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

Heading: Petitioner's Previous History with the Commission

Text: In 1993, the Commission sent petitioner a Letter of Dismissal and Caution addressing two instances of petitioner's misuse of his judicial position. He had directed some defendants who appeared before him to attend a village board meeting to complain about snow emergency regulations and thus to advance [petitioner's] personal position on . . . snow emergency signs. He had also made, from the bench, a complaint to an attorney for a carting company that was a defendant in a criminal proceeding before him; petitioner had expressed unhappiness with the company's operation of trucks on a Mount Kisco street. The Commission dismissed the complaint against petitioner that was based on these incidents, but cautioned him to adhere to the relevant provisions of the Rules of Judicial Conduct. In 1996, the Commission admonished petitioner on the basis of two separate series of events. The first of these occurred during a criminal case before petitioner in which the defendant was the son of people petitioner had represented. Petitioner telephoned the complaining witness ex parte and made favorable remarks about the defendant that persuaded the witness to withdraw the complaint. Petitioner then dismissed the charges, over the prosecution's objection, without disclosing either his prior relationship with the defendant's family or his conversation with the witness. The Commission found that petitioner's telephone call and his failure to disclose it created an appearance of favoritism. The other basis for the 1996 admonition was a practice followed by petitioner for a few months in late 1993 and early 1994 of conducting arraignments in the Mount Kisco police station, rather than in a public courtroom. In 1997, petitioner received two more Letters of Dismissal and Caution from the Commission. The first of these related to a lawsuit by petitioner's sister against the Village of Mount Kisco, in which petitioner had listed himself as his sister's attorney and engaged in settlement discussions with counsel for the insurance carrier. The Commission told petitioner that [a] part-time judge should not act as an attorney in a lawsuit against the municipality in which the judge sits. Later in 1997, the Commission again cautioned petitioner, this time on the basis of a letter petitioner had written on judicial stationery to a former public official concerning files that [the recipient] had supposedly kept on [petitioner] and others. Petitioner had demanded a list of all those upon whom such files were maintained. The Commission told petitioner that [b]y using judicial stationery in connection with what was essentially a private, political dispute, you used the prestige of your office to further your personal interests. The Commission added: It is troubling that even on reflection you insist that the use of judicial stationery under these circumstances was appropriate. In 1999, petitioner received his last Letter of Dismissal and Caution. This one concerned an attorney who had appeared before him. The Commission's 1999 letter stated that in several cases, you advised clients of [the attorney] that he had made a complaint to the Commission against you and inquired as to whether they would seek your recusal. The Commission said that by taking this approach  i.e., by making the attorney's clients aware of the problem, rather than simply deciding for himself whether he should be recused  petitioner was interfering with attorney-client relationships in apparent retaliation for the complaint made against you. The Commission also noted that, in one case where the attorney was defense counsel, petitioner restored the case to the court calendar a day after it had been disposed of so that [he] could discuss an advisory opinion concerning disqualification with [the attorney]. This conduct, the Commission's letter stated, constituted abuse of your judicial powers because petitioner had placed the defendant again in jeopardy in order to make a point with her attorney. The Commission added that this extraordinary procedure. . . created the reasonable impression that you were retaliating against [the attorney].