Opinion ID: 2227608
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Dispute with the District Attorney

Text: The second charge sustained by the Commission in this proceeding is based on petitioner's inappropriate expressions of displeasure with the Westchester County District Attorney during 2001 and 2002. This displeasure apparently grew out of the proceeding which led the Commission to admonish petitioner in 1996. As noted above, the Commission found that petitioner had acted improperly by having an ex parte conversation with a complaining witness that led her to withdraw a criminal complaint. Petitioner evidently blamed the District Attorney for bringing this incident to the Commission's attention, and as a result, the Commission found in the present case, he engaged in the following conduct: 1. He prepared and distributed to defense attorneys who appeared before him in criminal cases a form letter which he asked them to complete and mail to the office of the District Attorney. The form letter disclaimed any professional or social relationship between the defendant in the criminal case and petitioner. 2. When distributing the form letter, petitioner frequently made remarks to the effect that the District Attorney had previously filed a complaint against him which had cost him half a million dollars to defend against and that due to illnesses in his family he had neither the time or money to defend himself against future complaints. These remarks were made in open court, in the hearing of an assistant district attorney and of defense lawyers and defendants present for the call of the criminal calendar. 3. Petitioner recused himself sua sponte from four shoplifting cases while stating that he was doing so because the District Attorney had failed to prosecute former Mount Kisco employees for their private use of computers belonging to the Town, despite clear evidence of their crimes. As a result of petitioner's recusal, the cases had to be reassigned to petitioner's co-justice, who would not sit until the following month, thus necessitating an extra court appearance for defendants and their lawyers. 4. Petitioner stated on several occasions to those present in his court that his office telephone was `tapped,' that the District Attorney was keeping 'dossiers' on him, and that he was 'being watched.' []