ALBANY – The Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary held a public hearing Wednesday

morning to consider the nomination of Judge Hector LaSalle for Chief Judge of the New

York State Court of Appeals. Chair Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Ranker Anthony Palumbo,

along with Senators Jamaal Bailey, Neil Breslin, Andrew Gounardes, John Liu, Zellnor

Myrie, Jessica Ramos, Sean Ryan, Luis Sepulveda, James Skoufis, Toby Ann Stavisky,

Kevin Thomas, Patricia Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Andrew Lanza, Jack Martins, Thomas

O’Mara, and Steven Rhoads. Senator Shelley Mayer was absent but voted via proxy.

Ranker Palumbo noted that he had previously issued a formal request for legal experts

to testify before the committee as to the constitutionality of the current nominating

procedure. He explained that, regretfully, Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-

Cousins had rejected the Minority’s request. Later, O’Mara expressed concern over the

lack of testimony from legal groups that had praised Judge LaSalle. While O’Mara

insisted this had been common practice in the past, Chair Hoylman-Sigal said such

experts have not been utilized in recent confirmations.

Judge LaSalle both entered and exited the room to a standing ovation from the

audience.

Throughout proceedings Chair Hoylman-Sigal repeatedly instructed the audience in

attendance to hold their applause and comments and to not interrupt questioning. At

one point, the Chair threatened to have the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms escort disruptive

crowd members from the conference room, prompting someone in the room to yell,

“Shame on you",” at the Chair.

Case Law and Rulings

“I stand by every decision I signed on to,” declared Judge LaSalle when asked

repeatedly about whether or not he viewed previous cases differently in hindsight. He

also said his strong support for both organized labor and a woman’s right to make her

own reproductive choices. To this effect, two cases were consistently examined by the

committee: Evergreen Assn., Inc. v Schneiderman 2017 (Evergreen) and Cablevision

Systems Corp. v. Communications Workers of America District 1 (Cablevision),

decisions signed on to by LaSalle pertaining to abortion and union rights, respectively.

Addressing concerns over his background as a prosecutor, Judge LaSalle said an

examination of his time on the bench would reveal a track record of offering second

chances to those convicted through decisions to shorten sentences. Ramos challenged

this, saying the committee’s research only showed three instances in which LaSalle

shortened a standing prison sentence. LaSalle insisted that wasn’t right but conceded

that he would refer to the committee’s research.

Liu, pointing to dissenting opinions in these cases, asked if Judge LaSalle felt his

colleagues had been ”derelict of their duty” if they were bound by such a clear

precedent. LaSalle insisted that was not the case and different jurists merely interpret

cases and precedent differently. Liu asked if that belief didn’t undermine LaSalle’s

insistence that he had been bound by case law and precedent.

Ramos questioned Judge LaSalle’s rulings on a myriad of cases from throughout his

career, challenging his self-description as being pro-union by claiming his record

showed the complete opposite. Following a series of back-and-forth exchanges on case

law interpretation, particularly that of union protections pertaining to the Cablevision

case, Ramos and LaSalle mutually agreed they simply differed in their interpretations of

the law and its application.

Sepulveda claimed Judge LaSalle’s Hispanic heritage had contributed to the intense

scrutiny of his record and nomination. Comparing the nominee to other maligned “firsts”

in the judicial field such as Supreme Court Justices Sonya Sotomayor and Ketanji

Brown Jackson, Sepulveda praised LaSalle’s character and career, proclaiming how

proud he was to see someone from his community be nominated as Chief Judge.

Sepulveda praised LaSalle in Spanish and waved the national flags from Latin

American counties, prompting loud cheers from those in attendance.

The Constitution

Lanza, who would go on to call Judge LaSalle one of the most qualified nominees he’d

ever seen, asked if LaSalle believed the Constitution is malleable. LaSalle said the

Constitution, whether state or federal had to be examined in a way that best fit the

current times, giving the example of the emergence of the internet as having an outside

impact on how certain laws are to be interpreted. However, LaSalle added that the

Constitution’s language reads as it does and a Judge is bound by its parameters.

Gounardes, noting he felt a great deal of the criticism against Judge LaSalle was

“unfair,” asked if the nominee considered the United States Constitution to be the “floor

or ceiling on rights and liberties.” LaSalle said he believed it to be the floor,

acknowledging the New York State Constitution is a far more expansive and detailed

document than its federal counterpart.

Martins asked if Judge LaSalle had encountered any examples of judges exercising

“judicial activism” during his career. LaSalle answered that while he was familiar with

the phrase he believed it to be a term used to attack judges whose rulings someone

might not like, insisting firmly he has never had a colleague he personally felt was

making decisions in a matter inconsistent with their honest interpretation of law and

precedent.

Bailey asked about "bad law" and when a judge should be at liberty, or even obligated,

to dispense with an old precedent in favor of establishing a new one. LaSalle said that,

“of course,” there were instances in which a particularly egregious ruling by a previous

court would have to be overturned, citing the Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling in Brown v.

Board of Education which overturned the Court’s previous decision to uphold the

doctrine of the “separate but equal” segregation standard established by Plessy v.

Ferguson in 1896.

Party Lines

Chair Hoylman-Sigal noted that while campaigning for election to the Appellate Court,

Judge LaSalle ran on multiple party lines. Pointing to LaSalle’s previous endorsement

by the Conservative Party, the Chair expressed concern over the nominee’s potential

agreement with the party on certain issues, particularly in regard to its stance on

LGBTQ and abortion protections. LaSalle explained it was not uncommon for judges

running for the bench to be endorsed by multiple parties and insisted his own beliefs

were antithetical to the Conservative Party platform examples offered by the Chair.

Hoylman-Sigal expressed skepticism over someone accepting the nomination of a party

they claim to have fundamental disagreements with.

Martins noted Judge LaSalle had also been endorsed by the Working Families Party

and asked if the nominee was familiar with that party’s platform calling for the

“legalization of prostitution and heroine.” LaSalle responded he wasn’t aware the

Working Families Party endorsed policies along those lines but again insisted his party

line had no impact on his decision making.

The Vote

At the end of questioning a vote was called, with members asked to raise their hands.

Two members, Senators Luis Sepulveda and Kevin Thomas voted to advance the

nomination. Seven members, the full Minority and Senator Bailey voted aye without

recommendation. Ten members, Senators Hoylman-Sigal, Neil Breslin, Andrew

Gounardes, John Liu, Zellnor Myrie, Jessica Ramos, Sean Ryan, James Skoufis, Toby

Ann Stavisky, and Shelley Mayer voted in the negative. “The nomination is lost,” said

Chair Hoylman-Sigal, adjourning the hearing.

Ranker Palumbo attempted to make a statement. Chair Hoylman-Sigal said he may do

so privately but insisted the hearing was adjourned. Palumbo then attempted to motion

to send the nomination to the floor for a vote. The Chair reiterated that the nomination

had been lost, adjourned the meeting, and left the dais.

At this point the audience erupted in jeers, some chanting “shame on you!” at the exiting

committee members. One audience members shouted at Ramos, demanding that she

“do the right thing,” prompting a second crowd member to respond ”she did do the right

thing!” Ramos faced the crowd and said “I defend workers” before stepping down from

the dais.