Judge Is Censured for 2008 Campaign Ethics Violations

By DANIELLA SILVA

The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct has censured a Manhattan judge for accepting and failing to report $250,000 in contributions from a former boss, which she then funneled into her election campaign.

The judge, Nora S. Anderson of Surrogate's Court, was criminally tried and acquitted in 2010 for the campaign irregularities. But the commission has its own disciplinary process, and it found that Judge Anderson violated judicial ethics rules.

“A judge's election is tarnished and the integrity of the judiciary is adversely affected by misconduct that circumvents the ethical standards imposed on judicial candidates,” the commission stated Wednesday in announcing the censure.

During her 2008 campaign for Surrogate's Court, which handles wills, estates and adoptions, Judge Anderson received a $100,000 gift and a $150,000 loan from Seth Rubenstein, a friend and former e mployer at a Brooklyn law firm.

The limit for an individual donation from a nonfamily member during that election was $33,122.50, but there was no limit on how much a candidate could contribute to his or her own campaign. Judge Anderson channeled the funds into her campaign account, claiming she had made the loan and donation to herself.

Judge Anderson won the primary and the election, but she and Mr. Rubenstein were both indicted on felony charges for filing false documents and falsifying business records. In April 2010, they were acquitted of both charges, prompting calls for loopholes to be closed in campaign finance law. In 2011, the judicial commission charged her with violating its rules.

The commission found that Judge Anderson violated rules that require judicial candidates to report contributions, as well as others that require them to accept contributions through a campaign committee rather than personally.

“This decision is a message to all judicial candidates, even those running for the first time, that they must abide by New York judicial campaign rules, and failing to abide by those rules will result in public discipline,” said the commission's administrator, Robert H. Tembeckjian.

A censure is one of the commission's more serious disciplinary actions, beyond an “admonishment” or a “reprimand.” But the commission did not recommend suspension, or removal, in part because it determined that Judge Anderson had not intended to break the law. She had relied on advice from Mr. Rubenstein, who “exploited a loophole in the law while skirting the ethical mandates,” the commission said.

“Had she intended to violate the rules, then I certainly would have recommended removal,” Mr. Tembeckjian said.

Judge Anderson has accepted the censure, the commission said. Her lawyer did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Judge Anderson's term expires in 2022.

Anders on Censure Ruling (PDF)

Anderson Censure Ruling (Text)