New York Law Review

Tag: removal from office

  • Matter of Cunningham, 57 N.Y.2d 270 (1982): Judicial Censure vs. Removal for Appearance of Impropriety

    Matter of Cunningham, 57 N.Y.2d 270 (1982)

    Judicial removal is an extreme sanction reserved for truly egregious circumstances; the appearance of impropriety, while misconduct, does not automatically warrant removal and may be sufficiently addressed by censure.

    Summary

    Judge Cunningham was found by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to have engaged in misconduct based on two letters he wrote to another judge regarding appeals of cases from the latter’s court. In these letters, Cunningham appeared to indicate he would always affirm the other judge’s decisions. The Commission ordered Cunningham’s removal from office. The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the Commission’s determination, finding Cunningham’s actions improper but deemed removal an excessive penalty. The court found his misconduct was rooted in creating the appearance of impropriety, not in actually prejudging cases, and imposed the lesser sanction of censure.

    Facts

    Judge Cunningham, a County Court Judge, wrote two letters to Judge Sardino of the Syracuse City Court concerning appeals from Judge Sardino’s decisions. The first letter involved three cases where Cunningham was quoted criticizing Sardino’s handling. To appease Sardino, Cunningham wrote that he would never change a sentence Sardino imposed and that Sardino could do whatever he wanted and Cunningham would agree. The second letter concerned another appeal where Cunningham, after learning Sardino was upset he signed an order to show cause, wrote he would affirm on a judge’s discretion. Ultimately, Cunningham heard one appeal and reversed Judge Sardino’s determination, criticizing Sardino’s sentencing.

    Procedural History

    The State Commission on Judicial Conduct served a complaint upon Judge Cunningham containing two charges of misconduct. Cunningham and the administrator of the commission signed an agreed statement of facts, waiving the right to a hearing and stipulating that the determination be made by the commission on the agreed facts. The commission determined Cunningham should be removed from the Bench. Cunningham 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 to remove Judge Cunningham from office for creating the appearance of impropriety was an appropriate sanction, or whether a lesser sanction, such as censure, was more fitting given the circumstances.

    Holding

    No, because removal is an extreme sanction reserved for truly egregious circumstances, and Cunningham’s actions, while improper, did not warrant such a severe penalty; censure is the appropriate sanction.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals acknowledged that Judge Cunningham’s letters created the appearance of impropriety and constituted judicial misconduct. However, the court emphasized its authority under Judiciary Law § 44(9) to review the commission’s findings of fact and conclusions of law de novo, allowing it to accept or reject the commission’s sanction. The court found that Cunningham’s reversal of Judge Sardino’s decision in People v. Bucktooth indicated he did not completely abdicate his appellate duty. The court stated, “[R]emoval is an extreme sanction and should be imposed only in the event of truly egregious circumstances.” The court found support for censure instead of removal in several factors: Cunningham’s reversal of Sardino’s decision, the fact that the letters were intended only for Judge Sardino’s eyes, and that the public attention to the letters arose from unforeseen circumstances. Ultimately, the court determined that, while Cunningham’s behavior was misconduct, censure was a more appropriate sanction, emphasizing that removal should not be ordered for conduct that amounts simply to poor judgment. The court noted, “[A] Judge must view matters before him on their merits alone, without regard to public or professional disapproval. Moreover, a Judge must also avoid creating the appearance that he would decide a matter before him in any other manner.”

  • Matter of Kuehnel, 54 N.Y.2d 465 (1981): Judicial Misconduct and Removal from Office

    Matter of Kuehnel, 54 N.Y.2d 465 (1981)

    Judges must adhere to higher standards of conduct both on and off the bench, and conduct inconsistent with proper judicial demeanor subjects the judiciary to disrespect and impairs a judge’s ability to perform their function.

    Summary

    This case concerns the removal of a village and town court justice, Kuehnel, for misconduct. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s determination to remove Kuehnel from office after he assaulted and verbally abused several youths. The court emphasized that judges are held to a higher standard of conduct, and that Kuehnel’s actions, including prior censure for favoring defendants in traffic cases, demonstrated a pattern of behavior inconsistent with the fair administration of justice. The court found that Kuehnel’s actions, irrespective of whether they occurred on or off the bench, were egregious and inexcusable, warranting removal.

    Facts

    On May 5, 1978, Justice Kuehnel, leaving a tavern, detained four youths suspected of breaking glass in a parking lot.

    He ordered the youths into a grocery store to call the police, striking one, age 13, in the head, causing him to fall and hit his head.

    Police found no evidence of broken glass.

    At the police station, Kuehnel verbally abused the youths with vulgar, derogatory, and racially charged language, threatening one with jail.

    He intentionally struck one of the youths, age 16, in the face, causing his nose to bleed.

    Kuehnel later met with the 16-year-old and his father, apologized, offered to let the boy strike him, and ultimately paid $100 for a general release from liability.

    Procedural History

    The State Commission on Judicial Conduct filed a formal written complaint against Kuehnel.

    A hearing was held before a Referee, who established the factual record.

    The Commission determined Kuehnel should be removed from office.

    Kuehnel sought review of the Commission’s determination in the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the State Commission on Judicial Conduct erred in determining that Justice Kuehnel should be removed from office for misconduct.

    Holding

    No, because Justice Kuehnel’s conduct, both on and off the bench, violated the high standards expected of judicial officers, and his prior censure further supported the finding that his continued retention of office was inconsistent with the fair and proper administration of justice.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court emphasized that judges must maintain a higher standard of conduct than the general public to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary. The court stated, “Standards of conduct on a plane much higher than for those of society as a whole, must be observed by judicial officers so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved.”

    The court rejected Kuehnel’s argument that his conduct was unrelated to his judicial duties, stating that a judge cannot easily separate off-bench behavior from the judicial function.

    Kuehnel’s actions, including physical violence, verbal abuse, and a lack of candor in his testimony, were deemed a flagrant breach of accepted norms, especially when performed by a judge.

    The court also considered Kuehnel’s prior censure for improperly granting favored treatment to defendants in traffic cases, finding it further supported his removal from office. The court referenced Matter of Kuehnel, 45 NY2d [y].

    The court concluded that Kuehnel failed to exercise sensitivity and self-control vital to his position and displayed injudicious temperament demeaning to the processes of justice.