Matter of Maney, 84 N.Y.2d 64 (1994)

A judge’s conduct, both on and off the bench, must uphold the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and failure to maintain adequate court records constitutes judicial misconduct.

Summary

This case involves a Justice of the Liberty Village Court, Sullivan County, who was removed from office by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The charges included making an inappropriate racial remark, creating the appearance of retaliating against an attorney-judge, and failing to maintain adequate court records. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the Commission’s determination, finding that all three charges were supported by the evidence and warranted removal. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary and avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.

Facts

During a court recess, the Justice made a derogatory remark about Black and Puerto Rican people. He conveyed the appearance of retaliating against an attorney-Town Justice by ruling against a client of the Justice’s law firm after the Justice dismissed a traffic case against the Judge. Finally, the Justice failed to maintain adequate records and dockets of criminal cases, leading to reporting and remittance failures.

Procedural History

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct investigated the Justice and filed a formal complaint. A Referee sustained two of the three charges. The Commission then determined all three charges were sustained and ordered the Justice’s removal. The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the Commission’s determination de novo.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Commission sustained its burden of proof regarding the charges against the Justice.
2. Whether the sanction of removal from office was warranted.

Holding

1. Yes, because the preponderance of the evidence supported the Commission’s determination that all three charges were sustained.
2. Yes, because the cumulative, serious judicial misconduct warranted removal to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals agreed with the Commission’s determination that the Justice’s remark, even if isolated, cast doubt on his ability to fairly judge all cases. The court quoted the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canons 1, 2[A]; 3[A][3] [22 NYCRR 100.1, 100.2(a); 100.3(a)(3)], stating that judges must uphold the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

Regarding the second charge, the court stated, “Whether petitioner actually decided the plaintiff’s motion on the merits in that case — as he contends — is largely irrelevant to the charge, because the harm inured when he indicated he would use his judicial powers to satisfy a personal vendetta, a classic instance in which ‘an appearance of such impropriety is no less to be condemned than is the impropriety itself’.” The court cited Matter of Spector v State Commn. on Judicial Conduct, 47 NY2d 462, 466.

Concerning the third charge, the court found no dispute that the Justice committed judicial misconduct by failing to maintain adequate records and timely remit fines, violating UJCA 2020, 2021 [1]; Village Law § 4-410; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1803 and Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1, 2 [A]; 3 [B] [1], [2] [22 NYCRR 100.1, 100.2 (a); 100.3 (b) (1), (2)].

The court found no merit in the Justice’s claim of a biased investigation or ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concluded that the cumulative misconduct warranted removal from office, emphasizing the importance of maintaining public trust in the judicial system. The court reinforced the principle that judicial officers are held to a high standard of conduct both on and off the bench.