
    In the Matter of Willard H. Harris, Jr., as a Judge of the City Court, City of Lockport, Petitioner, v State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Respondent.
    Argued June 7, 1982;
    decided June 17, 1982
    POINTS OF COUNSEL
    
      Robert S. Roberson for petitioner.
    I. The Court of Appeals has broad power when reviewing matters involving alleged judicial misconduct, and, therefore, has jurisdiction to rule on all matters contained herein. (Matter of Quinn v State Comm. on Judicial Conduct, 54 NY2d 386; Matter of 
      
      Dixon v State Comm. on Judicial Conduct, 47 NY2d 523; Matter of Lonschein, 50 NY2d 569; Matter of Rogers v State Comm. on Judicial Conduct, 51 NY2d 224; Matter of Shilling, 51 NY2d 397.) II. The commission violated the due process rights of petitioner herein. (Withrow v Larkin, 421 US 35; Matter of Jones, 47 NY2d [mmm]; Matter of Cooley, 53 NY2d 64.) III. The Lockport City Court and Lockport Police Court have always been separate courts, and remain separate courts to this day. (Matter of Babchak v Sabers, 54 Misc 2d 150.) IV. The charter provisions of the City of Lockport are the legal authority regulating the practice of law by part-time Judges and Judges pro tempore in the City of Lockport. (Matter of Farrell v Board of Health of City of Oswego, 243 App Div 332; Schuster v Raflowitz, 245 App Div 248.) V. The canons of judicial ethics regulating the practice of law by part-time Judges and Judges pro tempore authorize the practice of law by the part-time Judges and Judges pro tempore of the courts of the City of Lockport as it has occurred since the adoption of the city charter.
    
      Gerald Stern for respondent.
    I. The Lockport City Charter cannot exempt petitioner from restrictions on the practice of law imposed by State law and well-established standards of ethics. (Wholesale Laundry Bd. of Trade v City of New York, 17 AD2d 327, 12 NY2d 998; Kindermann Fireproof Stor. Warehouses v City of New York, 39 AD2d 266.) II. Petitioner’s failure to respond to six letters of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct constitutes serious misconduct and compounds his other misconduct. (Matter of Cooley, 53 NY2d 64.) III. The commission’s combination of investigative and adjudicative functions is valid under the United States Constitution. (Withrow v Larkin, 421 US 35; Halleck v Berliner, 427 F Supp 1225; Hortonville Dist. v Hortonville Educ. Assn., 426 US 482; Trade Comm. v Cement Inst., 333 US 683; Friedman v State of New York, 24 NY2d 528, 397 US 317; Matter of Sarisohn, 21 NY2d 36.)
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

This appeal challenges a unanimous determination of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct that petitioner, a Judge of the City Court of Lockport, violated sections 16, 42 and 471 of the Judiciary Law, sections 33.1, 33.2 (a), 33.3 (b) (3) and 33.5 (f) of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (22 NYCRR 33.1, 33.2 [a], 33.3 [b] [3], 33.5 [f]) and canons 1, 2 and 3B (3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Upon review, we accept the determination made by the commission.

The charges brought against the petitioner alleged that on numerous occasions he or his law partners appeared in Lockport City Court during the period petitioner served as a Judge of that court. Additionally, petitioner was alleged to have allowed temporarily appointed Lockport City Court Judges and their law partners to appear before him.

As a defense, petitioner asserted that under the Lockport City Charter, there were two separate City Courts. The court designated City Court had sole jurisdiction over civil matters (art 15) and the Police Justice Court (art 14) was limited to criminal matters. Petitioner maintains that as a Judge in Police Justice Court, he, as well as his law partners, could continue to appear as counsel in civil matters heard in City Court.

The fallacy of petitioner’s argument is that the two courts established for Lockport in 1911 (L 1911, ch 870) were consolidated in 1964 under the provisions of the Uniform City Court Act. (UCCA, § 2300, subd [c].) It was thus improper and a violation of sections 16 and 471 of the Judiciary Law for petitioner to appear in Lockport City Court, or to have allowed his partners to have appeared in either division of that court.

As to those charges that petitioner acted improperly by allowing temporarily appointed City Court Judges and their law partners to appear before him in City Court, we agree with the commission that “public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the courts is diminished when a part-time judge acts as a lawyer in a proceeding in his own court before one of his judicial colleagues.” Furthermore, such conduct violates those canons of Judicial Conduct which require a Judge to studiously avoid all taint of impropriety. (Code of Judicial Conduct, canon 2.)

Accordingly, we accept the determination of the commission that petitioner be removed from judicial office.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in Per Curiam opinion.

Determined sanction accepted, without costs, and Willard H. Harris, Jr., is removed from the office of Judge of the City Court of the City of Lockport.  