Queens judge with a record of legal errors should be forced to retire, critics say

State court officials will soon decide whether more than a dozen New York City judges who are 70 or older can keep serving past retirement age. A database of judicial records shows one judge in Queens is a statistical outlier in terms of legal errors.

The annual process to determine whether judges in their 70s can remain on the bench is typically secretive, and input submitted during the public comment period is kept confidential. But information about New York’s judiciary has become increasingly public amid a movement in recent years for more transparency, shedding new light on a branch of government that wields immense power yet often operates far from public view.

Now, in a rare public bid to oust a sitting judge, a group of criminal justice reform advocates, citing court data and records, say higher courts have reversed Queens Justice Michael Aloise’s decisions on evidence and sentence lengths at a higher rate than nearly any other state judge. In a letter shared with Gothamist, they urged officials to force Aloise into retirement.

The campaign to unseat Aloise comes as some judges and state lawmakers seek to raise the retirement age for New York judges so they can keep working and alleviate pressure on an overburdened court system. But criminal justice reform advocates Peter F. Martin and Katie Schaffer said in their letter to state court officials that the need for judges should not outweigh the need for justice.

“We recognize the strain of understaffed courts and the role that certification plays in alleviating that strain. But the answer cannot be to administratively extend every judge’s tenure past the mandatory retirement age — and it especially cannot be to extend the tenure of Justice Aloise, who has demonstrated poor knowledge of the law over many years, whose actions and statements have called into question his impartiality and that of the entire court system, and who has published zero decisions in the last dozen years,” they wrote to David Nocenti, counsel for the Office of Court Administration.

A clerk for Aloise referred questions to the Office of Court Administration. Al Baker, a spokesperson for the court system, said in a statement that his office “does not comment on the certification process, or on judges’ determinations, which are based on the facts of individual cases and the judge’s discretion under the law.” The Association of Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of New York declined to comment.

Reversed convictions and shortened sentences

New York’s constitution requires many types of state judges to retire at the end of the year they turn 70. Some of those judges are allowed to stay on the bench until they turn 76, but only if state officials find they are still fit to serve. Court officials will make their decisions before the end of the calendar year.

A public notice seeking input on judges of retirement age asks for comments on their legal abilities, capacity to perform their work duties, judicial demeanor, integrity, character and commitment to equal justice under the law. Martin and Schaffer, with the advocacy organization Center for Community Alternatives, said in a letter submitted through the public comment process, “Aloise’s record shows clearly that he has failed to live up to the standards articulated in the Invitation for Public Comment.” The Center for Community Alternatives was one of the groups behind a successful 2023 movement to block Judge Hector LaSalle from being appointed to preside over New York’s highest court.

The 12-page letter cites a host of cases between 2009 and this year in which appellate courts found Aloise had made mistakes that required a defendant’s conviction to be overturned or sentence to be reduced. In one instance, court records show, an appellate court reassigned a case to a different judge altogether because of statements he made at sentencing.

Gothamist reviewed rulings for seven cases in which Aloise allowed prosecutors to use evidence that higher courts later found was illegally obtained and should not have been allowed in court. Appellate courts have reversed his decisions about whether to suppress evidence at a rate higher than nearly 95% of active New York state judges, according to a database of the state court system’s approximately 1,200 current judges created by the judicial transparency organization Scrutinize. In at least three cases, court records show, appellate courts shortened defendants’ prison terms after finding Aloise imposed excessively long sentences. The database shows that he has a higher sentence reduction rate than almost 98% of New York state judges in the dataset.

Court records also show at least six other times — including twice this year — when higher courts tossed convictions reached in Aloise’s courtroom because they found the judge infringed on defendants’ rights. In one ruling from this July, an appellate court reversed a murder conviction because Aloise kicked a friend of the defendant out of the courtroom for sleeping during proceedings, which the higher court said violated his right to an open trial.

Martin and Schaffer’s letter also cites cases in which higher courts found Aloise mishandled jury selection and deliberations — most recently a 2023 appellate decision regarding his actions in a 2019 trial. In one case, according to court records, appellate judges found he didn’t take necessary action when a defense attorney raised concerns that prosecutors were illegally striking Black men from a jury. Appellate courts also reversed several convictions because Aloise broke procedures for handling notes from the jury during deliberations.

Martin and Schaffer argue that Aloise’s actions over the years “have created a perception of bias against defendants and in favor of law enforcement.” Aloise faced scrutiny while presiding over the high-profile trial of Chanel Lewis, the man accused of killing Karina Vetrano, for showing up to court in a purple tie — the color worn by Vetrano’s loved ones. The letter also cites Aloise’s remarks during the sentencing of NYPD Detective Kevin Desormeau, who was convicted of perjury. Prosecutors asked for a six-month jail term, but the judge instead sentenced him only to probation and a $500 fine, saying the case “disgusts the court” and telling the detective he would “not become complicit in the district attorney’s hypocrisy by incarcerating you,” according to news reports from the time.

Gothamist reviewed the records of each of the 12 retired Supreme Court justices seeking certification or recertification to remain on the bench past age 70. One other judge, Desmond Green, had at least two cases overturned because higher courts found he allowed prosecutors to use evidence that was illegally obtained, appellate decisions show. Retired Judge George Villegas imposed a sentence that an appellate court later found was too long, according to a 2017 ruling. Green and Villegas did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

‘Why are people like me being forced off the bench?’

Whether to allow judges to remain on the bench past 70 has been a controversial question for years. Lawmakers have repeatedly proposed legislation that would raise the mandatory retirement age to 76. A change to the retirement age would require an amendment to the state constitution.

Judge Gerald Lebovits, a Manhattan Supreme Court justice and former president of several associations representing New York judges, turned 70 this year and said he and many other judges feel capable of working past that age. But he said “the most important factor” for the length of a judge’s tenure “is whether it’s good for the public, not for the judges themselves.”

“They’re secondary in this consideration,” he said.

Former Staten Island Judge Philip Straniere, who was known for making his rulings more relatable with lyrics from musicals and other pop culture references before he retired in 2017, said “70 is the new 50” and that the judges’ ability to do their jobs is more important than their ages.

“ Why are people like me being forced off the bench?” he said, adding: “There's people who are 50 years old on the bench and they're incompetent.”