Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Matter of Shaw

New York Court of Appeals

Decided February 20, 2001Published

1ConcurrenceRosenblatt, J.

I am constrained to agree that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the.import of the newly discovered evidence that Justice Shaw presented to the Commission. I write separately to express my concern with a process in which newly discovered allegations of perjury were never heard firsthand by a neutral arbiter.

This is no ordinary case. The Commission’s original censure determination was based entirely on the testimony of Jacqueline Bland and Caroline Rucker, each of whom alleged that Justice Shaw engaged in sexual harassment. While review of the censure determination was pending before us,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People v. BeachAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
  2. People v. StatonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
  3. Pollio Dairy Products Corp. v. Sorrento Cheese Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API