Matter of Washington

• Decision Date: 21 October 2003
• Citation: 800 N.E.2d 348,100 N.Y.2d 873,768 N.Y.S.2d 175
• Parties: In the Matter of ROSEANNA H. WASHINGTON, Judge of the White Plains City Court, Westchester County, Petitioner. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

100 N.Y.2d 873

800 N.E.2d 348

768 N.Y.S.2d 175

In the Matter of ROSEANNA H. WASHINGTON, Judge of the White Plains City Court, Westchester County, Petitioner.

STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Argued September 9, 2003.

Decided October 21, 2003.

Deborah A. Scalise, Elmsford, and Julie Kattan for petitioner.

Gerald Stern, New York City, Robert H. Tembeckjian and Alan W. Friedberg for respondent.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO and READ concur in per curiam opinion.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct sustained two charges of misconduct and determined that petitioner, a part-time City Court Judge, should be removed from office (see NY Const, art VI, § 22; Judiciary Law § 44). Based upon our plenary review of the evidence, we sustain the findings of misconduct and accept the determined sanction of removal.¹

Petitioner was appointed a part-time Judge of the White Plains City Court in January 1997. Her duties included presiding over small claims cases on alternate Wednesdays and substituting for the full-time judge when necessary. Petitioner's caseload was approximately 75 to 80 small claims cases per year. The Commission's complaint alleged two charges of misconduct based on petitioner's failure to render timely decisions despite repeated direction to do so by the Ninth Judicial District Administrative Judge; her submission of inaccurate and incomplete quarterly reports of undecided cases; and her failure to provide prompt responses to several Commission inquiries (see 22 NYCRR 100.1, 100.2 [A]; 100.3 [B] [7]; [C] [1]).

Soon after assuming her judicial duties—and despite a small caseload typically requiring only brief written decisions— petitioner began to accumulate a backlog of undecided cases. Sixty-seven of petitioner's cases were not decided in a timely manner. When the cases were eventually decided, many had been pending for extended periods of time, including 33 pending between one and two years and seven pending for over two years. An additional seven cases—commenced between 7 and 18 months prior to petitioner's hearing before the Commission—were still pending as of the date of that hearing.

In the face of these delays, petitioner failed to report several of the undecided cases as pending for longer than 60 days on her quarterly reports for 1998, 1999 and 2000 (see 22 NYCRR 4.1). Petitioner's reports for the first three quarters of 1998 falsely stated that none of her cases remained undecided for 60 days or longer, when in truth there were several such cases in each quarter. Her first quarterly report for 1999 also listed as pending only a portion of the cases that were actually undecided for at least 60 days, and indicated that nine of the cases would be decided by July 21, 1999, but none were. The remaining three quarterly reports for 1999 were each filed late—in March 2000—listing most of the same cases as pending undecided, and the final two reports failed to include several cases pending longer than 60 days. Petitioner's quarterly reports for 2000 again improperly omitted some pending cases; two of the reports stated that decisions would be made by a date certain, but petitioner failed to meet even her own deadlines.

This pattern of behavior persisted despite the repeated efforts of the Administrative Judge. He wrote her several times requesting the reports, reminding her that the delays were totally unacceptable and urging her to resolve the cases promptly. Additionally, he sent her correspondence from the statewide Deputy Chief Administrative Judge stating that she could be subject to Commission sanction if her errant behavior continued, and correspondence from litigants seeking resolutions of their cases. The Administrative Judge and his law clerk also met twice with petitioner in order to discuss the undecided matters. At the second meeting, in April 2000, they formulated a plan whereby petitioner would reduce her backlog by deciding five of her pending cases per week, but she failed to adhere to the plan and her backlog continued.

In October 2000, the Commission initiated its inquiry by letter to petitioner requesting information regarding a 16-month delay in rendering a decision. Petitioner ignored the Commission's letter—and three follow-up letters—until she appeared before the Commission for a hearing in December 2000. Subsequent to the hearing, petitioner, who at the time represented herself, received another letter from the Commission requesting additional information by a certain date, but did not respond until approximately 3½ weeks after the time specified.

After the Commission sustained the charges and determined that the appropriate sanction was removal, petitioner through counsel sought reconsideration based on new evidence. The attorney...