Ed Simeone Running? PUBLIC NEEDS to know the Real Simeone

[Unregistered0000]

ettore simeone is disgusting. family court judge with no family values. amazing how he's running, stern commission came down hard on him, the public needs to know.

"Walsh said Conservatives have also "wholeheartedly" decided to back Conservative Family Court Judge Ettore Simeone for re-election, despite a censure from the state commission on judicial conduct."

The bottom line:

http://www.scjc.state.ny.us/Determinations/S/simeone.htm

"By reason of the foregoing, the Commission determines that the appropriate disposition is censure. "

[I am P'oed]

I cannot believe the conservatives would stand with this piece of garbage. I thought that Johannesen was supposed to bring ethics to the Conservative Party. What a hypocrite!!

[but its suffolk county]

I cannot believe the conservatives would stand with this piece of garbage. I thought that Johannesen was supposed to bring ethics to the Conservative Party. What a hypocrite!!

In the Matter of the Proceeding Pursuant to Section 44, subdivision 4, of the Judiciary Law in Relation to ETTORE A. SIMEONE, a Judge of the Family Court, Suffolk County.

THE COMMISSION:

Lawrence S. Goldman, Esq., Chair

Honorable Frances A. Ciardullo, Vice Chair

Stephen R. Coffey, Esq.

Colleen C. DiPirro

Richard D. Emery, Esq.

Raoul Lionel Felder, Esq.

Christina Hernandez, M.S.W.

Honorable Daniel F. Luciano

Honorable Karen K. Peters

Alan J. Pope, Esq.

Honorable Terry Jane Ruderman

APPEARANCES:

Robert H. Tembeckjian (Jennifer Tsai, Of Counsel) for the Commission

Vincent J. Messina, Jr., for Respondent

The respondent, Ettore A. Simeone, a judge of the Family Court, Suffolk County, was served with a Formal Written Complaint dated May 26, 2004, containing one charge. Respondent filed an answer dated June 7, 2004.

On September 14, 2004, the administrator of the Commission, respondent and respondent’s counsel entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts pursuant to Judiciary Law §44(5), stipulating that the Commission make its determination based upon the agreed facts, recommending that respondent be ther admonished or censured and waiving further submissions and oral argument.

On September 23, 2004, the Commission approved the agreed statement and made the following determination.

1. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in New York in 1981. He has been a judge of the Family Court, Suffolk County, since August 1997.

2. Suzanne Mitsos is not an attorney. She is the director of Montfort House, a residential youth services facility in Suffolk County.

3. Respondent and Ms. Mitsos first met at a professional conference in 1998, when Ms. Mitsos was associated with Hope House Ministries, an affiliate of Montfort House.

4. In December 2001, the relationship between respondent and Ms. Mitsos became romantic.

5. From on or about December 21, 2001, to in or about May 2003, respondent remanded numerous Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS) to non-secure detention. The Department of Probation assigned some of the PINS to Montfort House, one of two primary residential youth services facilities in Suffolk County. Respondent was aware of the assignments. Respondent continued to preside over matters involving PINS remanded to Montfort House, notwithstanding that he was involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. Mitsos, the director of Montfort House.

6. From on or about December 21, 2001, to in or about May 2003, when she appeared in respondent’s court on matters related to Montfort House, Ms. Mitsos sat at the same table with and consulted with Jane Bernstn, Esq., the law guardian representing PINS remanded to Montfort House. Ms. Mitsos sometimes addressed the court on the record to advocate positions in substantive cases on which respondent had to pass judgment. In many cases, Ms. Mitsos submitted behavioral reports concerning PINS to the court. Her stated views sometimes opposed the recommendations of the county attorney, the Probation Department, Child Protective Services, and the Office of Children and Family Services.

7. Respondent never disclosed to the parties and the attorneys his relationship with Ms. Mitsos.

8. Respondent recognizes the impropriety and appearance of impropriety in his conduct, notwithstanding his effort in every case to render decisions on the merits.

Upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Commission concludes as a matter of law that respondent violated Sections 100.1, 100.2(A) and 100.3(E) of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and should be disciplined for cause, pursuant to Article 6, Section 22 of the New York State Constitution and Section 44(1) of the Judiciary Law. Charge I of the Formal Written Complaint is sustained, and respondent’s misconduct is established.

A judge’s disqualification is required in any matter where the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned (Section 100.3[E][1] of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct). As respondent has stipulated, he violated that standard by presiding over numerous matters involving a youth services facility at a time when he was romantically involved with the facility’s director. Over a period of 17 months, respondent remanded youths who were then assigned to the facility, and he continued to preside over proceedings involving those youths, notwithstanding his personal relationship with the facility’s director, who appeared in respondent’s court, filed reports and advocated positions on which he had to pass judgment. On occasion, those positions were contrary to those of the County Attorney and other advocates in respondent’s court. Notwithstanding respondent’s efforts to be impartial, respondent’s conduct violated his duty to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, and each time he favored the position advocated by the facility’s director, he raised a suspicion that his ruling was influenced by personal considerations. Sections 100.1 and 100.2 of the Rules; Matter of Robert, 1997 Annual Report 127, accepted, 89 NY2d 745 (1997); Matter of DiBlasi, 2002 Annual Report 87 (Commn on Jud Conduct).

In DiBlasi, a judge was disciplined, inter alia, for presiding for two months over cases involving an attorney for a social services agency with whom he had a romantic relationship, notwithstanding the judge’s prompt efforts to be transferred out of the attorney’s part. Here, there is no such mitigation, and respondent continued to preside over his friend’s cases for a significant period. Each time his friend appeared in his court, respondent should have been reminded of the conflict presented and should have recognized his ethical obligation not to preside in cases involving the facility.

By reason of the foregoing, the Commission determines that the appropriate disposition is censure.

Mr. Goldman, Judge Ciardullo, Ms. DiPirro, Mr. Felder, Judge Peters and Judge Ruderman concur.

Mr. Coffey and Mr. Emery vote to accept the agreed statement of facts but dissent from the sanction and vote to admonish respondent.

Judge Luciano did not participate.

Ms. Hernandez and Mr. Pope were not present.

Dated: October 6, 2004

[phlame novice]

CONSERVATIVE PARTY hold back your nomination.

if the democrats or the republicans endorse simeone it'll be an embarassment. the days of judicial ethics are over.

the political system rewards good for nothing people. ed walsh is NOT helping the people with simeone.

so the former ethics chairman is supporting this unethical judge who was censured by the stern commission, wow, what a guy, i guess when you become a political boss you change

[Home Wrecker]

I heard the republicans did not nominate him last night. At l there are still some people out there with morales.

[Courtfly]

A former DA, law clerk to Pat Ls (Suffolk administrative judge), a distinguished jurist in his own right, a conservative (which - by the way - does not mean he is not human), close friend of Judge Farneti, another fine jurist from the conservative camp and offspring of Judge Ls, and a very caring and honorable person.

Point: the Stern Commission COULD have removed him - but the said - nothing wrong with his decisions - just the appearance of impropriety - NEVER his decisions. How many Judges would survive scrutiny of thr decisions - not many. Simeone did survive the hard look at his decisions.

The County would do well to keep a person with such an impeccable DECISION record.

Unfortunately - the morons of Suffolk will not see through the smoke - and make yet another dumb mistake.

thought: Keep the bench human - - or do you want Traynor back?

[Home Wrecker]

Simeone cheated on his wife and left his family for the women that was the reason he was censored by the Stern Commission. We need jurists with integrity and morals. If Ls taught him then he should go too.

[STOP B/S]

Stop The B/s Ed Is A Good Person!

[Home Wrecker]

Ask his ex wife how good of a person he is. If your definition of a good person is someone who cheats on his wife and then leaves her then your right.

[Buzzer]

Simeone cheated on his wife and left his family for the women that was the reason he was censored by the Stern Commission. We need jurists with integrity and morals. If Ls taught him then he should go too.

Did your main squeeze dump you - only reason you would embarass yourself with a comment like this.

He is a great Judge and a man of honor. Not all failed marriages are the result of dishonor. What honor I see is his standing up in light of the censure and saying - here I am to serve the County. He could make double the money in private practice - but wants to continue to serve.

[buzzer]

Ask his ex wife how good of a person he is. If your definition of a good person is someone who cheats on his wife and then leaves her then your right.


Now how dumb is this person - man who meets & falls in love - with unfortunate consequences - and you label him bad. Dumb. But not your fault - you are - based upon your language skills - from the shallow end of the gene pool.

[Home Wrecker]

Get real. Everyone knows he cheated on his wife with the women mentioned in the Stern Commission report.

[Buzzer]

Get real. Everyone knows he cheated on his wife with the women mentioned in the Stern Commission report.

Does NOT make him a bad person - and has nothing to do with his judicial ability or temperment.

The Stern commission did no care who he was with - they were worried about the appearance of impropriety. And after the investigation -they said - OK - should have disclosed - because people may feel that it was unfair - BUT it was not unfair - decisions were appropriate - SO - we keep him on the bench - because he is a good judge - but we remind him - and other judges - to be careful.

Has nothing to do with his ability.

Shallow, keep splashing around

[Hardcore Conservative]

Simeone and his friends Kenny and Rich are frauds. They constantly preach God and family but they obviously do not practice what they preach. We all know what Ed Simeone did but the bigger disappointment is the so called new conservative party in Crookhaven. Kenny and Rich are running around pushing Ed Simeone when he is the exact opposite of what they claim thr party stands for. Hopefully Ed Walsh sees the light and bails on this whole cast of characters

[Court Watch Reporter]

Hon. Ettore A. Simeone
Hon. Ettore Simeone is a graduate of the State University of New York at Binghamton
and Albany Law School. From 1981 to 1989, he served as an assistant district attorney for
Suffolk County. From 1990 to 1997, he served as principal law clerk to State Supreme Court
Justice H. Patrick Ls III. In 1997, he was appointed to the Suffolk County Family Court by
Governor George E. Pataki on an interim basis and elected to the Family Court the following
year.
Judge Simeone was observed by ten monitors on eleven different days.
Demeanor
The monitors described Judge Simeone as "calm," "courteous," and "respectful to
everyone." One monitor praised, "Judge Simeone cares for the children." Another described the
judge as "like a father who was sympathetic yet firm."
Monitors praised the manner in which Judge Simeone interacted with children and others
involved in the proceedings. One monitor was impressed that he talked to the involved children,
"letting them know that they were empowered to make things better or worse." This monitor
also pointed out that Judge Simeone used "certificates, pictures with the judge and applause" to
encourage the children. Another monitor recounted a case in which a sign language translator
was used with parents who were both profoundly hearing impaired. This monitor praised the
judge for his patience with the parents and the translator: “the parents were agitated but the judge
explained and explained until the [parents]] understood thr rights and the consequences of thr
behavior plus the reasons for his numerous [rulings] in the case.”
Professionalism
Monitors found Judge Simeone to be "highly professional." They stressed that he was
“very knowledgeable” on all observed cases and gave clear and thorough explanations, and
"made sure he was understood." Another monitor noted, "His questions to petitioners were clear
and on point." One monitor was impressed that he explained “which options were available for
each litigant” particularly which program would best suit them.
Monitors praised Judge Simeone for the efficient manner in which he conducted
proceedings. One monitor remarked, "Judge Simeone ran a very efficient courtroom with the
very willing cooperation of his staff." One monitor was impressed with efforts not to waste time
when a placement for a child had to be arranged. The monitor observed that the judge or a
member of his staff would “on the spot” call the agency to start the placement process. On another occasion Judge Simeone was actively involved in assuring that the afternoon session
ended on time in keeping with new overtime rules for staff.
Monitors also were impressed by the formality of proceedings in Judge Simeone's
courtroom. Two monitors were impressed that, in thr experience, only Judge Simeone began
the day with the Pledge of Allegiance. One monitor noted, "It was an effective reminder of
where were and what was happening." Another approvingly observed, "This was [only] the
second courtroom here in family court where we were asked to rise each time the judge entered."
Command of the Courtroom
In general, monitors reported that Judge Simeone was in “good” control of his courtroom.
Audibility
Some monitors had difficulty hearing Judge Simeone and suggested, “The judge should
speak up.” Noise from the hallway and opening doors was reported as a problem attributed his
inaudibility.

[HPL]

Judge Simeone is an excellent jurist. He needs to be re elected

[Aromatherepy]

But he will not. Thersa Whelan will crush this unethical loser.

[Unregisteredmmmm]

In the Matter of the Proceeding Pursuant to Section 44, subdivision 4, of the Judiciary Law in Relation to ETTORE A. SIMEONE, a Judge of the Family Court, Suffolk County.

THE COMMISSION:

Lawrence S. Goldman, Esq., Chair

Honorable Frances A. Ciardullo, Vice Chair

Stephen R. Coffey, Esq.

Colleen C. DiPirro

Richard D. Emery, Esq.

Raoul Lionel Felder, Esq.

Christina Hernandez, M.S.W.

Honorable Daniel F. Luciano

Honorable Karen K. Peters

Alan J. Pope, Esq.

Honorable Terry Jane Ruderman

APPEARANCES:

Robert H. Tembeckjian (Jennifer Tsai, Of Counsel) for the Commission

Vincent J. Messina, Jr., for Respondent

The respondent, Ettore A. Simeone, a judge of the Family Court, Suffolk County, was served with a Formal Written Complaint dated May 26, 2004, containing one charge. Respondent filed an answer dated June 7, 2004.

On September 14, 2004, the administrator of the Commission, respondent and respondent’s counsel entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts pursuant to Judiciary Law §44(5), stipulating that the Commission make its determination based upon the agreed facts, recommending that respondent be ther admonished or censured and waiving further submissions and oral argument.

On September 23, 2004, the Commission approved the agreed statement and made the following determination.

1. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in New York in 1981. He has been a judge of the Family Court, Suffolk County, since August 1997.

2. Suzanne Mitsos is not an attorney. She is the director of Montfort House, a residential youth services facility in Suffolk County.

3. Respondent and Ms. Mitsos first met at a professional conference in 1998, when Ms. Mitsos was associated with Hope House Ministries, an affiliate of Montfort House.

4. In December 2001, the relationship between respondent and Ms. Mitsos became romantic.

5. From on or about December 21, 2001, to in or about May 2003, respondent remanded numerous Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS) to non-secure detention. The Department of Probation assigned some of the PINS to Montfort House, one of two primary residential youth services facilities in Suffolk County. Respondent was aware of the assignments. Respondent continued to preside over matters involving PINS remanded to Montfort House, notwithstanding that he was involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. Mitsos, the director of Montfort House.

6. From on or about December 21, 2001, to in or about May 2003, when she appeared in respondent’s court on matters related to Montfort House, Ms. Mitsos sat at the same table with and consulted with Jane Bernstn, Esq., the law guardian representing PINS remanded to Montfort House. Ms. Mitsos sometimes addressed the court on the record to advocate positions in substantive cases on which respondent had to pass judgment. In many cases, Ms. Mitsos submitted behavioral reports concerning PINS to the court. Her stated views sometimes opposed the recommendations of the county attorney, the Probation Department, Child Protective Services, and the Office of Children and Family Services.

7. Respondent never disclosed to the parties and the attorneys his relationship with Ms. Mitsos.

8. Respondent recognizes the impropriety and appearance of impropriety in his conduct, notwithstanding his effort in every case to render decisions on the merits.

Upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Commission concludes as a matter of law that respondent violated Sections 100.1, 100.2(A) and 100.3(E) of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and should be disciplined for cause, pursuant to Article 6, Section 22 of the New York State Constitution and Section 44(1) of the Judiciary Law. Charge I of the Formal Written Complaint is sustained, and respondent’s misconduct is established.

A judge’s disqualification is required in any matter where the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned (Section 100.3[E][1] of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct). As respondent has stipulated, he violated that standard by presiding over numerous matters involving a youth services facility at a time when he was romantically involved with the facility’s director. Over a period of 17 months, respondent remanded youths who were then assigned to the facility, and he continued to preside over proceedings involving those youths, notwithstanding his personal relationship with the facility’s director, who appeared in respondent’s court, filed reports and advocated positions on which he had to pass judgment. On occasion, those positions were contrary to those of the County Attorney and other advocates in respondent’s court. Notwithstanding respondent’s efforts to be impartial, respondent’s conduct violated his duty to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, and each time he favored the position advocated by the facility’s director, he raised a suspicion that his ruling was influenced by personal considerations. Sections 100.1 and 100.2 of the Rules; Matter of Robert, 1997 Annual Report 127, accepted, 89 NY2d 745 (1997); Matter of DiBlasi, 2002 Annual Report 87 (Commn on Jud Conduct).

In DiBlasi, a judge was disciplined, inter alia, for presiding for two months over cases involving an attorney for a social services agency with whom he had a romantic relationship, notwithstanding the judge’s prompt efforts to be transferred out of the attorney’s part. Here, there is no such mitigation, and respondent continued to preside over his friend’s cases for a significant period. Each time his friend appeared in his court, respondent should have been reminded of the conflict presented and should have recognized his ethical obligation not to preside in cases involving the facility.

By reason of the foregoing, the Commission determines that the appropriate disposition is censure.

Mr. Goldman, Judge Ciardullo, Ms. DiPirro, Mr. Felder, Judge Peters and Judge Ruderman concur.

Mr. Coffey and Mr. Emery vote to accept the agreed statement of facts but dissent from the sanction and vote to admonish respondent.

Judge Luciano did not participate.

Ms. Hernandez and Mr. Pope were not present.

Dated: October 6, 2004


it says it all...

[Paddy]

But he will not. Thersa Whelan will crush this unethical loser.

So you - like most people with no life - want a dynasty in Suffolk - maybe a King & Queen. One jurist per family please.

[Teddy2]

THIS says it all...

Hon. Ettore A. Simeone
Hon. Ettore Simeone is a graduate of the State University of New York at Binghamton
and Albany Law School. From 1981 to 1989, he served as an assistant district attorney for
Suffolk County. From 1990 to 1997, he served as principal law clerk to State Supreme Court
Justice H. Patrick Ls III. In 1997, he was appointed to the Suffolk County Family Court by
Governor George E. Pataki on an interim basis and elected to the Family Court the following
year.
Judge Simeone was observed by ten monitors on eleven different days.
Demeanor
The monitors described Judge Simeone as "calm," "courteous," and "respectful to
everyone." One monitor praised, "Judge Simeone cares for the children." Another described the
judge as "like a father who was sympathetic yet firm."
Monitors praised the manner in which Judge Simeone interacted with children and others
involved in the proceedings. One monitor was impressed that he talked to the involved children,
"letting them know that they were empowered to make things better or worse." This monitor
also pointed out that Judge Simeone used "certificates, pictures with the judge and applause" to
encourage the children. Another monitor recounted a case in which a sign language translator
was used with parents who were both profoundly hearing impaired. This monitor praised the
judge for his patience with the parents and the translator: “the parents were agitated but the judge
explained and explained until the [parents]] understood thr rights and the consequences of thr
behavior plus the reasons for his numerous [rulings] in the case.”
Professionalism
Monitors found Judge Simeone to be "highly professional." They stressed that he was
“very knowledgeable” on all observed cases and gave clear and thorough explanations, and
"made sure he was understood." Another monitor noted, "His questions to petitioners were clear
and on point." One monitor was impressed that he explained “which options were available for
each litigant” particularly which program would best suit them.
Monitors praised Judge Simeone for the efficient manner in which he conducted
proceedings. One monitor remarked, "Judge Simeone ran a very efficient courtroom with the
very willing cooperation of his staff." One monitor was impressed with efforts not to waste time
when a placement for a child had to be arranged. The monitor observed that the judge or a
member of his staff would “on the spot” call the agency to start the placement process. On another occasion Judge Simeone was actively involved in assuring that the afternoon session
ended on time in keeping with new overtime rules for staff.
Monitors also were impressed by the formality of proceedings in Judge Simeone's
courtroom. Two monitors were impressed that, in thr experience, only Judge Simeone began
the day with the Pledge of Allegiance. One monitor noted, "It was an effective reminder of
where were and what was happening." Another approvingly observed, "This was [only] the
second courtroom here in family court where we were asked to rise each time the judge entered."
Command of the Courtroom
In general, monitors reported that Judge Simeone was in “good” control of his courtroom.
Audibility
Some monitors had difficulty hearing Judge Simeone and suggested, “The judge should
speak up.” Noise from the hallway and opening doors was reported as a problem attributed his
inaudibility.

[Ethics Chairman]

We are going to get rid of Simeone and then we will get rid of Spinner next.

[Home Wrecker]

It appears Harry is not going to give the line to Simeone. There is justice after all. See Newsday today and you can read for yourself. Simone has no ethics whatsoever.

[spinman]

It appears Harry is not going to give the line to Simeone. There is justice after all. See Newsday today and you can read for yourself. Simone has no ethics whatsoever.

Newsday is a dem rag - who cares what they say

[neesie]

Just waiting for Withers to develop balls. Never would have happened if Pasquale was alive...


Harry Withers, Suffolk Republican chairman, said party leaders, preoccupied with the county executive race, did not have time to take up Simeone's renomination and will discuss the issue in a meeting this week.

However, Withers said Simeone's 2004 censure is to be wghed along with the minor parties' position on Simeone's candidacy. Simeone's Conservative Party has renominated him, but Frank MacKay, chairman of the Independence Party, is backing the Democratic candidate Theresa Whelan, wife of his long-time ally State Supreme Court Justice Thomas Whelan.

[Democrats4Simeone]

CONSERVATIVE PARTY hold back your nomination.

if the democrats or the republicans endorse simeone it'll be an embarassment. the days of judicial ethics are over.

the political system rewards good for nothing people. ed walsh is NOT helping the people with simeone.

so the former ethics chairman is supporting this unethical judge who was censured by the stern commission, wow, what a guy, i guess when you become a political boss you change

Ed is 100% for Simeone -the troups have been mobilized - Curcio style

[dems4Simeone]

It appears Harry is not going to give the line to Simeone. There is justice after all. See Newsday today and you can read for yourself. Simone has no ethics whatsoever.

Don't know much do you? Deal is 6 months old. You are really clueless.

[suffolk bench]

In the Matter of the Proceeding Pursuant to Section 44, subdivision 4, of the Judiciary Law in Relation to ETTORE A. SIMEONE, a Judge of the Family Court, Suffolk County.

THE COMMISSION:

Lawrence S. Goldman, Esq., Chair

Honorable Frances A. Ciardullo, Vice Chair

Stephen R. Coffey, Esq.

Colleen C. DiPirro

Richard D. Emery, Esq.

Raoul Lionel Felder, Esq.

Christina Hernandez, M.S.W.

Honorable Daniel F. Luciano

Honorable Karen K. Peters

Alan J. Pope, Esq.

Honorable Terry Jane Ruderman

APPEARANCES:

Robert H. Tembeckjian (Jennifer Tsai, Of Counsel) for the Commission

Vincent J. Messina, Jr., for Respondent

The respondent, Ettore A. Simeone, a judge of the Family Court, Suffolk County, was served with a Formal Written Complaint dated May 26, 2004, containing one charge. Respondent filed an answer dated June 7, 2004.

On September 14, 2004, the administrator of the Commission, respondent and respondent’s counsel entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts pursuant to Judiciary Law §44(5), stipulating that the Commission make its determination based upon the agreed facts, recommending that respondent be ther admonished or censured and waiving further submissions and oral argument.

On September 23, 2004, the Commission approved the agreed statement and made the following determination.

1. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in New York in 1981. He has been a judge of the Family Court, Suffolk County, since August 1997.

2. Suzanne Mitsos is not an attorney. She is the director of Montfort House, a residential youth services facility in Suffolk County.

3. Respondent and Ms. Mitsos first met at a professional conference in 1998, when Ms. Mitsos was associated with Hope House Ministries, an affiliate of Montfort House.

4. In December 2001, the relationship between respondent and Ms. Mitsos became romantic.

5. From on or about December 21, 2001, to in or about May 2003, respondent remanded numerous Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS) to non-secure detention. The Department of Probation assigned some of the PINS to Montfort House, one of two primary residential youth services facilities in Suffolk County. Respondent was aware of the assignments. Respondent continued to preside over matters involving PINS remanded to Montfort House, notwithstanding that he was involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. Mitsos, the director of Montfort House.

6. From on or about December 21, 2001, to in or about May 2003, when she appeared in respondent’s court on matters related to Montfort House, Ms. Mitsos sat at the same table with and consulted with Jane Bernstn, Esq., the law guardian representing PINS remanded to Montfort House. Ms. Mitsos sometimes addressed the court on the record to advocate positions in substantive cases on which respondent had to pass judgment. In many cases, Ms. Mitsos submitted behavioral reports concerning PINS to the court. Her stated views sometimes opposed the recommendations of the county attorney, the Probation Department, Child Protective Services, and the Office of Children and Family Services.

7. Respondent never disclosed to the parties and the attorneys his relationship with Ms. Mitsos.

8. Respondent recognizes the impropriety and appearance of impropriety in his conduct, notwithstanding his effort in every case to render decisions on the merits.

Upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Commission concludes as a matter of law that respondent violated Sections 100.1, 100.2(A) and 100.3(E) of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and should be disciplined for cause, pursuant to Article 6, Section 22 of the New York State Constitution and Section 44(1) of the Judiciary Law. Charge I of the Formal Written Complaint is sustained, and respondent’s misconduct is established.

A judge’s disqualification is required in any matter where the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned (Section 100.3[E][1] of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct). As respondent has stipulated, he violated that standard by presiding over numerous matters involving a youth services facility at a time when he was romantically involved with the facility’s director. Over a period of 17 months, respondent remanded youths who were then assigned to the facility, and he continued to preside over proceedings involving those youths, notwithstanding his personal relationship with the facility’s director, who appeared in respondent’s court, filed reports and advocated positions on which he had to pass judgment. On occasion, those positions were contrary to those of the County Attorney and other advocates in respondent’s court. Notwithstanding respondent’s efforts to be impartial, respondent’s conduct violated his duty to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, and each time he favored the position advocated by the facility’s director, he raised a suspicion that his ruling was influenced by personal considerations. Sections 100.1 and 100.2 of the Rules; Matter of Robert, 1997 Annual Report 127, accepted, 89 NY2d 745 (1997); Matter of DiBlasi, 2002 Annual Report 87 (Commn on Jud Conduct).

In DiBlasi, a judge was disciplined, inter alia, for presiding for two months over cases involving an attorney for a social services agency with whom he had a romantic relationship, notwithstanding the judge’s prompt efforts to be transferred out of the attorney’s part. Here, there is no such mitigation, and respondent continued to preside over his friend’s cases for a significant period. Each time his friend appeared in his court, respondent should have been reminded of the conflict presented and should have recognized his ethical obligation not to preside in cases involving the facility.

By reason of the foregoing, the Commission determines that the appropriate disposition is censure.

Mr. Goldman, Judge Ciardullo, Ms. DiPirro, Mr. Felder, Judge Peters and Judge Ruderman concur.

Mr. Coffey and Mr. Emery vote to accept the agreed statement of facts but dissent from the sanction and vote to admonish respondent.

Judge Luciano did not participate.

Ms. Hernandez and Mr. Pope were not present.

Dated: October 6, 2004

need we say more... welcome too suffolk county
luv,
mike nifong

[thankyoed]

Here is the real Judge Simeone:

Hon. Ettore A. Simeone
Hon. Ettore Simeone is a graduate of the State University of New York at Binghamton
and Albany Law School. From 1981 to 1989, he served as an assistant district attorney for
Suffolk County. From 1990 to 1997, he served as principal law clerk to State Supreme Court
Justice H. Patrick Ls III. In 1997, he was appointed to the Suffolk County Family Court by
Governor George E. Pataki on an interim basis and elected to the Family Court the following
year.
Judge Simeone was observed by ten monitors on eleven different days.
Demeanor
The monitors described Judge Simeone as "calm," "courteous," and "respectful to
everyone." One monitor praised, "Judge Simeone cares for the children." Another described the
judge as "like a father who was sympathetic yet firm."
Monitors praised the manner in which Judge Simeone interacted with children and others
involved in the proceedings. One monitor was impressed that he talked to the involved children,
"letting them know that they were empowered to make things better or worse." This monitor
also pointed out that Judge Simeone used "certificates, pictures with the judge and applause" to
encourage the children. Another monitor recounted a case in which a sign language translator
was used with parents who were both profoundly hearing impaired. This monitor praised the
judge for his patience with the parents and the translator: “the parents were agitated but the judge
explained and explained until the [parents]] understood thr rights and the consequences of thr
behavior plus the reasons for his numerous [rulings] in the case.”
Professionalism
Monitors found Judge Simeone to be "highly professional." They stressed that he was
“very knowledgeable” on all observed cases and gave clear and thorough explanations, and
"made sure he was understood." Another monitor noted, "His questions to petitioners were clear
and on point." One monitor was impressed that he explained “which options were available for
each litigant” particularly which program would best suit them.
Monitors praised Judge Simeone for the efficient manner in which he conducted
proceedings. One monitor remarked, "Judge Simeone ran a very efficient courtroom with the
very willing cooperation of his staff." One monitor was impressed with efforts not to waste time
when a placement for a child had to be arranged. The monitor observed that the judge or a
member of his staff would “on the spot” call the agency to start the placement process. On another occasion Judge Simeone was actively involved in assuring that the afternoon session
ended on time in keeping with new overtime rules for staff.
Monitors also were impressed by the formality of proceedings in Judge Simeone's
courtroom. Two monitors were impressed that, in thr experience, only Judge Simeone began
the day with the Pledge of Allegiance. One monitor noted, "It was an effective reminder of
where were and what was happening." Another approvingly observed, "This was [only] the
second courtroom here in family court where we were asked to rise each time the judge entered."
Command of the Courtroom
In general, monitors reported that Judge Simeone was in “good” control of his courtroom.
Audibility
Some monitors had difficulty hearing Judge Simeone and suggested, “The judge should
speak up.” Noise from the hallway and opening doors was reported as a problem attributed his
inaudibility.


Thank you Your Honor...

[back when]

Eddie Simeone is an Honorable man and has earned his position. I say this as someone who has both known him since childhood, and having witnessed him on the bench. he has my support and deserves yours

[Unregistereder78]

need we say more... welcome too suffolk county
luv,
mike nifong

he will be a credit to the suffolk county bench

[Hisopponent]

he will be a credit to the suffolk county bench

He already is a credit to the bench and to the County.

With his experience he should stay - and serve the County in the best tradition - as he has for the last 10 years. No Judge wins a popularity contest. We want Judges who will follow the law with respect for the litigants and compassion for those unfortunates who are brought before the bench in Family Court. Judge Simeone is all that.

I work for the other team. The democratic process is what it is. The opportunity for change exists. The people of the County will let us know who they prefer.

That said: he IS a credit to the County & to the Court. More important - he has fulfilled his duty to the people of Suffolk County this past 10 years. He remained faithful to the law, compassionate, respectful and down to earth.

He has a proven record of high competence in a very challenging task.

Notwithstanding what the polls hold - he has served - and will be remembered - as a model Judge - caring, respectful of the law - and respectful of the people who find themselves before the Court.

Judge Simeone - thank you for your dedication and unwavering respect for people (both litigants & lawyers).

[Ben dovermen]

I don't know what you are smoking or drinking but I sure want some if that is what makes you blind to the truth. Simeone is a disgrace to not only to Judges but all lawyers. Anyone who puts himself before the people he has sworn to serve should be stripped of his law license. If you take the time to read what was said in the censuring you would see a man who thought only of his girl friend and himself and used his position for his own ends

[Ben dovermen]

The main theme of the commission that censured Simeone was his violation of ethical standards. I guess the people that defend him are also lacking in that area. Perhaps the Republicans could run him in Brookhaven,the only qualfication that I think he is missing is bng part of a stolen truck ring.

[a real credit]

a credit?

In the Matter of the Proceeding Pursuant to Section 44, subdivision 4, of the Judiciary Law in Relation to ETTORE A. SIMEONE, a Judge of the Family Court, Suffolk County.

THE COMMISSION:

Lawrence S. Goldman, Esq., Chair

Honorable Frances A. Ciardullo, Vice Chair

Stephen R. Coffey, Esq.

Colleen C. DiPirro

Richard D. Emery, Esq.

Raoul Lionel Felder, Esq.

Christina Hernandez, M.S.W.

Honorable Daniel F. Luciano

Honorable Karen K. Peters

Alan J. Pope, Esq.

Honorable Terry Jane Ruderman

APPEARANCES:

Robert H. Tembeckjian (Jennifer Tsai, Of Counsel) for the Commission

Vincent J. Messina, Jr., for Respondent

The respondent, Ettore A. Simeone, a judge of the Family Court, Suffolk County, was served with a Formal Written Complaint dated May 26, 2004, containing one charge. Respondent filed an answer dated June 7, 2004.

On September 14, 2004, the administrator of the Commission, respondent and respondent’s counsel entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts pursuant to Judiciary Law §44(5), stipulating that the Commission make its determination based upon the agreed facts, recommending that respondent be ther admonished or censured and waiving further submissions and oral argument.

On September 23, 2004, the Commission approved the agreed statement and made the following determination.

1. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in New York in 1981. He has been a judge of the Family Court, Suffolk County, since August 1997.

2. Suzanne Mitsos is not an attorney. She is the director of Montfort House, a residential youth services facility in Suffolk County.

3. Respondent and Ms. Mitsos first met at a professional conference in 1998, when Ms. Mitsos was associated with Hope House Ministries, an affiliate of Montfort House.

4. In December 2001, the relationship between respondent and Ms. Mitsos became romantic.

5. From on or about December 21, 2001, to in or about May 2003, respondent remanded numerous Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS) to non-secure detention. The Department of Probation assigned some of the PINS to Montfort House, one of two primary residential youth services facilities in Suffolk County. Respondent was aware of the assignments. Respondent continued to preside over matters involving PINS remanded to Montfort House, notwithstanding that he was involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. Mitsos, the director of Montfort House.

6. From on or about December 21, 2001, to in or about May 2003, when she appeared in respondent’s court on matters related to Montfort House, Ms. Mitsos sat at the same table with and consulted with Jane Bernstn, Esq., the law guardian representing PINS remanded to Montfort House. Ms. Mitsos sometimes addressed the court on the record to advocate positions in substantive cases on which respondent had to pass judgment. In many cases, Ms. Mitsos submitted behavioral reports concerning PINS to the court. Her stated views sometimes opposed the recommendations of the county attorney, the Probation Department, Child Protective Services, and the Office of Children and Family Services.

7. Respondent never disclosed to the parties and the attorneys his relationship with Ms. Mitsos.

8. Respondent recognizes the impropriety and appearance of impropriety in his conduct, notwithstanding his effort in every case to render decisions on the merits.

Upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Commission concludes as a matter of law that respondent violated Sections 100.1, 100.2(A) and 100.3(E) of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and should be disciplined for cause, pursuant to Article 6, Section 22 of the New York State Constitution and Section 44(1) of the Judiciary Law. Charge I of the Formal Written Complaint is sustained, and respondent’s misconduct is established.

A judge’s disqualification is required in any matter where the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned (Section 100.3[E][1] of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct). As respondent has stipulated, he violated that standard by presiding over numerous matters involving a youth services facility at a time when he was romantically involved with the facility’s director. Over a period of 17 months, respondent remanded youths who were then assigned to the facility, and he continued to preside over proceedings involving those youths, notwithstanding his personal relationship with the facility’s director, who appeared in respondent’s court, filed reports and advocated positions on which he had to pass judgment. On occasion, those positions were contrary to those of the County Attorney and other advocates in respondent’s court. Notwithstanding respondent’s efforts to be impartial, respondent’s conduct violated his duty to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, and each time he favored the position advocated by the facility’s director, he raised a suspicion that his ruling was influenced by personal considerations. Sections 100.1 and 100.2 of the Rules; Matter of Robert, 1997 Annual Report 127, accepted, 89 NY2d 745 (1997); Matter of DiBlasi, 2002 Annual Report 87 (Commn on Jud Conduct).

In DiBlasi, a judge was disciplined, inter alia, for presiding for two months over cases involving an attorney for a social services agency with whom he had a romantic relationship, notwithstanding the judge’s prompt efforts to be transferred out of the attorney’s part. Here, there is no such mitigation, and respondent continued to preside over his friend’s cases for a significant period. Each time his friend appeared in his court, respondent should have been reminded of the conflict presented and should have recognized his ethical obligation not to preside in cases involving the facility.

By reason of the foregoing, the Commission determines that the appropriate disposition is censure.

Mr. Goldman, Judge Ciardullo, Ms. DiPirro, Mr. Felder, Judge Peters and Judge Ruderman concur.

Mr. Coffey and Mr. Emery vote to accept the agreed statement of facts but dissent from the sanction and vote to admonish respondent.

Judge Luciano did not participate.

Ms. Hernandez and Mr. Pope were not present.

Dated: October 6, 2004

[Family Court Ethics Now!]

It is a crime that a judge who has violated the public trust, his oath, judicial and legal ethics is holding himself out as an honorable jurist. We need to clean up the courts and restore public trust. Family court is no place for a man who failed to disclose gross conflicts of interest and was found to have committed ethical breaches which led to his censure. Now Newsday is reporting that he may have overstepped the rules on judges purchasing tickets to political fundraisers.

This is from a recent Rick Brand column: "Simeone also raised eyebrows last month at Suffolk Conservative Chairman Edward Walsh's mega-fundraiser, when signs bearing the judge's name adorned three tables - 30 seats in all. Judicial rules limit judges to buying two tickets to such events. Simeone said he only bought two $250 tickets himself. His explanation for the others, who were friends and family: "A lot of people wanted to sit with me." "

Any judge that has already been censured should make every effort to avoid any further questions or inquiries into his ethics. Who solicitied all those extra seats, Judge? You are not saying I suppose. The NYS Bar Association clearly needs to examine this in order to find out if this judge has violated any additional ethics rules. The mere fact that this happened again with Simeone shows he lacks judgment and must go. The people of Suffolk deserve so much better than this.

[Unregistered1]

Complaints about unethical fundraising should be filed on the website of the Commission of Judicial Conduct:

http://www.scjc.state.ny.us/filing_a_complaint.htm

[stupidpolice]

A moron's rant:


It is a crime that a judge who has violated the public trust, his oath, judicial and legal ethics is holding himself out as an honorable jurist. We need to clean up the courts and restore public trust. Family court is no place for a man who failed to disclose gross conflicts of interest and was found to have committed ethical breaches which led to his censure. Now Newsday is reporting that he may have overstepped the rules on judges purchasing tickets to political fundraisers.

This is from a recent Rick Brand column: "Simeone also raised eyebrows last month at Suffolk Conservative Chairman Edward Walsh's mega-fundraiser, when signs bearing the judge's name adorned three tables - 30 seats in all. Judicial rules limit judges to buying two tickets to such events. Simeone said he only bought two $250 tickets himself. His explanation for the others, who were friends and family: "A lot of people wanted to sit with me." "

Any judge that has already been censured should make every effort to avoid any further questions or inquiries into his ethics. Who solicitied all those extra seats, Judge? You are not saying I suppose. The NYS Bar Association clearly needs to examine this in order to find out if this judge has violated any additional ethics rules. The mere fact that this happened again with Simeone shows he lacks judgment and must go. The people of Suffolk deserve so much better than this.


Many people purchased tickets. Now since you are clearly a moron - you would not know this: the donation amounts are public record. Look them up - see who wrote the checks (names addresses etc are available info) - and you will see. Cheap shot. But, like all morons, you feel better after - like you accomplished something.

The paper spews out all sorts of slurry to bring in a few coins. Morons buy it - they want to read it - they believe it. What they don't realize is that the powers that be want this - to keep the morons in thr little shantys - shelling out two bits to keep the paper and the writers in the nice houses.

Do your own research - look at the fundraiser reports - can't read? Get a friend to do it.

Hey - you find an impropriety - report it.

Don't just make stuff up. Didn't your momma tell you not to lie?

[independence2]

This is an unbiased assessment of his skill and grace

Hon. Ettore A. Simeone
Hon. Ettore Simeone is a graduate of the State University of New York at Binghamton
and Albany Law School. From 1981 to 1989, he served as an assistant district attorney for
Suffolk County. From 1990 to 1997, he served as principal law clerk to State Supreme Court
Justice H. Patrick Ls III. In 1997, he was appointed to the Suffolk County Family Court by
Governor George E. Pataki on an interim basis and elected to the Family Court the following
year.
Judge Simeone was observed by ten monitors on eleven different days.
Demeanor
The monitors described Judge Simeone as "calm," "courteous," and "respectful to
everyone." One monitor praised, "Judge Simeone cares for the children." Another described the
judge as "like a father who was sympathetic yet firm."
Monitors praised the manner in which Judge Simeone interacted with children and others
involved in the proceedings. One monitor was impressed that he talked to the involved children,
"letting them know that they were empowered to make things better or worse." This monitor
also pointed out that Judge Simeone used "certificates, pictures with the judge and applause" to
encourage the children. Another monitor recounted a case in which a sign language translator
was used with parents who were both profoundly hearing impaired. This monitor praised the
judge for his patience with the parents and the translator: “the parents were agitated but the judge
explained and explained until the [parents]] understood thr rights and the consequences of thr
behavior plus the reasons for his numerous [rulings] in the case.”
Professionalism
Monitors found Judge Simeone to be "highly professional." They stressed that he was
“very knowledgeable” on all observed cases and gave clear and thorough explanations, and
"made sure he was understood." Another monitor noted, "His questions to petitioners were clear
and on point." One monitor was impressed that he explained “which options were available for
each litigant” particularly which program would best suit them.
Monitors praised Judge Simeone for the efficient manner in which he conducted
proceedings. One monitor remarked, "Judge Simeone ran a very efficient courtroom with the
very willing cooperation of his staff." One monitor was impressed with efforts not to waste time
when a placement for a child had to be arranged. The monitor observed that the judge or a
member of his staff would “on the spot” call the agency to start the placement process. On another occasion Judge Simeone was actively involved in assuring that the afternoon session
ended on time in keeping with new overtime rules for staff.
Monitors also were impressed by the formality of proceedings in Judge Simeone's
courtroom. Two monitors were impressed that, in thr experience, only Judge Simeone began
the day with the Pledge of Allegiance. One monitor noted, "It was an effective reminder of
where were and what was happening." Another approvingly observed, "This was [only] the
second courtroom here in family court where we were asked to rise each time the judge entered."
Command of the Courtroom
In general, monitors reported that Judge Simeone was in “good” control of his courtroom.
Audibility
Some monitors had difficulty hearing Judge Simeone and suggested, “The judge should
speak up.” Noise from the hallway and opening doors was reported as a problem attributed his
inaudibility.

[Unregisteredghjk]

He's got to be better than what's sitting on the bench now. Not that thats too much better. The Suffolk Courts are cesspools. No raises for the judiciary.

It is a crime that a judge who has violated the public trust, his oath, judicial and legal ethics is holding himself out as an honorable jurist. We need to clean up the courts and restore public trust. Family court is no place for a man who failed to disclose gross conflicts of interest and was found to have committed ethical breaches which led to his censure. Now Newsday is reporting that he may have overstepped the rules on judges purchasing tickets to political fundraisers.

This is from a recent Rick Brand column: "Simeone also raised eyebrows last month at Suffolk Conservative Chairman Edward Walsh's mega-fundraiser, when signs bearing the judge's name adorned three tables - 30 seats in all. Judicial rules limit judges to buying two tickets to such events. Simeone said he only bought two $250 tickets himself. His explanation for the others, who were friends and family: "A lot of people wanted to sit with me." "

Any judge that has already been censured should make every effort to avoid any further questions or inquiries into his ethics. Who solicitied all those extra seats, Judge? You are not saying I suppose. The NYS Bar Association clearly needs to examine this in order to find out if this judge has violated any additional ethics rules. The mere fact that this happened again with Simeone shows he lacks judgment and must go. The people of Suffolk deserve so much better than this.

[Unregistered4]

Name calling? Are you serious? The law is very clear. First: it doesn't matter who actually BOUGHT the tickets (so looking at the reports as to who actually paid is not going to be any defense for the judge) but who solicited them. Second: a judge can't use the prestige of his office to help in soliciting tickets whether directly or indirectly.

[UnregisteredA]

Upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Commission concludes as a matter of law that [Judge Simeone] violated Sections 100.1, 100.2(A) and 100.3(E) of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and should be disciplined for cause, pursuant to Article 6, Section 22 of the New York State Constitution and Section 44(1) of the Judiciary Law. Charge I of the Formal Written Complaint is sustained, and respondent’s misconduct is established.
_________________________________
MISCONDUCT?!?! That is generally not what we want from our judges.

[brokenrecord]

yawn.......insignificant old news, got anything new?

[Unregistered09090909]

yea, the media will ruin simeone and doesn't simeone have 4 or 5 children that he left in disgrace when he ran out on his wife? that's a man i want judging me in family court.

anyone that is supporting him should think twice, look in the mirror and accept the fact that they are promoting a person who has no right in bng a judge, no right what so ever.

[familyguy2]

This comment has to be from a frustrated person - and it is so sad

yea, the media will ruin simeone and doesn't simeone have 4 or 5 children that he left in disgrace when he ran out on his wife? that's a man i want judging me in family court.

anyone that is supporting him should think twice, look in the mirror and accept the fact that they are promoting a person who has no right in bng a judge, no right what so ever.


Yes - he had marital difficulties - Yes he fell in love - Yes he was wrong - but wrong to not go public with the relationship - obviously a very hard thing to do - and yes it deserves discussion.

What it does NOT do is invalidate 10 years of impeccable service on the bench. With all the hype - and the dem rag Newsday - you can't lose sight of the simple fact: he was not removed. His cased were carefully reviewed - and the Commission said 'NO IMPROPRIETY' - none - nada - zip.

Yes I want him judging me in Family Court. He is thoughtful, caring, humble, kind, a gentleman, - oh - and human. He is infinitely better for the job - he is unlike the hacks on the bench who are arrogant, rigid, self absorbed, self important, ignorant of the law, afraid to follow the law, want to take care of thr buddies, etc.

Look at the whole package. He is a bright, hardworking judge. he cares about what he does & how he treats litigants.

He should have disclosed as soon as possible. He did not. When asked, he admitted it immediately. He worked with the Commission. They found that he should NOT be removed - but told him he was wrong.

His transgression should be spoken

[Unregisteredfgh]

hes better than whats sitting now

This comment has to be from a frustrated person - and it is so sad




Yes - he had marital difficulties - Yes he fell in love - Yes he was wrong - but wrong to not go public with the relationship - obviously a very hard thing to do - and yes it deserves discussion.

What it does NOT do is invalidate 10 years of impeccable service on the bench. With all the hype - and the dem rag Newsday - you can't lose sight of the simple fact: he was not removed. His cased were carefully reviewed - and the Commission said 'NO IMPROPRIETY' - none - nada - zip.

Yes I want him judging me in Family Court. He is thoughtful, caring, humble, kind, a gentleman, - oh - and human. He is infinitely better for the job - he is unlike the hacks on the bench who are arrogant, rigid, self absorbed, self important, ignorant of the law, afraid to follow the law, want to take care of thr buddies, etc.

Look at the whole package. He is a bright, hardworking judge. he cares about what he does & how he treats litigants.

He should have disclosed as soon as possible. He did not. When asked, he admitted it immediately. He worked with the Commission. They found that he should NOT be removed - but told him he was wrong.

His transgression should be spoken

[FamilyGuy2]

about - I agree - but it is not the whole consideration.

Most people will consider the good and the bad.

Good: fine jurist, experienced, humble,

Bad: human - made a mistake - was sanctioned.

On balance - he should be returned to the bench.

[FamilyGuy2]

hes better than whats sitting now

he is one of the better Judges. Some, like Simeone, are excellent judges. Some are the usual political hacks, some don't care (it IS a retirement plum for many on the bench - or a tradeoff for other things). For Simeone - it is his first - best destiny.

If the general public knew about what goes on - he would be reelected by a landslide.

The title of the thread ... PUBLIC NEEDS to know the Real Simeone - he is a smart, likable, human, humble, hardworking, honest person. A fine, experienced, tried & true judge. Not someone who goes to work at 11 - leaves at 3 and snoozes in between.

VOTE for SIMEONE!

[Hack luster]

Why lose a fine jurist - and go for an unknown - never know what you will get. Remember Kerry?

http://www.reelectjudgesimeone.com/banner2.jpg (http://www.reelectjudgesimeone.com)

[bnm]

bring back graft

In the Matter of the Proceeding Pursuant to Section 44, subdivision 4, of the Judiciary Law in Relation to ETTORE A. SIMEONE, a Judge of the Family Court, Suffolk County.

THE COMMISSION:

Lawrence S. Goldman, Esq., Chair

Honorable Frances A. Ciardullo, Vice Chair

Stephen R. Coffey, Esq.

Colleen C. DiPirro

Richard D. Emery, Esq.

Raoul Lionel Felder, Esq.

Christina Hernandez, M.S.W.

Honorable Daniel F. Luciano

Honorable Karen K. Peters

Alan J. Pope, Esq.

Honorable Terry Jane Ruderman

APPEARANCES:

Robert H. Tembeckjian (Jennifer Tsai, Of Counsel) for the Commission

Vincent J. Messina, Jr., for Respondent

The respondent, Ettore A. Simeone, a judge of the Family Court, Suffolk County, was served with a Formal Written Complaint dated May 26, 2004, containing one charge. Respondent filed an answer dated June 7, 2004.

On September 14, 2004, the administrator of the Commission, respondent and respondent’s counsel entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts pursuant to Judiciary Law §44(5), stipulating that the Commission make its determination based upon the agreed facts, recommending that respondent be ther admonished or censured and waiving further submissions and oral argument.

On September 23, 2004, the Commission approved the agreed statement and made the following determination.

1. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in New York in 1981. He has been a judge of the Family Court, Suffolk County, since August 1997.

2. Suzanne Mitsos is not an attorney. She is the director of Montfort House, a residential youth services facility in Suffolk County.

3. Respondent and Ms. Mitsos first met at a professional conference in 1998, when Ms. Mitsos was associated with Hope House Ministries, an affiliate of Montfort House.

4. In December 2001, the relationship between respondent and Ms. Mitsos became romantic.

5. From on or about December 21, 2001, to in or about May 2003, respondent remanded numerous Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS) to non-secure detention. The Department of Probation assigned some of the PINS to Montfort House, one of two primary residential youth services facilities in Suffolk County. Respondent was aware of the assignments. Respondent continued to preside over matters involving PINS remanded to Montfort House, notwithstanding that he was involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. Mitsos, the director of Montfort House.

6. From on or about December 21, 2001, to in or about May 2003, when she appeared in respondent’s court on matters related to Montfort House, Ms. Mitsos sat at the same table with and consulted with Jane Bernstn, Esq., the law guardian representing PINS remanded to Montfort House. Ms. Mitsos sometimes addressed the court on the record to advocate positions in substantive cases on which respondent had to pass judgment. In many cases, Ms. Mitsos submitted behavioral reports concerning PINS to the court. Her stated views sometimes opposed the recommendations of the county attorney, the Probation Department, Child Protective Services, and the Office of Children and Family Services.

7. Respondent never disclosed to the parties and the attorneys his relationship with Ms. Mitsos.

8. Respondent recognizes the impropriety and appearance of impropriety in his conduct, notwithstanding his effort in every case to render decisions on the merits.

Upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Commission concludes as a matter of law that respondent violated Sections 100.1, 100.2(A) and 100.3(E) of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and should be disciplined for cause, pursuant to Article 6, Section 22 of the New York State Constitution and Section 44(1) of the Judiciary Law. Charge I of the Formal Written Complaint is sustained, and respondent’s misconduct is established.

A judge’s disqualification is required in any matter where the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned (Section 100.3[E][1] of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct). As respondent has stipulated, he violated that standard by presiding over numerous matters involving a youth services facility at a time when he was romantically involved with the facility’s director. Over a period of 17 months, respondent remanded youths who were then assigned to the facility, and he continued to preside over proceedings involving those youths, notwithstanding his personal relationship with the facility’s director, who appeared in respondent’s court, filed reports and advocated positions on which he had to pass judgment. On occasion, those positions were contrary to those of the County Attorney and other advocates in respondent’s court. Notwithstanding respondent’s efforts to be impartial, respondent’s conduct violated his duty to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, and each time he favored the position advocated by the facility’s director, he raised a suspicion that his ruling was influenced by personal considerations. Sections 100.1 and 100.2 of the Rules; Matter of Robert, 1997 Annual Report 127, accepted, 89 NY2d 745 (1997); Matter of DiBlasi, 2002 Annual Report 87 (Commn on Jud Conduct).

In DiBlasi, a judge was disciplined, inter alia, for presiding for two months over cases involving an attorney for a social services agency with whom he had a romantic relationship, notwithstanding the judge’s prompt efforts to be transferred out of the attorney’s part. Here, there is no such mitigation, and respondent continued to preside over his friend’s cases for a significant period. Each time his friend appeared in his court, respondent should have been reminded of the conflict presented and should have recognized his ethical obligation not to preside in cases involving the facility.

By reason of the foregoing, the Commission determines that the appropriate disposition is censure.

Mr. Goldman, Judge Ciardullo, Ms. DiPirro, Mr. Felder, Judge Peters and Judge Ruderman concur.

Mr. Coffey and Mr. Emery vote to accept the agreed statement of facts but dissent from the sanction and vote to admonish respondent.

Judge Luciano did not participate.

Ms. Hernandez and Mr. Pope were not present.

Dated: October 6, 2004

[Court Watch reader]

The independent group - Court watchers - reviews Judge Simeone's abilities & work on the bench. This is the report:

Hon. Ettore A. Simeone
Hon. Ettore Simeone is a graduate of the State University of New York at Binghamton
and Albany Law School. From 1981 to 1989, he served as an assistant district attorney for
Suffolk County. From 1990 to 1997, he served as principal law clerk to State Supreme Court
Justice H. Patrick Ls III. In 1997, he was appointed to the Suffolk County Family Court by
Governor George E. Pataki on an interim basis and elected to the Family Court the following
year.
Judge Simeone was observed by ten monitors on eleven different days.
Demeanor
The monitors described Judge Simeone as "calm," "courteous," and "respectful to
everyone." One monitor praised, "Judge Simeone cares for the children." Another described the
judge as "like a father who was sympathetic yet firm."
Monitors praised the manner in which Judge Simeone interacted with children and others
involved in the proceedings. One monitor was impressed that he talked to the involved children,
"letting them know that they were empowered to make things better or worse." This monitor
also pointed out that Judge Simeone used "certificates, pictures with the judge and applause" to
encourage the children. Another monitor recounted a case in which a sign language translator
was used with parents who were both profoundly hearing impaired. This monitor praised the
judge for his patience with the parents and the translator: “the parents were agitated but the judge
explained and explained until the [parents]] understood thr rights and the consequences of thr
behavior plus the reasons for his numerous [rulings] in the case.”
Professionalism
Monitors found Judge Simeone to be "highly professional." They stressed that he was
“very knowledgeable” on all observed cases and gave clear and thorough explanations, and
"made sure he was understood." Another monitor noted, "His questions to petitioners were clear
and on point." One monitor was impressed that he explained “which options were available for
each litigant” particularly which program would best suit them.
Monitors praised Judge Simeone for the efficient manner in which he conducted
proceedings. One monitor remarked, "Judge Simeone ran a very efficient courtroom with the
very willing cooperation of his staff." One monitor was impressed with efforts not to waste time
when a placement for a child had to be arranged. The monitor observed that the judge or a
member of his staff would “on the spot” call the agency to start the placement process. On another occasion Judge Simeone was actively involved in assuring that the afternoon session
ended on time in keeping with new overtime rules for staff.
Monitors also were impressed by the formality of proceedings in Judge Simeone's
courtroom. Two monitors were impressed that, in thr experience, only Judge Simeone began
the day with the Pledge of Allegiance. One monitor noted, "It was an effective reminder of
where were and what was happening." Another approvingly observed, "This was [only] the
second courtroom here in family court where we were asked to rise each time the judge entered."
Command of the Courtroom
In general, monitors reported that Judge Simeone was in “good” control of his courtroom.
Audibility
Some monitors had difficulty hearing Judge Simeone and suggested, “The judge should
speak up.” Noise from the hallway and opening doors was reported as a problem attributed his
inaudibility.

[Unregistereddf]

bring back graft

cannot believe that the Conservative leadership. This is a warning to women that the party is in the hands of male chauvinists who think that it is alright for a Family Court judge to screw around on his wife, allow his illicit partner to testify in court without recusing himself. Gone is the ethical party who sends a message that doing the right thing is rewarded. Bad party leadership, bad judge. The party is headed downhill and the bar association is greasing the rails. Send the message that breaking apart your family is ok.

[Unregistered21]

This comment has to be from a frustrated person - and it is so sad




Yes - he had marital difficulties - Yes he fell in love - Yes he was wrong - but wrong to not go public with the relationship - obviously a very hard thing to do - and yes it deserves discussion.

What it does NOT do is invalidate 10 years of impeccable service on the bench. With all the hype - and the dem rag Newsday - you can't lose sight of the simple fact: he was not removed. His cased were carefully reviewed - and the Commission said 'NO IMPROPRIETY' - none - nada - zip.

Yes I want him judging me in Family Court. He is thoughtful, caring, humble, kind, a gentleman, - oh - and human. He is infinitely better for the job - he is unlike the hacks on the bench who are arrogant, rigid, self absorbed, self important, ignorant of the law, afraid to follow the law, want to take care of thr buddies, etc.

Look at the whole package. He is a bright, hardworking judge. he cares about what he does & how he treats litigants.

He should have disclosed as soon as possible. He did not. When asked, he admitted it immediately. He worked with the Commission. They found that he should NOT be removed - but told him he was wrong.

His transgression should be spoken

HE IS AN AWFUL JUDGE who may be 'compassionate' and human on the bench, but he has no concept of evidence and how to actually apply the law- trials take days longer than necessary as he allows extraneous things and allows impermissible testimony, then he needs a month to make up his mind and make a decision- all the while asking the lawyers working in the law department about what he should decide!

[Beeninhiscourt]

If we judged men by thr cheating on thr wives, most judges, senators, congressmen and politicians would be out of jobs. Guiliani, D'amato, Clinton..they are all alike. Most of the posters here are probably on thr second or third marriages too. Nther He nor his girlfriend profited by him placing the kids at that not for profit sanctuary. That is why the other not for profits did not create a stir-they were appropriate placements. She should not have been in his court though. He IS a good jurist. Poor judgement when his penis is involved; much like the rest of the males.

[Rep Comm Women]

Lot's of Republican committee people like me aren't carrying petitions for this bum Simeone. He goes against everything we believe in: family values, honesty, integrity, strong judicial independence, law and order, respect for women, children and wives. After the Rick Brand story that came out today, the Republican leaders need to dump this creep now. How can we look at ourselves in the mirror knowing Simeone is heading up the ticket (since we already gave away the county executive nomination)?

And if Simeone cant keep it in his pants as you say we should just forgive and forget??? He unlawfully steered kids into his mistresses facility. I am not forgetting that. I bet his wife and kids arent ther. I am not carrying his petitions and I am not voting for him. There is an entire movement forming of women and children against Simeone. This hasnt even begun to take off.

[unreg2]

After reading this, I am sitting Simeone's race out too.

Verdict is in on Judge Ettore Simeone's behavior (Rick Brand - July 15, 2007)

...You'd think Conservative Family Court Judge Ettore Simeone, already censured by the state, would be on his very best behavior in his bid for re-election.

But the judge is already tripping over his own Web site and facing other woes even as his nominating petitions are due at the board of elections this week.

Critics say Simeone's problems are of his own making. His Web site, reelectjudge simeone.com, described the judge as someone "with 10 years of impeccable judicial experience." Webster's Dictionary defines "impeccable" as "exempt from all possibility of wrongdoing."

Simeone three years ago was censured by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct after he admitted that he improperly failed to disclose his relationship with a woman with whom he was romantically involved who repeatedly appeared in his court over 17 months. The commission ruled he "violated his duty to avoid impropriety" and "his ethic obligation not to preside" in cases where the woman, now his wife, appeared.

By labeling his tenure "impeccable," Simeone may have broken another judicial rule that bars judges from "knowingly making any false statement" about himself or another candidate.

Beyond the Web site, Simeone is facing a new ethics complaint over April's Suffolk Conservatives' $300 a head fundraiser, where signs bearing Simeone's name adorned three tables. At the time, Simeone said he bought only two tickets for $250 each, the limit imposed by judicial rules, but "a lot of people wanted to sit with me."

"The judge's explanation that these 30 seats were filled by family and friends ... makes a mockery of the ethical rules that seek to limit a judge's involvement in such political activities," said David J. Ali, of Sayville, in his June 30 complaint letter. Edward Walsh, Suffolk Conservative chairman, said a person from Simeone's campaign delivered a batch of separate checks to pay for the fundraiser.

Babylon Town Board member member Lindsay Henry, under questioning by a reporter, also said Simeone a year ago asked him to push the judge's mother to the top of the waiting list to get federal subsidized Section 8 housing.

"He called wanting us to use our office for the wrong things and he was not happy with the response," he said.

...

[onthefenceagain]

When articles like this are written - it becomes obvious that the paper is playing politics rather than reporting. The spin is the thing. Have not seen anything in respectable papers - like the times, Suffolk Life or the Village Voice.

[just a commenter]

He unlawfully steered kids into his mistresses facility.

There is no evidence of this. As for the 'Female' movement - - - well ok - move away

[Unregistereddhl]

There is evidence. Investigators a putting all the pieces together as we speak. Indictment coming soon.

[Unregisteredbutnotamoron]

There is evidence. Investigators a putting all the pieces together as we speak. Indictment coming soon.

Now you DO show your stupidity. There is no evidence;in fact only 2 facilities, including the one his fiance ( now wif)works for, exist to take these particular types of kids in suffolk. Did he send the same # of kids to the other facility? Was it full-without beds at the time?? Don't know? That's what makes you an ass. Her facility is a not-for-profit jackass. She did not benefit financially, or in any other way. But he should have recused himself because of the APPEARANCE of impropriety. And that IS what the commission found.

PLEASE CHECK FACTS BEFORE OPENING MOUTH.

[UnregisteredX]

you are wrong and uneducated. not a shock. look who you are supporting. it was NOT appearance of impropriety alone (AS IF THAT IS NOT BAD ENOUGH FOR A JUDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????? ?????????? GREAT DEFENSE!!!). steering kids to the house for kids run by your mistress who is standing in the courtroom before you is the absolute definition of improrpriety. go back to law school.

[Barrister1]

you are wrong and uneducated. not a shock. look who you are supporting. it was NOT appearance of impropriety alone (AS IF THAT IS NOT BAD ENOUGH FOR A JUDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????? ?????????? GREAT DEFENSE!!!). steering kids to the house for kids run by your mistress who is standing in the courtroom before you is the absolute definition of improrpriety. go back to law school.

Obviously you never attended. His cases were clean. It just looked bad - and we want our judges to 'look' good. Now they don't have to BE good mind you - just look good.

He admitted it was wrong - and gave his reason for doing what he did. If there was any proof of wrongdoing he would have been removed and - bng a conservative - likely prosecuted. The Commission is quite like the Star Chamber (you would of course understand the reference if you went to law school). No walk in the park. They look to burn you - and mete hot the most harsh punishment they can defend (not that they care about defending).

[Disgusted Republicans]

Not only is Simeone going down but if Simeone makes it to election day, the entire Simeone/DiCarlo team is going to go down in November. Simeone is dragging down the entire town ticket. This has got to change. The Newsday article yesterday about Simeone is going to mean many more years of Foley and Company in Brookhaven Town Hall. Thanks Ed. You truly are "impeccable." How can you stay in this race and destroy the rest of the DiCarlo ticket in November? This is the hght of political selfishness.

[DemDummy]

DiCarlo's supporters support Ed - face it - you guys got a taste and don't want to lose it to real officials

[kidz]

Ask his ex wife how good of a person he is. If your definition of a good person is someone who cheats on his wife and then leaves her then your right.

She thinks the media is too harsh - and people are ugly - he is a good Judge - human, but good

[towncryers]

The independent group - Court watchers - reviews Judge Simeone's abilities & work on the bench. This is the report:

Hon. Ettore A. Simeone
Hon. Ettore Simeone is a graduate of the State University of New York at Binghamton
and Albany Law School. From 1981 to 1989, he served as an assistant district attorney for
Suffolk County. From 1990 to 1997, he served as principal law clerk to State Supreme Court
Justice H. Patrick Ls III. In 1997, he was appointed to the Suffolk County Family Court by
Governor George E. Pataki on an interim basis and elected to the Family Court the following
year.
Judge Simeone was observed by ten monitors on eleven different days.
Demeanor
The monitors described Judge Simeone as "calm," "courteous," and "respectful to
everyone." One monitor praised, "Judge Simeone cares for the children." Another described the
judge as "like a father who was sympathetic yet firm."
Monitors praised the manner in which Judge Simeone interacted with children and others
involved in the proceedings. One monitor was impressed that he talked to the involved children,
"letting them know that they were empowered to make things better or worse." This monitor
also pointed out that Judge Simeone used "certificates, pictures with the judge and applause" to
encourage the children. Another monitor recounted a case in which a sign language translator
was used with parents who were both profoundly hearing impaired. This monitor praised the
judge for his patience with the parents and the translator: “the parents were agitated but the judge
explained and explained until the [parents]] understood thr rights and the consequences of thr
behavior plus the reasons for his numerous [rulings] in the case.”
Professionalism
Monitors found Judge Simeone to be "highly professional." They stressed that he was
“very knowledgeable” on all observed cases and gave clear and thorough explanations, and
"made sure he was understood." Another monitor noted, "His questions to petitioners were clear
and on point." One monitor was impressed that he explained “which options were available for
each litigant” particularly which program would best suit them.
Monitors praised Judge Simeone for the efficient manner in which he conducted
proceedings. One monitor remarked, "Judge Simeone ran a very efficient courtroom with the
very willing cooperation of his staff." One monitor was impressed with efforts not to waste time
when a placement for a child had to be arranged. The monitor observed that the judge or a
member of his staff would “on the spot” call the agency to start the placement process. On another occasion Judge Simeone was actively involved in assuring that the afternoon session
ended on time in keeping with new overtime rules for staff.
Monitors also were impressed by the formality of proceedings in Judge Simeone's
courtroom. Two monitors were impressed that, in thr experience, only Judge Simeone began
the day with the Pledge of Allegiance. One monitor noted, "It was an effective reminder of
where were and what was happening." Another approvingly observed, "This was [only] the
second courtroom here in family court where we were asked to rise each time the judge entered."
Command of the Courtroom
In general, monitors reported that Judge Simeone was in “good” control of his courtroom.
Audibility
Some monitors had difficulty hearing Judge Simeone and suggested, “The judge should
speak up.” Noise from the hallway and opening doors was reported as a problem attributed his
inaudibility.

[Unregisteredsad]

After reading this, I am sitting Simeone's race out too.

Verdict is in on Judge Ettore Simeone's behavior (Rick Brand - July 15, 2007)

...You'd think Conservative Family Court Judge Ettore Simeone, already censured by the state, would be on his very best behavior in his bid for re-election.

But the judge is already tripping over his own Web site and facing other woes even as his nominating petitions are due at the board of elections this week.

Critics say Simeone's problems are of his own making. His Web site, reelectjudge simeone.com, described the judge as someone "with 10 years of impeccable judicial experience." Webster's Dictionary defines "impeccable" as "exempt from all possibility of wrongdoing."

Simeone three years ago was censured by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct after he admitted that he improperly failed to disclose his relationship with a woman with whom he was romantically involved who repeatedly appeared in his court over 17 months. The commission ruled he "violated his duty to avoid impropriety" and "his ethic obligation not to preside" in cases where the woman, now his wife, appeared.

By labeling his tenure "impeccable," Simeone may have broken another judicial rule that bars judges from "knowingly making any false statement" about himself or another candidate.

Beyond the Web site, Simeone is facing a new ethics complaint over April's Suffolk Conservatives' $300 a head fundraiser, where signs bearing Simeone's name adorned three tables. At the time, Simeone said he bought only two tickets for $250 each, the limit imposed by judicial rules, but "a lot of people wanted to sit with me."

"The judge's explanation that these 30 seats were filled by family and friends ... makes a mockery of the ethical rules that seek to limit a judge's involvement in such political activities," said David J. Ali, of Sayville, in his June 30 complaint letter. Edward Walsh, Suffolk Conservative chairman, said a person from Simeone's campaign delivered a batch of separate checks to pay for the fundraiser.

Babylon Town Board member member Lindsay Henry, under questioning by a reporter, also said Simeone a year ago asked him to push the judge's mother to the top of the waiting list to get federal subsidized Section 8 housing.

"He called wanting us to use our office for the wrong things and he was not happy with the response," he said.

...


Yea that works....
desperate huh?

[UnregisteredX]

Yea that works....
desperate huh?

How can you confuse the public's interest (and right) in having judge's who are clean and ethical with desperation? That is truly sad.

[Unregisteredfdsaf]

How can you confuse the public's interest (and right) in having judge's who are clean and ethical with desperation? That is truly sad.
Because its suffolk county... if there is one on the supreme bench now, it would surprise me. They aren't sitting there because they have great legal minds. But the benefits are great.

[smiles3]

Because its suffolk county... if there is one on the supreme bench now, it would surprise me. They aren't sitting there because they have great legal minds. But the benefits are great.

But there are a few that are good judges - not many - but some. I would say 15% or so. Most don't think - don't analyze the law based on the facts of a case. They have a gut reaction - or have a friend as one of the lawyers - and that is how it comes out. So sad - we expect them to be unbiased and look at the law - they puke up thr response - and get to lunch fast. Then home for the soaps.

Not all - but many.

I guess that is what happens when there is no boss to supervise.

[kidspeace]

Lost a caring and thoughtful jurist. Now the kids have nothing

[Unregisteredabc]

The Family Court will be a better place Jan. 2008

[Unregisteredgjkhkl]

The Family Court will be a better place Jan. 2008


Better does not mean that the job of clearing out the dead wood is done ther in the family court or the supreme.

[litigantz]

Better does not mean that the job of clearing out the dead wood is done ther in the family court or the supreme.

so true - Nassau is not great - but is miles ahead of Suffolk in brains - fairness - and following the law

[oneofthekids]

He is one of the most caring Judges in Suffolk.

[SUFFOLK GOP]

Just another way the County Committee and Chairman Dithers screwed us again. Give the dems another free pass and we get nothing. That is why back in May Dithers should have put up a Republican and not done what Eddie wanted him to do. What did we get in return for not running someone against Levy? NOTHING!! They crossed this lady so John and Tom would get the Indy line in , & then the dems get the line. Pure stupidity. Its time for Dithers and caesar to go!!!

[Denise from long island]

I came across this today by accident, and was sad to see this about the judge, I along with my granddaughter came in front of him on many occasions and he was so understanding of her and what she had been though.
all thought i didn't agree with him (grandma wanting not to let go) i know he made the best decisions for her, she had been in the system longer then most her age.and at a young age went through a trail that most would have ran from , she was very brave, the out come was a good one and she seem to be doing good only to have the court decision over turned which sent her out of control he took all this into account?
and she had been placed more then once by him till this day she remembers him as a kind man that listened to her treated her fairly and didn't talk down to her. he didn't close the door on her when she left the court like most would have done, he followed up on her
I showed up in court one day a few years ago, for a case that had to do with someone else and he spotted me and remembered me as that teary eye grandma scared out of her whit's and asked me how she was and said to say hello and have her stop by some time.see point is how many faces does he see to have remembered . when her law guardian didn't remember us from one week till the next.
I know that what he did was wrong but are any of us so flawless that we can sit and judge him for what he has done. i don't think so and the fact that people are sitting here posting on someone that they don't even knows showed me something about them how sad there life's must be that you even have the time for this. he is a good man who make a mistake

[Unregisteredjojr]

Ettore should have been removed from the bench back then. You think he is is the only judge that ever cheated on his Wife ? Difference is he got caught , he didn't get in trouble with the commisssion because he was fucking around (it was common knowledge in the courts back then ), it was because he CHOSE to bring his horse and pony show into his Courtroom.
Talk about unethical, the man is an idiot.

Oh hell , what the hay , if the nation can "forgive" a sitting President for getting blow jobs (from a woman other than his wife ) in the oval office , why can't we forgive ettore too ?

At point do you say , THAT'S ENOUGH ?

[Unregisteredsimeone]

ettore simeone is disgusting. family court judge with no family values. amazing how he's running, stern commission came down hard on him, the public needs to know.

"Walsh said Conservatives have also "wholeheartedly" decided to back Conservative Family Court Judge Ettore Simeone for re-election, despite a censure from the state commission on judicial conduct."

The bottom line:

http://www.scjc.state.ny.us/Determinations/S/simeone.htm

"By reason of the foregoing, the Commission determines that the appropriate disposition is censure. "

All Judges should be running for the law...not thr personal political venue but hey, that's where the money is. BIG BUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!

[UnregisteredILUVLEIS]

Just look at Ls and Sgroi.
SUFFOLK COURTS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A CESSPOOL.
If you are in Suffolk, just buy the closest friend of the judge. Look to the contributions and the appointments and buy them, they'll get the money where it needs to go.

[iamsolucky]

Just look at Ls and Sgroi.
SUFFOLK COURTS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A CESSPOOL.
If you are in Suffolk, just buy the closest friend of the judge. Look to the contributions and the appointments and buy them, they'll get the money where it needs to go.

simeone i am glad someone finally caught you because when my children needed your hlep you let them suffer. If anyone want's to know what an asshole simeone is just look into my custody case docket #s n-472,473,474/98 and you will see this judge would be a disgrace even in traffic court. After losing everything to fight simeone in court not my ex because everyone knew what she was and all simeone could see was her braless tits showing tough her shrit judge kent finally turned custody over to me and both children are fine now and are in good colleges and not bng neglected and abused anymore.If anyone thinks this is bull shit then just look up my case or ask around the court house or then senator Owen Johnson.
I'll say it again this man was a disgrace to the bench. simone i wasn't afraid
of you then and i'm not afraid of you now.My name is Richard Molina and i'm sure simeone remembers me and many people in the family court system do to. So all you kiss ass people of simeone pull your head out of his ass and see the light.