NEW YORK STATE JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

     

"NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PUBLIC", Report of the New York State Comptroller, Edward Regan, 1989   -- with his press release, "COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT NEEDS OVERSIGHT"  (December 7, 1989)
                                        ** FOIL correspondence pertaining to Comptroller's Report  **

               CJA's advocacy based on Comptroller's Report, including:
 

CJA's December 11, 2002 public comments and questions at the forum sponsored by the New York State Bar Association & the Fund for Modern Courts, entitled, "Judging the Judges: The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct"
                                           TEST CASES - State (Commission)

CJA's March 5, 2003 memo to NYS Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committee leaders

*  *   *

"...one of the obvious reasons for establishing a permanent Commission on Judicial Conduct is to elevate judicial performance by insuring tht the practices in the various courts comply with the high standards required of judicial officers." , Sardino v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, 58 NY2d 286 (1983)

:"'the purpose of judicial disciplinary proceedings is 'not punishment but the imposition of sanctions where necessary to safeguard the Bench from unfit incumbents'" (Matter of Reeves 63 NY2d 105, 111,[] quoting Matter of Waltemade, 37 NY2d [a], [111]).", Matter of Esworthy, 77 NY2d 280, 283 (1991)

 ***********************************************************************************************************************************

"It is obvious that Judges are not exempt from criminal prosecution for their conduct.  The law binds the Judges no less than the judged.", Stern v. Morgenthau, 476 NYS 810, 813 (1984)

NEW YORK STATE JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

 

"The Frustration Of Family Court", March 24, 2000, New York Law Journal, letter to the editor by Gerry M. Wendrovsky, Esq.

May 1, 2018 NYLJ -- Law Day Supplement

 

Resource Page: New York's Corruption Fighting Laws

 

------------------------------
June 1982 Report of the Temporary Commission on Judicial Compensation

June 1988 Report of the Temporary Commission
on Executive, Legislative and Judicial Compensation

January 1993 Report of the Temporary Commission on Judicial Compensation 
----------------------------

Judiciary Law 14

People v Whitridge, 144 AD 493, 129 NYS 300 (1911, 1st Dept)
304: "The interest which will disqualify a judge to sit in a cause need not be large, but it must be real;
it must be certain and not merely possible or contingent; it must be one which is visible,
demonstrable and capable of precise proof. (Inhabitants of Northampton v. Smith...)

People v. Alomar, 93 NY2d 239 (1999)
245-6: Here, however, we deal not with what procedures might be preferred in light of particular factual circumstances,
ut rather with what is constitutionally required.fn
Recusal, as a matter of due process, is required only where there exists a direct, personal,
substantial or pecuniary interest in reaching a particular conclusion (see, Tumey v Ohio, 273 US 510, 523)...
...Judiciary Law § 14 [forbidding New York Judges from taking part in proceedings in which they have an interest in the outcome])

 

Clarity & Candor are Vital in Appellate Advocacy -- 71-Nov NYSTBJ 52, David Boehm
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.",
citing Siegfried v. Kansas City Star Co, 193 F. Supp 427, 432 (WD Mo. 1961)
aff'd 298 F2d 1 (8th Cir. 1962)

 

Chang v. Chang, 597 NYS 692 (1st Dept, 1993)
696: "An attorney "may not allow his own interests to conflict with those of his client. To hold otherwise would be to ignore the overriding public interest in the integrity of our adversary system." (Greene v Greene, 47 N.Y.2d 447, 453.)"

Courts can never abdicate their responsibility to supervise and regulate the ethical conduct of attorneys appearing before them, especially where the rights of litigants are affected.

Where an attorney representing a party was an active participant in a disputed transaction and has personal knowledge of the underlying circumstances, he ought to be called as a witness on behalf of his client and it is improper for him to continue his representation. (Hitzig v Borough-Tel Serv., 108 A.D.2d 677; see, Hempstead Bank v Reliance Mtge. Corp., 81 A.D.2d 906.) 

697: Any doubts as to the existence of a conflict should be resolved in favor of disqualification. (Flushing Sav. Bank v FSB Props., 105 A.D.2d 829; Narel Apparel v American Utex Intl., 92 A.D.2d 913.) An attorney must not only avoid impropriety but even the mere appearance thereof. (Greene v Greene, 47 N.Y.2d, supra, at 451; Cardinale v Golinello, 43 N.Y.2d 288, 296; see, Code of Professional Responsibility Canon 9.)

Both the parties to an action and the public at large are entitled to protection against even the appearance of impropriety."

 

"The Lawyer's Obligations to the Public By Reason of the Special Privileges Accorded Him"
Legal Ethics (Henry Drinker) 1954

In Re Greenberg, 104 A.2d 46 (NJ Supreme Court-Vanderbilt 1954)

N/s Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 127 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 1997) --
striking of appeal brief, dismissal of appeal

------------

People v. Kase, 76 AD2d 532 (1st Dept 1980), affm'd Ct of Appeals
"'It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicanery or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention'(Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188, supra). We are in accord with this statement of the rule. There are few responsibilities of government more important than the obligation faithfully to carry out its own law. Whoever intentionally files a false statement with a public office or public servant for the purpose of frustrating the State's power to fulfill this responsibility, violates the statute. "

 

2 Wigmore, Evidence Section 278(2) "Falsehood, fraud, fabrication and suppression of evidence, spoliation, and the like"

Lopez Torres v. NYS Board of Elections

Matter of Droege  (1909)

 

Matter of Bolte, 97 AD 551, 574 (1904):

 

“Favoritism in the performance of judicial duties constitutes corruption as disastrous in its consequence as if the judicial officer received and was moved by a bribe.”

 

  abc