The New York Court of Appeals suspended Honorable David M. Miller from his position as Justice of the Wolcott Village Court in Wayne County, effective immediately, according to an order issued December 18, 2025. The suspension comes with pay and was ordered by the court on its own motion.
The brief order, designated as Matter of Miller (2025 NY Slip Op 07083), provides limited details about the circumstances leading to the disciplinary action. The court acted pursuant to New York Constitution, article VI, section 22 and Judiciary Law section 44(8), which grant the Court of Appeals authority to suspend judges under certain circumstances.
Six of the seven Court of Appeals judges concurred in the decision. Chief Judge Rowan Wilson and Judges Jenny Rivera Garcia, Anthony Cannataro, Madeline Singas, Michael Garcia, Shirley Troutman, and Susan Halligan all supported the suspension order. Judge Jenny Rivera took no part in the decision, though the order does not specify the reason for her recusal.
The suspension represents a significant disciplinary action against a local judicial officer. Village court justices in New York handle local criminal matters, traffic violations, and civil disputes within their municipal jurisdictions. The Wolcott Village Court serves the community of Wolcott in Wayne County, located in the Finger Lakes region of upstate New York.
New York Constitution article VI, section 22 provides the Court of Appeals with broad authority over judicial discipline and administration. This constitutional provision allows the state's highest court to take administrative action regarding judges when circumstances warrant such intervention. The referenced Judiciary Law section 44(8) specifically addresses the Court of Appeals' power to suspend judges pending further proceedings.
The decision to act "on the Court's own motion" indicates that the Court of Appeals initiated this disciplinary action independently, rather than responding to a complaint or referral from another judicial body or the Commission on Judicial Conduct. This procedural stance suggests the court became aware of circumstances requiring immediate intervention.
Judicial suspensions with pay typically occur when allegations of misconduct are serious enough to warrant removing a judge from the bench temporarily but do not necessarily indicate guilt or final determination of wrongdoing. The suspension protects the integrity of the judicial process while allowing for due process rights of the affected judge.
The order's brevity is notable, as it contains none of the factual background or legal reasoning typically found in appellate court opinions. Instead, the document functions as an administrative order, focusing solely on the immediate action taken rather than providing detailed explanation of underlying circumstances.
Village courts in New York operate at the local level and handle a variety of matters including traffic tickets, local code violations, small claims cases, and preliminary proceedings in criminal matters. These courts serve as the primary point of contact between many residents and the judicial system, making the integrity of village court judges particularly important for public confidence in local justice administration.
The timing of the suspension, issued just before the end of 2025, may indicate urgency in the circumstances prompting the Court of Appeals' action. The immediate effective date suggests the court determined that allowing Judge Miller to continue serving posed some form of risk to judicial administration or public confidence in the courts.
While the order does not specify the duration of the suspension, such administrative actions often remain in place pending resolution of underlying disciplinary proceedings or investigation. The Commission on Judicial Conduct, which handles most judicial discipline matters in New York, may be conducting parallel proceedings, though this is not confirmed in the available documentation.
The lack of detail in the public order reflects the confidential nature of many judicial discipline proceedings, which often remain sealed until formal charges are filed or final determinations are made. This practice balances the need for transparency in judicial administration with due process protections for judges facing allegations.
For residents of Wolcott and surrounding areas served by the village court, the suspension means temporary changes in how local judicial matters will be handled. The state's administrative judges will likely arrange for coverage of the court's docket through assignment of substitute judges or other administrative measures to ensure continuity of judicial services.
The Court of Appeals' willingness to act on its own motion demonstrates the judiciary's commitment to self-policing and maintaining public confidence in the courts. Such proactive measures, while rare, serve as important safeguards in the judicial system's integrity framework.
This suspension adds to ongoing discussions about judicial accountability and oversight mechanisms in New York's court system, particularly at the local level where village and town courts handle significant volumes of cases affecting everyday legal matters for residents statewide.