Rogers v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct

Decision Date13 November 1980
Citation51 N.Y.2d 224,414 N.E.2d 382,433 N.Y.S.2d 1001
Parties, 414 N.E.2d 382 In the Matter of Brent ROGERS, as Justice of the Town Court of Brookfield, Madison County, Petitioner, v. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT, Respondent.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct has determined that petitioner Rogers should be removed as a Town Justice of the Town of Brookfield. Petitioner argues that the procedures followed by the commission were beyond its powers, but in view of petitioner's answer we do not find it necessary to consider those procedural arguments. The answer admitted that petitioner failed to respond to commission inquiries and failed to report or remit moneys during the period from June, 1978 through August, 1979, and thus established his misconduct. We reject the determined sanction of removal, however, and direct that petitioner be censured.

Petitioner is a dairy farmer who stood for election as a Town Justice at the request of both political parties. His answer states that he filed reports as required for his first five months in office but was unable to keep up with the demands of his administrative duties because of the heavy inroads into the time required for farming which his judicial duties made (contrary to what he had been led to believe), a result of the fact that he worked and resided in the geographical center of the township and was, therefore, always available whereas the other Justice lived in the northeastern corner of the township and worked outside of the community. The answer indicates further that petitioner considered resigning but decided not to because he had already made considerable financial and personal sacrifice for the position (which paid him only $2.60 per day) and felt strongly that someone who lived and worked in the community should hold the office.

The commission noted that petitioner had filed the overdue 1978 and 1979 reports in October, 1979 and filed the September through November, 1979 reports later than the law required, in December, 1979. It concluded that petitioner should be removed essentially because he "has evinced repeatedly his inability or unwillingness to discharge the responsibilities of judicial office." While we do not condone petitioner's admitted failures, we do not construe his answer as indicating...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Quinn v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 24 Noviembre 1981
    ... ... art. VI, § 22, subd. d; Judiciary Law, § 44, subd. 9; see, also, Matter of Dixon v. State Comm. on Judicial Conduct, 47 N.Y.2d 523, 419 N.Y.S.2d 445, 393 N.E.2d 441; Matter of Lonschein, 50 N.Y.2d 569, 430 N.Y.S.2d 571, 408 N.E.2d 901; Matter of Rogers v. State Comm. on Judicial Conduct, 51 N.Y.2d 224, 433 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 414 N.E.2d 382; Matter of Shilling, 51 N.Y.2d 397, 434 N.Y.S.2d 909, 415 N.E.2d 900) ...         Indeed, the Constitution expressly states that "the court of appeals may impose a less or more severe sanction prescribed ... ...
  • Rater, Matter of
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 12 Febrero 1987
    ... ... Town Court, Petitioner ... State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Respondent ... Court of ... severe sanction may be unwarranted (id.; Matter of Rogers v. State Commn. on Judicial Conduct, 51 N.Y.2d 224, 433 ... ...
  • Cooley v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 4 Junio 1981
    ... ... recordkeeping "evinced a tardiness and carelessness inconsistent with her position of trust and responsibility as a judicial officer", concluded that petitioner should be removed from office ...         Petitioner, citing Matter of Rogers v. State Comm. on Judicial Conduct, 51 N.Y.2d 224, 433 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 414 N.E.2d 382, argues primarily that the sanction of removal was unwarranted because her failure to file timely reports does not indicate an unwillingness to discharge the responsibilities of judicial office. Unlike Rogers, ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT