The Case Against LaSalle
We have argued that given the Court of Appeals’ dangerous record of sham nominations under both Governor Cuomo & Governor Hochul, further investigation into LaSalle’s nomination is necessary before confirmation is even on the table.
If confirmed, LaSalle would succeed disgraced Janet DiFiore, who resigned amid a massive public corruption scandal last year wherein she personally intervened in a longtime critic’s disciplinary hearing to clear a legal rival.
Of seven finalists advanced to Hochul’s desk, why did she pick LaSalle? After all, while many have vouched for his qualifications — and the extent to which this has been such a sticking point for those advocating for his confirmation makes one wonder whether it has been privately identified as a potential point of vulnerability — he is actually the least experienced. He has the second-least administrative experience, having only become a Presiding Judge about two years ago, whereas multiple other finalists have extensive experience as Presiding Judges.
It would seem that LaSalle was also DiFiore’s preferred successor. She had been accused in the past of substituting friendly Judges when Judges on the Court recused themselves. Some have argued that the rulings progressives have used to oppose LaSalle’s nomination are few & far between, and not reflective of his broader record, and subsequently that he would be a reliable swing vote, rather than a conservative vote as some have alleged. That is wrong. Out of the eight divided cases wherein LaSalle was appointed by the Court of Appeals to serve as a substitute for another sitting Judge due to recusal, he joined conservatives 7/8 times.
LaSalle has been a dismal failure as the Presiding Judge of the Appellate Court. The past predicts the future, and he would be woefully incompetent as Chief Judge.
Not only has the backlog of uncalled cases on the Second Department of the Court worsened precipitously since he assumed the role as its Presiding Judge, but he has a record of covering up prosecutorial misconduct even as allegations of prosecutorial abuse have escalated massively in the last few years as much of the legal system was paralyzed by COVID-19.
When a coalition of New York City legal professors requested information from LaSalle in response to their complaint with the Second Department’s grievances office, he refused to unseal court records to comply with their demands. Regardless, the professors went public with what they knew, implicating a dizzying 41 Queens County prosecutors for their role in widespread abuse and misconduct within LaSalle’s division. New York City proceeded to sue the professors for their whistleblowing, but the US District Court rejected their lawsuit.
We have argued that LaSalle should not be confirmed on the basis that he was a prosecutor. Others have argued that he should not be disqualified on this basis unless he can be proven to have a history of bias against defendants and for prosecutors. He has a clear one.
In People v. Bridgeforth, the division of the LI Appellate Court that LaSalle runs, ruled that prosecutors could exclude dark-skinned people from a jury during the selection process because skin color is not a class of constitutionally protected individuals whose rights could be violated under Equal Protections. That would have de facto overturned Batson v. Kentucky, prohibiting excluding jurors on the basis of race. The decision was unanimously overturned by the conservative majority Court of Appeals that LaSalle is now being nominated to lead.
In Alvarez v. Annucci, LaSalle’s panel ruled that a man who had finished his jail sentence could not be released from prison. The Court of Appeals upheld this ruling along ideological lines, arguing that while New York’s sexual assault law did require a release in circumstances such as that of Alvarez, could only be held beyond their sentences if they had been conditionally released and were found to be in breach of the law. The liberals in dissent argued textually that the law’s exemption for people like Alvarez who had served their full sentence should have been taken plainly at its word.
The case People v. Laboriel was nearly identical to Alvarez and resulted in the same outcome, with LaSalle again siding with the conservative majority. In Ortiz v. Breslin before the High Court, Justice Sotomayor asked the New York Legislature to clarify its residency restriction law as the Court of Appeals had completely expanded it past the initial legislative intent.
LaSalle has routinely joined or penned rulings eroding the right of people to bring civil suits against government & corporations for negligence.
In People v. Corbin, LaSalle’s panel ruled that a convict could not appeal his conviction, which was largely secured when prosecutors had him sign a misleading waiver of his right to appeal and illegally searched him. The Court of Appeals unanimously overturned this ruling. Had they not done this, not only would it have made it substantially harder for New Yorkers to appeal their convictions for prosecutorial misconduct, but also effectively invalidate a huge range of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims. This is one of the three cases much of the progressive left has used as a key charge against LaSalle.
Dora Howell, who had suffered major injuries after being thrown out of a third-story window by her abusive ex-boyfriend, a month after she had a restraining order imposed on the man in question and after she had routinely asked the police to enforce said order. She sued the City for negligence, but in Howell v. City of New York, LaSalle’s panel ruled that she could not do so as she could not establish the police having statutorily failed to come to her aid as she did not call the police the day of the incident. That came after she had called them multiple times over the course of the last month and they had not only failed to help her, but had told her she would be arrested if she called again. The Court of Appeals upheld LaSalle’s decision by a divided vote that fell along ideological lines.
In Aybar v. Aybar, a case where LaSalle was vouched onto the Court of Appeals, he joined the ruling, which fell along ideological lines, arguing that Ford and Goodyear could not be sued for negligence as their being headquartered in New York did not automatically guarantee jurisdiction for consumers through “consent to service.” The liberals in dissent argued that Bagdon v. Philadelphia provided for jurisdiction as tied to business since 1916, even though New York law’s wording was more ambiguous. Moreover, the US Supreme Court has ruled in the past that corporations open themselves up to this kind of suit if plaintiffs can prove they are sufficiently ‘at home’ in a state (in other words, doing their business there), which these companies clearly were. See Goodyear v. Brown. As a result, New Yorkers now cannot sue most out-of-state corporations.
In Cablevision v. CWA, LaSalle’s panel, in a landmark decision, effectively invalidated a large portion of New York labor law by ruling that leadership of the Communications Workers union could be sued personally by Cablevision on the basis that they criticized the latter’s coverage of Hurricane Sandy. New York labor law has, for decades, included a ban on corporations from suing union leaders personally to prevent the sort of harassment that often accompanies union-busting campaigns. Unsurprisingly, the Court of Appeals overturned this ruling. This is yet another one of the ‘core’ arguments against LaSalle.
LaSalle, in simple terms, is unfit to serve as Chief Judge of the State of New York.