Opinion
No. 11030475.
04-19-2011
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Daniel E. SEAMAN, Defendant.
Joseph V. Cardone, Orleans County District Attorney, Appointed Special Prosecutor, for the People. David C. Douglas, Attorney for the Defendant.
Joseph V. Cardone, Orleans County District Attorney, Appointed Special Prosecutor, for the People.
David C. Douglas, Attorney for the Defendant.
LEONARD G. TILNEY JR., J.
The court sua sponte reviews the issue of disqualification.
NOW, after review of § 14 of the Judiciary Law, review of the New York Court Rules [22 NYCRR § 100.3(E) ], and the direction given by our Court of Appeals in People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 521 N.Y.S .2d 663 (1987), this court would not have to disqualify or recuse itself automatically in the matter.
Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, which limits disqualification of a judge to a reason of interest or consanguinity, a trial judge is the sole arbitrator of recusal. New York State Court Rules regarding judicial conduct further indicate that a judge shall disqualify himself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Set forth in Rule 100.3(E) is an itemization of instances where the judge should disqualify himself, none of which are applicable here. The discretionary decision of recusal is within the personal conscience of the court. A judge by reason of learning, experience and judicial discipline is uniquely capable of distinguishing the issues and of making an objective determination based upon appropriate legal criteria, despite awareness of facts which cannot properly be relied upon in making a decision. That decision which is based upon the judge's subjective presumption necessarily is generally regarded as one of conscience.
The court is well aware of the news media coverage of this simple driving while intoxicated case, fraught with inaccurate factual and sarcastic reporting by the written press and character assassination of the court by local radio personnel. While the court is willing to weather such criticism and errors without comment, it must consider the damage which may be done to the judicial system by the same. This court's responsibility is to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the court's activities (See 22 NYCRR 100.2 ) and must act at all times in a manner which promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary [See 22 NYCRR 100.2(a) ]. While this court believes it could be fair and impartial, that is not the absolute test. If the public confidence in the court's integrity or impartiality might be reasonably questioned, it should disqualify itself.
Accordingly, the court recuses itself in this matter.