NY Judicial Commission Sees Record Number of Complaints
The Commission on Judicial Conduct on Friday released a 268-page annual report showing that it received 2,143 complaints in 2017, the highest total of new complaints in its history and a 10 percent increase from a year earlier.
March 09, 2018 at 03:05 PM
5 minute read
Robert Tembeckjian, administrator of the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Photo: Rick Kopstein/NYLJ
ALBANY — The commission responsible for investigating misconduct complaints against New York judges received a record number of complaints in 2017.
The Commission on Judicial Conduct on Friday released a 268-page annual report showing that it received 2,143 complaints in 2017, the highest total of new complaints in its history and a 10 percent increase from a year earlier. The majority of complaints the commission received came from criminal defendants and civil litigants, according to the report, but 53 complaints came from lawyers and 12 from judges.
The commission found that the number of complaints it receives annually has risen substantially over the last decade compared to the first 30 years of its existence.
There are approximately 3,350 judicial positions, according to the report, and 60 percent of judges in the state unified court system are part-time town or village justices, and 61 percent of them are not lawyers, that is, about 36 percent of all judges in the state are not lawyers.
One formal proceeding last year resulted in a removal from office, and that was the case of J. Marshall Ayers, a justice of the Conklin Town Court, Broome County, for “lending the prestige of his judicial office to get his daughter's traffic ticket dismissed and for trying to influence a County Court judge to uphold restitution orders he had issued in a separate, unrelated case.”
Some complaints were dismissed upon initial review as being without merit. The commission authorized “preliminary analysis and clarification,” as well as “preliminary fact-finding activities” that led staff to conduct 605 preliminary inquiries last year. In 148 matters, the commission authorized what the report called “full-fledged investigations,” which included interviewing and subpoenaing witnesses and analyzing court records.
In addition to 148 new investigations, there were also 177 investigations pending from previous years. The commission eventually disposed of a combined 325 investigations. Of those, 80 were dismissed outright;, 30 complaints involving more than two dozen different judges were dismissed with letters of dismissal and caution; and 25 complaints involving 15 different judges were closed following the judge's resignation, according to the report.
Four complaints involving four different judges were closed because of a vacancy for reasons other than resignation—such as term expiration. An additional 31 complaints involving 17 different judges resulted in authorization of formal charges, according to the report.
As of the end of 2017, 155 investigations at the commission were still pending.
The commission also rendered eight formal disciplinary determinations in 2017, which included one removal, five censures and two admonitions.
City court judges, all of whom are lawyers, received the most complaints, the report shows. The commission received 23 complaints against part-time city court judges and 355 complaints against full-time city court judges, for a total of 378. One of those complaints resulted in a judge being cautioned after the probe. Formal written complaints were authorized for two of the complaints filed.
While city court judges had the most complaints, town and village justices—not all of whom are lawyers—received the most disciplinary actions. The commission received a total of 280 complaints against town and village justices, 162 of which were against nonlawyers and 118 of which were against lawyers. The commission investigated 83 of the complaints filed.
Fifty-six percent of investigations authorized by the commission were for town and village justices and 44 percent were for all other judges in the state's unified court system.
Eight complaints against town and village justices who are lawyers resulted in the judges being cautioned and three resulted in formal written complaints. One judge, who is a lawyer, was publicly disciplined and one judge vacated the office by public stipulation.
As for town and village justices who are not lawyers, 13 judges were cautioned after the investigation and eight judges had formal written complaints authorized. One nonlawyer judge was cautioned after a formal complaint and five nonlawyer judges were publicly disciplined. An additional six judges vacated office by public stipulation and formal complaints against two were either dismissed or closed, according to the commission.
Supreme Court justices, of whom there are 462, all full-time and all lawyers, received 344 complaints and 16 were investigated.
“Year after year, with insufficient resources but committed members and a dedicated staff, the commission promotes public confidence in the integrity of the courts by disciplining those judges who have engaged in misconduct, and exonerating those who have been wrongly accused. It also protects the independence of the judiciary by absorbing and even defusing the criticism of those who disagree with a judge's rulings,” Robert Tembeckjian, the commission's administrator, said in a statement.
The uptick in complaints against the judiciary comes as the commission is asking the state for a budget increase in an effort to cut backlogs. The commission has asked the Division of Budget for an increase of $541,000, or 9.69 percent. Their current budget this fiscal year is $5.58 million, “a mere 3.3 percent” above the commission's budget during the 2011 fiscal year, Tembeckjian said in mid-December. Budget negotiations begin in earnest in mid-March with a financial plan for the state due by the start of the next fiscal year, April 1.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Lululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250