and the public’s need to have confidence in the judiciary.

Facts

On June 13, 1980, while acting as a Family Court Judge, Aldrich was under the influence of alcohol and used profane, improper, and racially charged language toward juveniles and their parents. He also made threats of violence. On March 18, 1981, while assigned to preside at hearings at a psychiatric center, Aldrich was again intoxicated. He threatened a security guard with a hunting knife and was incapable of performing his judicial duties, leading to the adjournment of scheduled matters.

Procedural History

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct filed a complaint against Aldrich. A referee found that both charges of misconduct were sustained. The Commission adopted the referee’s findings and ordered Aldrich’s removal. Aldrich appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that the sanction was too harsh given his alcoholism. The Court of Appeals upheld the Commission’s determination.

Issue(s)

Whether a judge’s misconduct, committed while under the influence of alcohol, warrants removal from office, or whether the judge’s alcoholism should mitigate the sanction to a lesser penalty such as censure or mandatory retirement.

Holding

No, because the judge’s misconduct was serious, occurred in public while performing judicial duties, and resulted in an irretrievable loss of public confidence. The court found that the judge’s actions demonstrated he was unfit to continue in office. The court noted that there was no legal basis for a probationary penalty conditioned on treatment.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that judges are held to higher standards than the general public. The court considered the effect of the judge’s conduct on public confidence in his character and judicial temperament. The court found that Aldrich’s displays of vulgarity, racism, and threats of violence resulted in an irretrievable loss of public confidence. While the court had considered alcoholism in mitigation in a previous case (Matter of Quinn), the court distinguished the present case because Aldrich had not resigned, his conduct was more aggravated, and he did not fully recognize the inappropriateness of his actions. The court stated, “[H]is displays of vulgarity and racism and his threats of violence both on and off the Bench have ‘resulted in [an] irretrievable loss of public confidence in his ability to properly carry out his judicial responsibilities’.” The dissent argued for censure or mandatory retirement, emphasizing Aldrich’s efforts to control his alcoholism and his otherwise good performance on the bench.