In the Matter of the Hon. B. Marc Mogil, Judge of the County Court, Nassau
County, Petitioner, Fro Review of a Determination of State Commission on
Judicial Conduct, Respondent.
88 N.Y.2d 749, 673 N.E.2d 896, 650 N.Y.S.2d 611(1996).
October 15, 1996
SCJC No. 191 (1996 NY Int. 188)
Decided October 15, 1996
______________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
______________________________________________________________________
Jacob R. Evseroff, for petitioner.
Robert H. Tembeckjian, for respondent.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner, a Judge of the County Court, Nassau County, has
requested review of the determination of the State Commission on
Judicial Conduct that from January through October 1994 he engaged in
a course of misconduct directed at an attorney and that he further
displayed a lack of candor and testified falsely before the Commission
during its investigation of this matter, and imposing the sanction of
removal (see, NY Const, art VI, 22(a); Judiciary Law 44(1),(7)).
Having conducted a plenary review of the record (Judiciary Law 44(9)),
we conclude that the Commission's determination is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, and that the sanction of removal is
appropriate.
The evidence before the Referee established that, at least
as early as 1991, petitioner was involved in a feud with a member of
the criminal defense bar of Nassau County over the
attorney's activities in the Criminal Courts Bar Association of that
County, of which both petitioner and the attorney were members. When
the attorney became president of this bar
association in 1993, petitioner publicly criticized the attorney's
conduct and announced that he was boycotting the organization during
the attorney's tenure in that office. In
December 1993, the attorney wrote to petitioner's court administrators
complaining of petitioner's judicial conduct and competence. One of
these Administrative Judges shared the
contents of this letter with petitioner who, despite the redaction of
the attorney's letterhead and signature, recognized its source. A
second letter from the attorney to the
SNIPPETS:
In the Matter of the Hon.
Marc Mogil, Judge of the County Court, Nassau County, Petitioner, Fro Review of a
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Jacob R. Evseroff, for petitioner.
Having conducted a plenary review of the record (Judiciary Law 44(9)), we conclude that the
The evidence before the Referee established that, at least as early as 1991, petitioner was
One of these Administrative Judges shared the contents of this letter with petitioner who,
The Referee found, and the evidence clearly demonstrates, that in the ensuing four months
In addition, the statement contained repeated warnings to lawyers against making unfounded
Following the Commission's investigation into these allegations of misconduct, during which
Charge I was based on the anonymous communications petitioner sent to the attorney, Charge II
In contending that the Commission failed to sustain its burden of proof, petitioner relies on
There is no question that misconduct need only be established by a preponderance of the
|
