ALBANY – A Washington County Town Court justice was admonished Monday for failing to disclose the received unsolicited and unsubstantiated ex parte information he presided over, the Commission on Judicial Conduct announced.

In 2015, James P. Curran, a justice of the Hebron Town Court in Washington County, arraigned a defendant on assault charges and issued an order of protection. Several months after issuing the order of protection in People v. Eastman, Curran was told by two separate individuals that Michael T. Eastman and the alleged victim had violated the order of protection.

Curran, who agreed to the admonishment by the state commission, failed to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; engaged in, considered and failed to report ex parte communications; and conveyed the appearance of bias against the defendant and/or the alleged victim in the case,” the commission found.

A man who identified himself to the judge as the alleged victim's husband and father of her children approached Curran at a gas station in July 2015 claiming that Eastman and the woma—identified as S.M.—had traveled to Vermont “to engage in trysts” in violation of the order of protection. A few days later, Curran received an anonymous voicemail from a woman making the same allegation that the pair had traveled together. Curran did not disclose the conversations he had with the alleged victim's husband and the anonymous caller with the defense counsel or the prosecutor on the case, according to the commission.

During a pretrial conference in late July 2015, Curran, who was not immediately available for comment, accused Eastman of violating the order of protection multiple times, but did not disclose how he came upon the news of the “multiple violations.” Following the pretrial conference, Curran accepted Eastman's guilty plea to the charge of criminal obstruction of breathing, sentenced him to a conditional discharge with the condition that he complete 50 hours of community service and anger management training, and imposed a $800 fine and $205 surcharge.

Eastman was issued a six-month “stay-away” order of protection from S.M. with leave to apply for an 18-month nonviolent order of protection upon the birth of a child S.M. and Eastman were expecting.

Curran acknowledged that he should have disclosed to the involved parties the sources and substance of the two unsolicited ex-parte communications he received about the alleged violations of the order of protection the commission's determination said. Curran also acknowledged that he shouldn't have accused Eastman of violation of the order of protection based on unsubstantiated ex parte allegations.

In a statement, Commission Administrator Robert Tembeckjian said “A judge must insure that all parties have a fair opportunity to be heard, which includes the right to hear and challenge evidence on which the court relies. This fundamental obligation of fairness is defeated when a judge engages in private substantive conversation about a case with individuals outside court, fails to advise the parties of it, then appears to rely on it in rendering decision.”

Despite the ex parte communications and Curran's statements indicating that he believed the information he received was true, the judge “did not take any punitive action against the defendant for violating the order of protection.”

“We also note that the respondent has acknowledged that his failure to disclose the communications and his reliance on the undisclosed, unsubstantiated information he received were inconsistent with his ethical obligations,” the commission wrote in their determination dated Nov. 14, but made public Monday.