Sobel, Matter of
| Decision Date | 08 July 1960 |
| Citation | 409 N.Y.S.2d 958 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Proceedings Pursuant to Section 9-a of Article VI of the New York Constitution in Relation to Nathan R. SOBEL, County Judge, Kings County. In the Matter of the Proceedings Pursuant to Section 9-a of Article VI of the New York Constitution in Relation to Samuel S. LEIBOWITZ, County Judge, Kings County. |
| Court | New York Court on the Judiciary |
Before DESMOND, P. J., and DYE, RABIN, BELDOCK, BERGAN and WILLIAMS, JJ.
Because of certain public statements made by County Judges Sobel and Leibowitz of Kings County, charges against each of the Judges were presented by the Judicial Conference to, and entertained by, this Court on the Judiciary (N.Y.Const., art. VI, § 9-a). The charges allege that the making of these statements constituted as to each Judge conduct highly improper and prejudicial to the best interests of the courts. Judge Sobel's public statements as set forth in the charges filed with this court made accusations of unfairness in the prosecution of a homicide case in Kings County. Judge Leibowitz' statement made in answer to those of Judge Sobel was, it is alleged in the charges, intemperate in tone and language and wholly out of place in the courtroom in which it was delivered.
Each respondent County Judge has moved to dismiss the charges against him as insufficient in law to constitute cause for removal in other words, each has demurred to the charges. Each respondent has "solely for the purpose of said motion" stipulated the facts as to the making of the statements described in the charges facts which were already undisputed. This court has heard arguments and read the briefs of counsel on these motions. While the facts have been stipulated by respondents' counsel for purposes of the motion only, it is apparent that they are the only relevant facts, and the counsel appointed by the court to present the charges informs us that on a trial of the charges he would have no other proof to present. Accordingly, and regardless of the particular form in which these motions are made, we are now in a position to decide whether or not these undisputed facts call for the removal from office of these Judges or either of them. If the answer is to be "no", we should dismiss the charges now. If we consider that the conduct complained of is sufficiently grave for removal, we would still have before us all the facts necessary for decision, and no dispute as to any of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fuchsberg, Matter of
... ... Rudich, 256 App.Div. 586, 587, 10 N.Y.S.2d 929, 931; Matter of Barlow, 141 App.Div. 640, 643, 127 N.Y.S. 542, 545.) "Removal of any public officer, especially one elected by the voters, is an extreme penalty." (Matter of Sobel, 8 N.Y.2d (a), (j), 409 N.Y.S.2d 958.) ... In our view, the evidence does not support a determination that the respondent is unfit to continue in judicial office. The record establishes his inattentiveness to and, at times, a cavalier disregard for the necessity of avoiding the ... ...