Fourth Department — Judicial Misconduct: Doe v. New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct

Listen to this article

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Judicial Misconduct

Prohibition — Adequate Remedy

Doe v. New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct
CA 11-02281
Appealed from Supreme Court, Onondaga County

Background: The petitioner commenced an Article 78 proceeding seeking a writ of prohibition barring the respondent from investigating and disciplining him for alleged acts of judicial misconduct on the ground that the respondent lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The respondent argued that the petitioner did not establish a clear right to prohibition and that the appropriate remedy was the petitioner’s right to appeal directly to the Court of Appeals. The court initially dismissed the petition, but on reargument, reinstated the petition and ordered discovery.

Ruling: The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the prior judgment that dismissed the petition. The court found that prohibition will not ordinarily be warranted where the grievance can be adequately addressed by alternative proceedings at law or in equity. Further, prohibition is only available when a court or quasi-judicial body exceeds its jurisdiction in a manner that implicates the legality of the proceeding itself. As the petitioner has the right to appeal, prohibition was not warranted.

Kathleen M. Treasure of the New York State Office of the Attorney General for the respondent-appellant; Aaron Mark Zimmerman of the Zimmerman Law Office for the petitioner-respondent