MacDowell, Matter of

• Citation: 393 N.Y.S.2d 748,57 A.D.2d 169
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Decision Date: 25 April 1977
• Parties: In the Matter of Albert S. MacDOWELL, as City Judge, City Court of the City of Newburgh, Orange County. The JUDICIARY RELATIONS COMMITTEE FOR the NINTH AND TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTS of the State of New York, Petitioner, v. Albert S. MacDOWELL, Respondent.

Page 748

393 N.Y.S.2d 748

57 A.D.2d 169

In the Matter of Albert S. MacDOWELL, as City Judge, City

Court of the City of

Newburgh, Orange County. The JUDICIARY RELATIONS COMMITTEE

FOR the NINTH AND TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTS of the

State of New York, Petitioner, v. Albert S. MacDOWELL, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

April 25, 1977.

Gerald Stern, New York City (Frank A. Finnerty, Jr. and Bernard Persky, New York City, of counsel), for petitioner.

Patterson, Belknap & Webb, New York City (Robert P. Patterson, Jr. and W. Peter Burns, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Before GULOTTA, P.J., and MARTUSCELLO, LATHAM, COHALAN and MARGETT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The respondent, a part-time Judge of the City Court of the City of Newburgh, was appointed to that office in January, 1973, upon the resignation of his predecessor, and was elected to a full six-year term in November of he same year. Respondent has been admitted to the practice of law in New York since 1951.

The petition contains 12 charges (subparagraphs (1) through (12) of paragraph SEVENTH), one of which (subparagraph (7)) contains 7 subcharges (subdivisions (a) through (g)). The instant hearings commenced before Mr. Justice BUSCHMANN, as Referee, on April 27, 1976 and terminated on June 17, 1976. The transcript of these proceedin occupies some 4,100 pages of the record. Mr. Justice BUSCHMANN rendered his very comprehensive and excellent report on August 2, 1976, in which he sustained In toto the charges contained in subparagraphs (1), (2), (4), (5), (7a), (7c), (7d), (7f) and (9); sustained, in part, the charges contained in subparagraphs (6), (7b) and (8); and concluded that the remainder of the charges contained in the petition had not been substantiated.

On October 26, 1976 the respondent moved ot confirm the report insofar as it found that certain charges had not been substantiated, and to disaffirm the report insofar as it found that certain charges had been sustained. On November 24, 1976 the petitioner cross-moved to confirm the report insofar as it found that certain charges had been sustained, and to disaffirm the report insofar as it found that certain charges had not been substantiated. The submission to this court became complete with the service and filing of the respondent's reply memorandum on Devember 6, 1976.

With respect to subparagraph (1), the Referee found that during the period from March 1, 1973 to the date he was relieved of his judicial duties (October 29, 1975), respondent neglected and failed to render timely decisions with respect to at least 44 written motions presented to the City Court in criminal proceedings, to the detriment and prejudice of the rights of the parties to said proceedings. In some instances the delay in deciding these motions was one and one-half years.

With respect to subparagraph (2), the Referee found that during the period from January, 1974 to December, 1974, the respondent neglected and failed, in at least 89 felony proceedings, to comply with CPL 180.30, which provides, Inter alia, that when a defendant has been arraigned in a local criminal court upon a felony complaint and waives a hearing thereon, the court must either (1) order the defendant held for the action of the Grand Jury and promptly transmit a copy of that order, the felony complaint, the supporting depositions and all other pertinent documents to the appropriate superior court, or (2) make inquiry pursuant to CPL 180.50 for the purpose of determining whether the felony complaint should be dismissed and an information, prosecutor's information or misdemeanor complaint filed in lieu thereof. The delay occasioned as to some of these matters approximated 11 months.

With respect to subparagraph (4), the Referee found that during the years 1974 and 1975, the respondent neglected and failed to grant prompt and timely hearings in connection with numerous criminal complaints pending before the City Court, to the detriment and prejudice of the rights of the parties to those proceedings.

With respect to subparagraph (5), the Referee found that during the respondent's tenure as Judge of the City Court, he neglected and failed to hold prompt jury and nonjury trials with respect to numerous criminal, civil and traffic cases pending before the court, to the detriment and prejudice of the rights of the respective parties to those proceedings. Some 477 cases were pending before the court as of the date respondent was relieved of his judicial duties, and more than 200 of these were over six months old.

With respect to subparagraph (6), the Referee found that for the first three quarters of 1974, the respondent neglected and refused to comply with section 20.2 of the Rules of the Administrative Board of the Judicial Conference (22 NYCRR 20.2), which requires the filing of a quarterly report indicating all matters which have been pending for more than 60 days after final submission to a court, and ignored, refused and disregarded repeated requests by the Office of the Director of Administration of the Courts for the Second Judicial Department for the timely filing of these reports.

With respect to subparagraph (7), the Referee found that during the respondent's tenure as Judge of the City Court, he failed and neglected to discharge his administrative responsibilities to said court, and improperly and unnecessarily impeded and delayed the routine, usual and...