A Sham Proceeding

A decision recently issued by the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct

Louis P. Violanti, an Associate Judge of the Lackawanna City Court, Erie County, resigned from office on January 23, 2025, and agreed to never return, after being charged with misconduct by the Commission on Judicial Conduct for orchestrating a fraudulent court proceeding to dismiss the traffic ticket issued to an acquaintance.

This is the second time Judge Violanti resigned from the Lackawanna City Court. When he did so in 2013, however, it was without a pledge never to return, and before the Commission could remove him from office, which under the State Constitution would have barred him from returning to the bench.

In January 2013, while serving as an Associate Judge of the Lackawanna City Court, Judge Violanti arranged and presided over a sham proceeding in which no prosecutor was present and a police officer impersonated the traffic defendant, with whom the judge was acquainted. Judge Violanti then dismissed the ticket. This conduct resulted in a two-year suspension of his law license by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, which found that his actions constituted “serious misconduct.”

Judge Violanti’s law license was reinstated in March 2016, and he was reappointed to the bench by the Mayor of Lackawanna in March 2024 for a 6-year term.

From the stipulation involving a driving while suspended charge against an acquaintance

On or about December 24, 2012, at a social event, Respondent spoke with Mr. Endress, who mentioned the pending traffic ticket. Respondent took the ticket and stated that he would “take care of it.”

On or about January 11, 2013, at Respondent’s request, John Hruby, a Lackawanna police officer assigned to Respondent’s courtroom for security, posed as Mr. Endress in an appearance on the record. Respondent and the court
officer engaged in a sham colloquy, during which Officer Hruby, masquerading as the defendant, submitted documents to Respondent purporting to establish that the suspended registration was the result of an insurance company error. At no time during this sham proceeding did a prosecutor or the actual defendant appear or submit documentation regarding the insurance coverage for the vehicle in question.

On or about January 11, 2013, following the colloquy between Respondent and Officer Hruby, Respondent stated from the bench that, “in anticipation of what the District Attorney’s Office would do,” he was dismissing the traffic ticket in the interest of justice.

(Mike Frisch)