In
the Matter of the Proceeding Pursuant to Section 44, subdivision 4, of the
Judiciary Law in Relation to DAVID J. PAJAK, a Justice of the Pembroke
Town Court, Genesee County.
THE
COMMISSION:
Lawrence
S. Goldman, Esq., Chair
Honorable
Frances A. Ciardullo, Vice Chair
Stephen
R. Coffey, Esq.
Colleen
C. DiPirro
Richard
D. Emery, Esq.
Raoul
Lionel Felder, Esq.
Christina
Hernandez, M.S.W.
Honorable
Daniel F. Luciano
Honorable
Karen K. Peters
Alan
J. Pope, Esq.
Honorable
Terry Jane Ruderman
APPEARANCES:
Robert
H. Tembeckjian (John J. Postel, Of Counsel) for the Commission
Michael
M. Mohun for Respondent
The
respondent, David J. Pajak, a justice of the Pembroke Town Court, Genesee
County, was served with a Formal Written Complaint dated April 19, 2004, Genesee
County, containing one charge. Respondent
filed an answer dated June 4, 2004.
On
August 3, 2004, the administrator of the Commission, respondent and
respondent’s counsel entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts pursuant to
Judiciary Law §44(5), stipulating that the Commission make its determination
based upon the agreed facts, recommending that respondent be admonished and
waiving further submissions and oral argument.
On
September 23, 2004, the Commission approved the agreed statement and made the
following determination.
1.
Respondent has been a justice of the Pembroke Town Court, Genesee County
since 1993. Respondent is an
attorney.
2. On
or about April 12, 2003, respondent operated a motor vehicle in the Town of
Batavia while under the influence of alcohol, with the result that respondent
was involved in a property damage accident with another motorist and was charged
with Driving While Intoxicated, a violation of Section 1192(3) of the Vehicle
and Traffic Law; Refusing To Take A Breath Screening Test, a violation of
Section 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law; Consumption of Alcohol, a violation
of Section 1227(1) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law; and Failure To Keep Right, a
violation of Section 1120A of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
3. On
or about November 19, 2003, respondent pleaded guilty in the Bergen Town Court
to Driving While Intoxicated, a misdemeanor, in full satisfaction of all
charges. Respondent paid a $500
fine and $125 surcharge.
4. During
the course of the proceeding in Bergen Town Court, respondent completed an
alcohol evaluation program, in which it was determined that he did not suffer
from an alcohol-related pathology and that he did not need treatment.
5. There
is no indication that, at the scene of the accident, in court or otherwise,
respondent exerted or appeared to exert the influence of his judicial office for
his own benefit, or for anyone else’s benefit or detriment.
Upon
the foregoing findings of fact, the Commission concludes as a matter of law that
respondent violated Sections
100.1, 100.2(A) and 100.4(A)(2) of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct
and should be disciplined for cause, pursuant to Article 6, Section 22 of the
New York State Constitution and Section 44(1) of the Judiciary Law. Charge I of the Formal Written Complaint is sustained, and
respondent’s misconduct is established.
A
judge who operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol violates
the law and imperils public safety. Matter
of Henderson, 1995 Annual Report 118 (Commn on Jud Conduct).
Respondent’s unlawful conduct resulted in an accident, which caused
property damage. By failing to
abide by laws that he is called upon to apply in court, respondent undermined
his effectiveness as a judge and brought the judiciary as a whole into
disrepute.
In
determining an appropriate disposition in such cases in the past, the Commission
has considered mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances, including the level
of intoxication, whether the judge’s conduct caused an accident or injury,
whether the conduct was an isolated instance or part of a pattern, the conduct
of the judge during arrest, and the need and willingness of the judge to seek
treatment. See, e.g., Matter of
Siebert, 1994 Annual Report 103 (Commn on Jud Conduct)
(judge was convicted of Driving While Ability Impaired after causing a
three-car accident [admonition]); Matter of Henderson, supra
(judge was convicted of Driving While Intoxicated, identified himself as a judge
and asked, “Isn’t there anything we can do?” [admonition]); Matter of
Barr, 1981 Annual Report 139 (Commn on Jud Conduct) (judge had two
alcohol-related convictions, asserted his judicial office and was abusive and
uncooperative during his arrests, but had made “a sincere effort to
rehabilitate himself” [censure]).
In
recent years, in the wake of increased
recognition of the dangers of Driving While Intoxicated and the toll it exacts
on society, alcohol-related
driving offenses have been regarded with particular severity.
We conclude, even in the absence of exacerbating factors, that public
discipline is appropriate in this case. See
Matter of Burns, 1999 Annual Report 83 (Commn on Jud Conduct).
Such a result not only underscores the seriousness of such misconduct,
but also serves as a reminder to respondent and to the public that judges are
held to the highest standards of conduct, both on and off the bench
(Section 100.1 of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct).
By
reason of the foregoing, the Commission determines that the appropriate
disposition is admonition.
Mr.
Goldman, Judge Ciardullo, Ms. DiPirro, Mr. Emery, Mr. Felder, Judge Luciano,
Judge Peters and Judge Ruderman concur.
Mr.
Coffey dissents and votes to reject the agreed statement of facts on the basis
that the disposition is too lenient.
Ms.
Hernandez and Mr. Pope were not present.
Dated:
October 6, 2004
