Corrupt Commission on Judicial Conduct Recommends Judge-Elect Suspension

Counsel Asks Court of Appeals Not to Suspend Surrogate-Elect
The New York Law Journal by Joel Stashenko and Daniel Wise - December 23, 2008

Nora S. Anderson should be allowed to become Manhattan surrogate on Jan. 1, even as the Manhattan district attorney prosecutes her on felony charges of concealing improper political contributions during her campaign for the bench earlier this year, her attorney has told the Court of Appeals. And if the Court decides to suspend Ms. Anderson, it should do so with pay because she is supporting an ill mother and brother, and the surrogate-elect will be prohibited from practicing law when her term begins on Jan. 1, the attorney, Richard Godosky, urged in a letter to the Court.

The Court is determining Ms. Anderson's status as surrogate following her Dec. 10 arraignment on a 10-count indictment of falsely reporting that $250,000 that poured into her campaign coffers before the September primary was her own money. Prosecutors contend the money came from attorney Seth Rubenstein, for whom Ms. Anderson has worked for nearly a decade. "Ms. Anderson's indictment . . . does not charge Ms. Anderson with acts of venality or corruption, but violations of the campaign finance provisions of the Election Law either as misdemeanors under the Election Law or generic felonies under the Penal Law based on the Election Law misdemeanors," Mr. Godosky wrote. "Obviously, because she has yet to take the Bench, the conduct with which Ms. Anderson is charged has nothing to do with her conduct or fitness as a judge." Mr. Godosky cited Matter of Cornelius, 48 NY2d 1014 (1980), as supporting his view that suspension of a judge is not merited in every instance where the judge is charged with a felony. In Cornelius, a 5-2 Court ruled against suspending a Family Court judge from Monroe County who faced a felony for offering testimony while a prosecutor which he had been advised was false.

Robert H. Tembeckjian, administrator of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, argued in his letter to the Court that suspension is the customary course the Court has taken when judges have been charged with felonies. Doing so balances the "presumption of innocence to which the accused is entitled at trial with the need for public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, the courts and the administration of justice," Mr. Tembeckjian wrote. "The Commission believes that public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, the courts and the administration of justice would be undermined were Ms. Anderson to exercise the powers of judicial office in one court while contemporaneously defending against felony charges pending against her in another," Mr. Tembeckjian opined. The commission advised the Court of Appeals it could find no other instance since the current constitutional and statutory provisions giving the Court the authority to decide the status of judges went into effect in 1978 when an individual not holding judicial or other public office was charged with a felony between the election and when the individual was to take office. Mr. Tembeckjian said the commission was taking no position on whether Ms. Anderson should be paid if she is suspended. Mr. Godosky criticized Mr. Tembeckjian for not citing Matter of Cornelius in his letter to the Court. Mr. Tembeckjian said it was an oversight. The Court is expected to make a determination on Ms. Anderson's judicial status as of Jan. 1 based on the submissions.

Both Ms. Anderson and Mr. Rubenstein have been free on their own recognizance since being arraigned on the charges before Acting Supreme Court Justice Bruce Allen of Manhattan (NYLJ, Dec. 11). Both face a maximum prison term of 1 1/3 to four years if convicted of the top six counts of the indictment, all Class E felonies. When announcing the indictments earlier this month, District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau contended Ms. Anderson found herself short of money in the waning days of the Democratic primary in September. Mr. Rubenstein is accused of making payments of $100,000 and $150,000 from his own accounts to Ms. Anderson's personal accounts, with Ms. Anderson allegedly donating the money or lending it to her campaign fund. By law, the maximum Mr. Rubenstein could contribute to Ms. Anderson's primary was $33,122, Mr. Morgenthau said.

Ms. Anderson won a three-way race against John J. Reddy, counsel to the public administrator, and Manhattan Justice Milton A. Tingling by capturing 48 percent of the 55,000 votes cast. She ran unopposed in the general election. The Manhattan surrogate makes $136,700 a year. If Ms. Anderson is suspended, Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau could assign another judge to fill in until her case is resolved. Mr. Godosky, of Godosky & Genile, is representing Ms. Anderson in the suspension matter. Gustave H. Newman of Newman & Greenberg is her trial counsel. "She fully expects to be vindicated, whether on pretrial motion or after trial," Mr. Godosky told the Court. Stuart M. Cohen, clerk of the Court, invited both Ms. Anderson and the commission to offer their views to the Court as it considers whether Ms. Anderson should be suspended. Joel.Stashenko@incisivemedia.com, Daniel.Wise@incisivemedia.com


Suspension Recommended for Judge-Elect
The New York Times by JAMES BARRON - December 22, 2008

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct recommended on Monday that Judge-elect Nora S. Anderson be suspended when she takes office next month in Manhattan Surrogate’s Court and that she not exercise judicial power until charges that she violated campaign-finance laws are settled. The commission said in a letter to the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, that “public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, the courts and the administration of justice would be undermined” if Ms. Anderson presided over cases in Surrogate’s Court while facing criminal charges. Robert H. Tembeckjian, the commission’s administrator and counsel, said in the letter that the commission was not taking a position on the allegations against Ms. Anderson, a lawyer who won a three-way race last month. A grand jury in Manhattan indicted her on Dec. 10 on charges of accepting $250,000 in campaign contributions from her boss and concealing where the money came from. Under state law, individual donors are not allowed to give any campaign more than $33,122.50.

Mr. Tembeckjian said in an interview that since 1978, when the current laws covering the state judiciary took effect, there had been no other cases that he was aware of involving felony charges against a judge who had been elected but not yet sworn in. He said that a felony indictment against a judge or a judge-elect was “rare,” but that it had been the “consistent practice” of the Court of Appeals to suspend an accused judge while the charges were pending. “In so doing,” he said in the letter, “the court has balanced the presumption of innocence to which the accused is entitled at trial with the need for public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, the courts and the administration of justice.” The Court of Appeals notified Ms. Anderson on Dec. 11 that it may consider suspending her until the case was settled. A lawyer for Ms. Anderson, Gustave H. Newman, did not return a call for comment.


Judge Could Be Suspended on the Day She Is Sworn In
The New York Times by JOHN ELIGON - December 12, 2008

The New York Court of Appeals notified Judge-elect Nora S. Anderson on Thursday that it may consider suspending her until criminal charges against her are decided. The court also offered her an opportunity to oppose suspension. A day earlier, Ms. Anderson, who was elected last month to the Manhattan Surrogate’s Court, was indicted on charges that she had concealed the source of $250,000 worth of contributions to her campaign. Manhattan prosecutors also charged Seth Rubenstein — the head of the Brooklyn law firm where Ms. Anderson works, and her campaign adviser — who they say funneled the money to Ms. Anderson’s campaign account. Ms. Anderson is to officially assume her judgeship on Jan. 1. But the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, which has the authority to suspend a judge charged with a felony, could act before the end of the year, said David Bookstaver, a spokesman for the Office of Court Administration. If the court does decide to suspend her, its action would not take effect until Jan. 1. Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye will not participate in the discussions because she is retiring Dec. 31, before any decision involving Ms. Anderson would take effect, Gary Spencer, a Court of Appeals spokesman, said.

A letter, signed by Stuart M. Cohen, the court clerk, notifying Ms. Anderson of the possibility of suspension, gives Ms. Anderson until Dec. 22 to offer “reasons or arguments why suspension action should not be taken.” The letter also said that the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which has the authority to remove a judge from the bench, may present its views. Such letters are standard when judges face suspension, Mr. Spencer said. If Ms. Anderson is suspended, Ann Pfau, the state’s chief administrative judge, would assign a temporary replacement. John Reddy, one of the candidates Ms. Anderson beat in the Democratic primary in September, said he would reserve judgment because the truth remained uncertain. Justice Milton Tingling of State Supreme Court, another candidate who lost to Ms. Anderson, said sitting judges could not comment on active cases. Ravi Batra, Justice Tingling’s campaign finance chairman, who called for an investigation into Ms. Anderson in July, said it might be best for her to resign. Ms. Anderson’s lawyer, Gus Newman, said Ms. Anderson “is not going to resign the post.”