In the Matter of Honorable Robert
M. Corning, Sr., Justice of the
Ovid Town Court, Seneca County,
Petitioner,
For Review of a Determination of
State Commission on Judicial
Conduct,
Respondent.
2000 NY Int. 144
Petitioner, a Justice of the Ovid Town Court, Seneca County, asks us to review a determination of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, sustaining five charges of misconduct and removing him from office (see, NY Const, art VI, § 22; Judiciary Law § 44). Pursuant to our plenary review of the record, and upon our evaluation of the Commission's determinations, we conclude that all charges were established and justify removal.
Charges I and II are based on allegations that
petitioner, as Town Justice, violated regulations governing the
handling of court funds. Charge I alleged that petitioner failed
Petitioner admits that between August 1996 and December
1996 his court account was deficient a total of $2886.64.
Petitioner also concedes that, during that time period, he did
not report or remit any funds to the State Comptroller. By
letter dated January 15, 1997, the State Comptroller's office
advised petitioner that it was suspending his salary due to his
failure to properly account for court funds. On January 20,
petitioner mailed the missing monthly reports and funds to the
Comptroller, stating in a cover letter that he had "no reason or
alibi to give you for being tardy. There is no excuse."
Thereafter, by letter dated January 21, 1997, the Commission's
staff advised petitioner that it was investigating his failure to
report and remit funds. The Commission asked petitioner to
provide court records of the amount of money he collected between
August and December and bank records indicating that the funds
had been deposited into petitioner's court account. In response,
petitioner submitted only the court records establishing that he
had received the funds, stating again that he had "no reason or
One month later, in February 1997, petitioner again neglected the administrative requirement that he deposit funds promptly in his court account. By the end of May 1997, the account was $2,842.80 short. Petitioner does not dispute the facts underlying Charges I and II and we have no basis to disturb the determination of the Commission sustaining them.
Charge III of the Complaint arises from a disagreement between petitioner and a local attorney who represented a funeral home in an action against petitioner for an unpaid bill. A judgment in the amount of $1,485.00 was entered against petitioner. At the Commission hearing, the attorney testified that in April 1997 he received a telephone call from petitioner after petitioner learned of the judgment. Telling the attorney that he had been a Town Justice for ten years, petitioner accused him of being dishonest and indicated that he would take it upon himself to discredit the attorney's reputation.
Several weeks later, the attorney's client informed him that petitioner had called the funeral home numerous times. The attorney called petitioner and asked that all communication with his client be conducted through him. Petitioner responded that he would continue to call the client and only an order of protection would stop him. He went on to utter a stream of derogatory remarks about the client. Petitioner's invective ultimately impelled the attorney to hang up.
In May 1997, the attorney filed a complaint against petitioner with the Commission. When he learned of the complaint, petitioner went to the attorney's office and confronted his secretary in an irate manner. Petitioner was angrily waving a copy of the complaint, shouting that he intended to sue the attorney for slander. The secretary testified that she felt threatened by petitioner. The Referee credited both the attorney and his secretary's testimony and the Commission found the charge established. We find no basis for disturbing that determination.
Charge IV arose out of an incident in which petitioner allegedly acted in a retaliatory manner toward a second attorney. In 1989, this attorney had filed a complaint against petitioner with the Commission alleging that petitioner improperly requested him to pay $50 to secure a jury trial in a criminal case. Seven years later, the attorney was representing a different criminal defendant in a matter assigned to petitioner. The attorney requested that petitioner recuse himself. In open court, petitioner became aggressive toward him, refused to recuse himself, questioned him about the complaint he had lodged before the Commission and stated in a loud voice, "You should have paid the $50 [in the 1989 case]," followed by profanity. The Referee found this second attorney's testimony credible and we find no basis for disturbing that determination.
In March 1998, the Commission filed a Supplemental
On January 24, 1998, petitioner notified the Department
of Motor Vehicles that the client had failed to appear before him
within 60 days after a scheduled court appearance for a moving
violation. As a result, the DMV suspended the client's license
pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510.4-a. At the Commission
hearing, petitioner acknowledged that this attorney and his
client had appeared before him on December 4, 1997. Because,
however, the attorney exhibited "his bad attitude again" and
"walked out in a huff with nothing transpired," petitioner
considered it a non-appearance. Petitioner then admitted that
one of the reasons he suspended the client's license was the
attorney's failure to "make himself professional and apologetic
In all, we conclude that petitioner violated the
following Rules Governing Judicial Conduct: 22 NYCRR 100.1 (a
judge must observe "high standards of conduct * * * so that the
integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved");
22 NYCRR 100.2(A) (a judge must "act at all times in a manner
that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality
of the judiciary"); 22 NYCRR 100.3(A) (a judge's "judicial duties
* * * take precedence over all the judge's other activities"); 22
NYCRR 100.3(B)(1) (a judge must "be faithful to the law and
maintain professional competence in it"); and 22 NYCRR
100.3(C)(1) (a judge must "diligently discharge the judge's
administrative responsibilities without bias or prejudice and
maintain professional competence in judicial administration").
Petitioner repeatedly abused the power of his office,
demonstrated a lack of judicial temperament and mishandled public
funds. Petitioner's actions both on and off the bench
demonstrate a pattern of serious disregard for the standards of
judicial conduct. These standards "exist to maintain respect
toward everyone who appears in a court and to encourage respect
for the operation of the judicial process at all levels of the
system" (Matter of Roberts, , 91 NY2d 93, 97). Moreover, we are
satisfied that this Court should accept the Commission's
determined sanction of removal (see, NY Const, art VI,§ 22[d],
Accordingly, the determined sanction should be accepted, without costs, and petitioner removed from the office of Town Justice of the Town of Ovid.