Irritated Judge Writes The Best String Cite Ever

We know exactly how she feels about this question.

Standby for a benchslap!

The most frustrating part about being a judge must be having to prepare the exact same opinion over and over again as litigants just keep trotting out the same tired arguments. While you can’t necessarily blame pro se litigants for not knowing what ground’s been hashed over already, when attorneys can’t stop making bad arguments it must drive even the most even-tempered judges to the breaking point.

Consider Catherine Nugent Panepinto. Panepinto is a Niagara County, New York Supreme Court justice and no stranger to the news because local nutjob man Carl Paladino has an ethics complaint against her because she presided over the proceedings surrounding his removal from the school board for being overtly racist and she’s got a husband who recently pleaded guilty to corruption related to making untoward sexual advances upon a staffer. All this is to say that Justice Panepinto is not in the mood for any lawyer bullsh**t right now.

So when defendants tried to challenge a judgment through a show cause order, she wasn’t having any of it and let her frustrations be known in the most amazing of places, the string cite:

Having established the subject confession of judgment has been entered in a New York Court, it is well established that judgments cannot be vacated by motion or show cause order brought by one or more of the judgment debtors. Instead, a plenary action is required. See, Bufkor, Inc. V. Wasson & Fried, Inc., 33 AD2d 636 (4th Dept. 1969); As well as a shit ton of cases decided by my colleagues here in Buffalo. (See generally, Justice Jerry Moriarty, Cattaraugus County)

She’s officially a better choice for the federal bench than the collection of goons that this administration’s put up (mostly). Stodgy traditionalists may hate this, but this is refreshing. The courts should reflect society and a little personality isn’t a bad thing.

But all was not lost for the poor defense counsel, who the Justice took pity upon with another fun jab:

Sponsored

Hence, a prospective plenary action brought by Defendants with the same set of facts and agreement as presented is highly discouraged, especially as it may warrant the imposition of attorneys’ fees. This court declines to so award at this stage in the litigation largely because of defense counsel’s good humor and Massapequa accent.

While the string cite is definitely more entertaining, this passage is actually more important. Judges decline to impose sanctions all the time, often without reason, which often emboldens the bad actor who walks away unaware of how close they were to seeing the hammer fall on them. It’s nice to have a judge tell the truth and admit that it’s not because she doesn’t see the plaintiff’s case for sanctions, but that she’s extending a professional courtesy at this time. It tells the plaintiff that she heard them and tells the defendant exactly how narrowly they escaped and how little it would take for them to lose their reprieve.

Anyway, the full opinion is on the next page.


HeadshotJoe Patrice is an editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.

Sponsored