 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANT COURT PAY RESTITUTION PAYMENTS OBLIGATION WARRANT CHAMPLAIN TOWN CLINTON COUNTY PAID JUSTICE DETERMINATION CHARGES INCIDENTS JUDGE ASSERTIONS BENCH WARRANT COMMISSION RESPONDENT PRINCIPLES PURPORTED FAILURE SANCTION VEHICLE OWNER RECEIPTS EVIDENCE ARREST JAIL CONTEMPT ATTORNEY |
IN THE MATTER OF THE HONORABLE LESTER C. HAMEL, JUSTICE OF THE CHAMPLAIN TOWN
COURT, CLINTON COUNTY, PETITIONER, FOR REVIEW OF A DETERMINATION OF STATE
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT, RESPONDENT.
88 N.Y.2d 317, 668 N.E.2d 390, 645 N.Y.S.2d 419 (1996).
June 5, 1996
SCJC No. 131 (1996 NY Int. 115)
Decided June 5, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Submitted by John F. Niles,
Submitted by Gerald Stern, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM:
Following an investigation and hearing, the State Commission on
Judicial Conduct has determined that petitioner should be removed from
the office of Justice of the Champlain Town Court in Clinton County.
The disciplinary charges against him arose principally out of two
incidents in which petitioner improperly jailed individuals for their
purported failure to pay fines and restitution obligations that he had
imposed. Because petitioner's conduct in connection with these two
incidents reflects a complete disregard for both his administrative
duties and the most elementary principles governing criminal
proceedings, we conclude that removal is the appropriate sanction.
The first of the charges against him concerns petitioner's handling
of a case involving unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The defendant
in the case appeared on September 11, 1989, entered a guilty plea and
was fined. Additionally, petitioner required him to pay restitution to
the vehicle's owner for the damage he caused. However, petitioner
neither gave the defendant a written record of the restitution
obligation nor prepared a court record as required by UJCA § 2019 and
the Recordkeeping Requirements for Town and Village Courts (22 NYCRR
200.23). Further, although the defendant's monetary obligations were
satisfied through a series of installment payments, petitioner made no
record of such payments and did not deposit the funds in his court
account. Instead, he gave the restitution money directly to the
vehicle owner and gave handwritten receipts to evidence the payments.
When he was erroneously informed in a 1993 out-of-court conversation
that the vehicle owner had not been paid, petitioner issued a warrant
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
