Skip to content
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

In (Stalled) Camera

The New York Commission on Judicial Conduct has proposed the removal of a town justice

The Complaint alleged, inter alia, that from approximately September 2020 to February 2022, in connection with the Town of Athens 2020-21 application to the Justice Court Assistance Program of the Unified Court System (“JCAP”) and the receipt of JCAP funds, respondent surreptitiously directed that a security camera system be added to the application; awarded the camera-installation contract to his own company, Mercer Associates, contrary to law; charged the Town, in his capacity as owner of Mercer Associates, $3,329.99 for the purchase and installation of the security camera system, which included a $1,000 installation fee and an undisclosed markup fee of $760; signed a Town of Athens voucher in his capacity as Town Justice, authorizing payment of an invoice to his own company; invoked his judicial office in an attempt to persuade the Town to pay the invoice from Mercer Associates after being notified that payment was being withheld and continued to insist that the Town pay the invoice and charged an added interest fee for nonpayment. Respondent filed an Answer dated December 7, 2022.

Findings

Respondent violated these [various charged] Rules when he used his judicial position to advance his personal business interests by directing that the security camera system be included in them JCAP grant application even though the Town Board had not approved the system for inclusion in the application. Respondent then improperly caused his company, Mercer Associates, to purchase and install the camera system at the Town Court without disclosure to the Town Board and without any bidding. Furthermore, in his role as Town Justice, respondent signed a voucher submitted to the Town for payment to Mercer Associates knowing that the invoice attached to the voucher falsely included the cost of a higher priced camera system than the system he had installed. By this conduct, respondent caused his personal business interests to improperly take precedence over his judicial duties.

Proposed sanction

the Commission determines that the appropriate disposition is removal.

(Mike Frisch)