Court of Appeals affirms removal of a judge for a racial slur and biased remarks

Holding The Court affirmed the Commission’s determination that the petitioner committed judicial misconduct by using a racial slur and making racially insensitive comments, which violated rules requiring judges to maintain public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality. The Court held that the sanction of removal was warranted due to the egregious nature of the conduct, the petitioner’s lack of credibility, and his failure to accept responsibility for his actions.

Why it matters

The decision affirms the removal of a sitting judge for using a racial slur and making biased comments, reinforcing the high ethical standards required of judicial officers.

It clarifies that the ‘strict liability’ argument from Matter of Agresta does not apply, emphasizing that judges are held to a higher standard than the general public regarding racial bias and insensitivity.

The court’s words

We conclude that petitioner committed misconduct and the sanction of removal is warranted.

2026 NY Slip Op 06236, at the official text

The racial slur used by petitioner was unquestionably offensive and was followed just days later by petitioner's racially biased, on-the-record comments regarding a Black defendant who had appeared before him.

2026 NY Slip Op 06236, at the official text

Petitioner's inability to recognize the impact that his statements could have on the public's confidence in the judiciary's impartiality and integrity demonstrates his lack of understanding of the need for judges to both be and appear to be impartial

2026 NY Slip Op 06236, at the official text