Appellate Division strikes down $1,000 penalty against state court judges who deny certain habeas corpus petitions

Did you know that the CPLR provided a way for state court habeas corpus losers to personally sue the judge for a $1,000 fine if the judge got their decision wrong? CPLR 7003(c) allows for this, and if you don't believe me, here it is: 

For a violation of this section in refusing to issue the writ, a judge, or, if the petition was made to a court, each member of the court who assents to the violation, forfeits to the person detained one thousand dollars, to be recovered by an action in his name or in the name of the petitioner to his use.

No one else knew about this provision, either. According to the Appellate Division, Second Department, which recently struck down this provision as unconstitutional, no judge has ever been personally assessed a $1,000 fine in the more than 200 years and the four centuries that prior iterations of the statute has existed, and litigants in New York have only invoked it seven times over the years. No one ever won their $1,000 payout, and the lower court denied that relief to the plaintiff in this case, which is how it reached the Appellate Division.

The case is Poltorak v. Clarke, issued by the Second Department on July 30. The plaintiff lost his habeas petition in Kings County Family Court, but the Appellate Division reversed in concluding the defendant, Justice Clarke, got it wrong. Plaintiff then sued Justice Clark to recover the $1,000, pursuant to CPLR 7003(c). State Supreme Court held the statute was unconstitutional, so plaintiff got nothing, and the Appellate Division affirms and says the statute violates constitutional separation of powers and the compensation clause of the New York Constitution.

Something in the American legal tradition authorized penalties against judges for denying habeas corpus. That is in part because of the value the legal system places on habeas corpus. The Appellate Division reviews cases from around the country where this issue has arisen. This rule has been struck down in other states, and now it has been stricken in New York. Somebody worked their tail off in writing this decision, as it is quite lengthy and provides extensive background on statutory penalties against judges who deny habeas petitions.

The Second Department issues two holdings: first, the $1,000 penalty against the judge violates the judicial compensation clause of the New York Constitution because paying out the penalty to a litigant will naturally reduce the judge's salary. The clause promotes judicial independence and ensures that judges can make a living after leaving private practice or other legal positions in order to ascend to the bench. That concern goes down the drain if the judge has to pay litigants upon ruling against them in certain cases, and not for nothing, I would think the prospect of paying such a financial penalty would create a conflict of interest. Not that judges will rule one way or the other for the money, but the public at large might think the judge ruled the way they did to avoid paying $1,000 out of pocket. The separation of powers principle is also implicated here, as this penalty would incentivize a specific outcome, i.e., issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, to avoid paying the penalty. This would impair judicial discretion and judgment.

If a $1,000 fine was available to disappointed habeas litigants under the CPLR, why did no one ever invoke this entitlement? How did everyone miss this opportunity? I cannot answer that question. 

Another observation: this case has a 2020 Appellate Division docket number. The decision came down last week. The Second Department has been slower than molasses lately, but five years is an awfully long time. The case was argued in September 2024, so that delay is understandable since this issue is complex, but the four-year wait prior to argument is, for those of you who don't practice in the Second Department, par for the course.