Arguments on Rochester Judge's Removal at NY Court of Appeals Focus on Alcoholism, Public Confidence
The judge's attorney argued that she has apologized repeatedly for her actions, which include a conviction for driving while intoxicated, violating provisions of her conditional discharge on that conviction, and making inappropriate comments from the bench.
September 05, 2018 at 05:40 PM
5 minute read
No amount of remorse may have been enough to convince the Commission on Judicial Conduct to keep Rochester City Court Judge Leticia Astacio on the bench given her actions, state attorneys argued before the state Court of Appeals on Wednesday.
But that didn't stop her attorney, Robert Julian from Utica, New York, from trying to persuade the state's highest court otherwise. The Court of Appeals has the power to reject the commission's recommendation for her removal, which was decided in April.
Julian argued that Astacio had apologized repeatedly for her actions, which include a conviction for driving while intoxicated, violating provisions of her conditional discharge on that conviction, and making inappropriate comments from the bench.
Astacio has been the subject of controversy in Rochester since her arrest for driving while intoxicated in 2016. Her attorney said on Wednesday that she still maintains she was not drunk during the arrest.
“She did not believe at the time she was driving at 7 o'clock in the morning and she was driving to the YWCA to work out,” Julian said. “She did not believe she was under the influence of alcohol but she accepts the verdict.”
A significant part of Wednesday's arguments centered around whether Astacio was an alcoholic, and whether that should factor into the court's decision on her removal.
Judge Eugene Fahey, for example, asked Edward Lindner, who argued for the commission, whether the commission's decision might have been different if she publicly sought treatment for alcoholism after her conviction.
“If afterwards, [Astacio] had gone to Alcoholics Anonymous, gone through a program, sworn off all alcohol, came out public and said as an alcoholic, 'I made some mistakes but I still want to be a judge and I can serve the community effectively.' … In that circumstance do you think the recommendation might have been different?” Fahey said.
Lindner said Astacio's behavior was severe enough that a public apology and admission of a problem with alcohol may not have changed the commission's decision.
“Alcoholism is not an offense, it's an explanation,” Lindner said. “In a case where a judge has gone to jail for violating a court order, who's twice tried to drive while intoxicated, I think this might be a case where even if there had been severe contrition, it might not have been enough.”
Julian said after court that the point is moot because Astacio is not an alcoholic.
“You don't label yourself an alcoholic. Ultimately the diagnosis of alcoholism is a diagnosis made by health care professionals,” Julian said. “In her case, she went through several alcohol programs as an outpatient and she was found to be a mild alcohol abuser. Does that mean she's an alcoholic or not an alcoholic? I think those are terms we should leave to the doctors.”
Lindner also argued that Astacio, two years after her arrest for driving while intoxicated, has lost the confidence of the people who elected her to the bench in the first place. He said reinstating Astacio would be an unprecedented decision by the court.
“A judge is responsible for her conduct. When a judge commits crimes that are newsworthy, it has an impact on public confidence,” Lindner said. “You have never had a judge who was incarcerated for violating a court order and went back on the bench and it would be unprecedented to do that here.”
In his brief to the Court of Appeals before arguments, Julian had based his appeal on remarks from the commission's chair, Joseph Belluck, during a hearing on Astacio's conduct in April. Belluck had accused Astacio of making derogatory remarks about the commission in public, a charge that Astacio has denied. Julian argued in the brief that Belluck's remarks could have inappropriately influence the commission's decision.
Despite being a main argument for the appeal, the remark was only discussed briefly during arguments. Julian chose instead to focus on Astacio's remorse, which included an apology to the commission during the same hearing.
Chief Judge Janet DiFiore asked Lindner during arguments how the court could be sure that Belluck's complaint did not influence the commission's decision on her removal.
“Read the decision,” Lindner said. He argued that the decision, which is a detailed account of the commission's work, does not mention the remark outside of the transcript from that hearing.
Astacio is still a sitting judge on the Rochester City Court, though no cases have been assigned to her since the commission's decision. If the Court of Appeals agrees to remove her from the bench, she will leave the position immediately.
A decision is likely to come down from the court on Astacio's removal next month.
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 AllDOJ: TD Bank Agrees to Pay $3B Over Anti-Money Laundering Program Violations
2 minute readCleary Creates Nonequity Partner Tier, Calling for 'Innovation and Adaptation'
5 minute readUS Judge Sets May Trial Date for Sean Combs as Defense Fends Off 'Damning' Tape
200 Hrs. of Partner Prep Guides Quinn Emanuel's Incredibly Detailed Mock Bankruptcy Trial
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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