In the Matter of ROGERS, 51 N.Y.2d 224 (1980)

A judge’s failure to respond to inquiries from the Commission on Judicial Conduct and failure to report or remit moneys, while constituting misconduct, may warrant censure rather than removal, especially when the judge has addressed the issues and demonstrates a commitment to fulfilling their duties.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reviewed a determination by the Commission on Judicial Conduct to remove petitioner Rogers from his position as a Town Justice. Rogers admitted to failing to respond to commission inquiries and to failing to report or remit moneys during a specified period. The court, while acknowledging the misconduct, found the sanction of removal too harsh. Considering Rogers’ circumstances as a dairy farmer serving his community, his subsequent efforts to rectify the reporting issues, and his demonstrated commitment to the position, the court determined that censure was the more appropriate sanction. The court emphasized the importance of the voters’ choice and the judge’s demonstrated willingness to fulfill his responsibilities.

Facts

Rogers, a dairy farmer, was elected as a Town Justice at the request of both political parties. He initially filed required reports but struggled to balance his judicial duties with his farming responsibilities. He failed to respond to inquiries from the Commission on Judicial Conduct and failed to report or remit moneys from June 1978 through August 1979. Rogers considered resigning but decided against it due to personal and financial sacrifices already made, and a belief that someone living and working in the community should hold the office. Rogers filed the overdue 1978 and 1979 reports in October 1979 and filed the September through November 1979 reports late in December 1979.

Procedural History

The Commission on Judicial Conduct determined that Rogers should be removed as a Town Justice. Rogers challenged the commission’s procedures. The Court of Appeals reviewed the commission’s determination and Rogers’ arguments.

Issue(s)

Whether the appropriate sanction for a Town Justice who failed to respond to inquiries from the Commission on Judicial Conduct and failed to report or remit moneys is removal from office or a lesser sanction, such as censure, when the judge has taken steps to rectify the issues and demonstrates a commitment to fulfilling the duties of the office.

Holding

No, because considering the circumstances, Rogers’ demonstrated commitment to his judicial role, and his efforts to rectify his reporting deficiencies, censure is the more appropriate sanction than removal.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals acknowledged Rogers’ misconduct in failing to respond to commission inquiries and failing to report or remit moneys. However, the court considered mitigating factors, including Rogers’ initial difficulties balancing his judicial and farming duties, his decision not to resign despite the challenges, his belief in serving his community, and his subsequent efforts to rectify the reporting issues. The court noted that Rogers had filed the overdue reports before the commission’s sanction determination. The court distinguished this case from cases involving failures to deposit moneys received in an official account. The Court emphasized that Rogers was the elected choice of the voters and his difficulties appeared to have been overcome. The court stated that while it did not condone the failures, Rogers’ decision not to resign and his bringing of the review proceeding suggested a willingness to discharge the responsibilities of office. The court concluded that censure was a more appropriate sanction than removal. The court referenced Judiciary Law, §44, subd 9 as providing for alternative sanctions. Dissenting and concurring opinions were not explicitly mentioned in the opinion.