Holzman v. Comm'n on Judicial Conduct

• Decision Date: 01 March 2012
• Citation: 93 A.D.3d 431,938 N.Y.S.2d 893,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01577
• Parties: In re Hon. Lee L. HOLZMAN, Petitioner–Appellant, v. The COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT, Respondent–Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01577

93 A.D.3d 431

938 N.Y.S.2d 893

In re Hon. Lee L. HOLZMAN, Petitioner–Appellant,

v.The COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT, Respondent–Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

March 1, 2012.

Godosky & Gentile, P.C., New York (David Godosky of counsel), for appellant.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Robert C. Weisz of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered September 13, 2011, denying the petition seeking, inter alia, to stay the disciplinary proceedings brought against petitioner by respondent pending the resolution of the criminal prosecution of a witness to the disciplinary proceedings, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 22, 2011, which, upon renewal, adhered to the prior determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Denial of the petition and dismissal of the proceeding was warranted because petitioner failed to exhaust the administrative*894 remedy available to him pursuant to Judiciary Law § 44(7) ( see Walton v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 8 N.Y.3d 186, 195, 831 N.Y.S.2d 749, 863 N.E.2d 1001 [2007] ). Petitioner has not demonstrated that doing so would be futile or that irreparable harm would occur absent judicial intervention ( see Bankers Trust Corp. v. New York City Dept. of Fin., 1 N.Y.3d 315, 322, 773 N.Y.S.2d 1, 805 N.E.2d 92 [2003]; Mulgrew v. Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 88 A.D.3d 72, 81, 928 N.Y.S.2d 269 [2011] ). The alleged “possibility of reputational harm” does not constitute irreparable injury warranting the relief sought by petitioner ( Martinez 2001 v. New York City Campaign Fin. Bd., 36 A.D.3d 544, 551, 829 N.Y.S.2d 55 [2007]; see Mabry v. Neighborhood Defender Serv., Inc., 88 A.D.3d 505, 506, 930 N.Y.S.2d 193 [2011] ).

FRIEDMAN, J.P., DeGRASSE, RICHTER, ROMÁN, JJ., concur.