Three judges in the blue state of New York have reportedly stepped down following serious allegations of misconduct. One judge admitted to believing that all defendants were guilty, another was involved in a peculiar scandal, and a third was apprehended for driving under the influence. This left the state’s judicial investigative oversight body with no alternative but to compel all three judges to resign.
For context, in early 2025, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct released several press statements outlining its investigations into three judges: Richard Snyder, Louis Violanti, and Julie Kuck. The commission concluded that their actions fell short of judicial standards, necessitating their resignations.
In a press release dated February 4, 2025, the commission detailed Judge Snyder’s resignation. The commission reported that he claimed he could “not be impartial” after attempting to be excused from Grand Jury Duty by repeatedly asserting that “all litigants who appeared before him ‘did something wrong’ and, among other things, ‘I know they’re guilty because they did something wrong. That’s how they got a ticket.’”
In reaction to Judge Snyder’s resignation, Commission Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian criticized the judge’s conduct, stating, “It is bad enough that a judge would seek to avoid such a fundamental civic responsibility as jury service. It is astounding that the judge would claim an inability to be impartial, and to declare under oath that the accused must be guilty or they would not be in court.”
Furthermore, a day later, on February 5, 2025, the commission announced the resignation of Judge Louis P. Violanti, who faced misconduct charges for “orchestrating a fraudulent court proceeding to dismiss the traffic ticket issued to an acquaintance.” The commission noted that Violanti was resigning for the second time, having previously left the bench in 2013.
In reaction to Judge Violanti’s resignation, Administrator Tembeckjian described his conduct as “outrageous” and stated, “If the Commission had not been limited by legal time constraints, the judge would have been removed in 2013 and would have been constitutionally barred from returning. Instead, a decade later, he returned, only to confront disciplinary action and ultimately accept the unavoidable: a permanent exit from the bench.”
Subsequently, on February 3, 2025, the commission revealed the resignation of Judge Julie Kuck, who was under investigation for driving while intoxicated. The judge admitted guilt and stepped down from her position on January 10, 2025, consenting to “never seek or accept judicial office at any time in the future.”
In light of Judge Kuck’s resignation, Administrator Tembeckjian condemned her behavior, asserting, “Operating a vehicle while impaired by alcohol, drugs, or other substances that diminish perception poses a risk to the driver, passengers, pedestrians, and others on the road.” He further remarked, “Judges must be particularly aware of the importance of setting a proper example in this matter, as their behavior, whether on or off the bench, is frequently subject to scrutiny and public attention.”
