From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Nichols v. Gamso

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 19, 1976
346 N.E.2d 556 (N.Y. 1976)

Opinion

Submitted November 20, 1975

Decided February 19, 1976

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department.

Victor A. Kovner for appellants. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Samuel A. Hirshowitz and A. Seth Greenwald of counsel), for respondent.


We construe the decision of the Appellate Division, First Department, on remittal in this case as a determination both that the material in this record is nonseverable and that, this being so, there should be no disclosure here.

We agree on the issue of nonseverability. It does not follow, of course, because the evidence with respect to a sustained charge is inexorably intertwined with that relating to an unsustained charge, that public disclosure should always be foreclosed. Each instance of nonseverability must be confronted individually. In this instance, however, we note that the much more serious of the two charges was rejected and that the sanction imposed for the lesser was of censure only and then for the appearance rather than the fact of impropriety. Implied in the imposition of a sanction short of removal is the conclusion that continuation in judicial service will be in the public interest. It would then be inconsistent, in the absence of weighty contraindication, to expose the Judge to disclosure of accusations, which in the light of the limited disciplinary determination are rationally irrelevant but might lead to unfair prejudice and notoriety, thereby without warrant impairing his capability to render effective judicial service in the future. In the particular combination of circumstances in this case and under the application of a principle rarely to be invoked, therefore, we cannot say that the determination not to disclose was an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should therefore be affirmed.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER and FUCHSBERG concur in Per Curiam opinion; Judge COOKE taking no part.

Judgment affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Nichols v. Gamso

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 19, 1976
346 N.E.2d 556 (N.Y. 1976)
Case details for

Matter of Nichols v. Gamso

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MARY P. NICHOLS et al., Appellants, v. HYMAN W. GAMSO, as…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 19, 1976

Citations

346 N.E.2d 556 (N.Y. 1976)
346 N.E.2d 556
382 N.Y.S.2d 755

Citing Cases

People v. Marino

" The latest pronouncement of the New York Court of Appeals on this matter, while albeit not in a case at all…

Matter of Mertens

June 2, 1977 Motion of Tom Goldstein, of the New York Times, for release of the record of this proceeding is…