Commission Determination of Censure Issued June 12, 2025
Commission Determination of Censure Issued June 12, 2025
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct censured Rossie Town Court Justice Philip J. Gentile on June 12, 2025, following an investigation into serious procedural and ethical violations. The Commission found that Gentile engaged in unauthorized ex parte communications, used profanity in the courtroom, and spread baseless rumors about a fellow judge. Gentile, a non-attorney justice serving St. Lawrence County since 2018, agreed to the censure.
Commission Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian stated that Gentile’s actions undermined the judicial obligation to remain fair and impartial. The determination detailed three primary areas of misconduct that occurred between November 2022 and March 2024.
Unauthorized Ex Parte Communications
The Commission’s findings center on Gentile’s handling of People v. Jesse R. Bender, a case involving assault charges. Gentile admitted to speaking privately with the prosecutor, Dillon Bullard, and a local school superintendent regarding the case without disclosing these conversations to the defense. Following these private discussions, Gentile denied a defense motion to modify an order of protection. This failure to disclose outside communications violated the defendant’s right to a fair hearing and breached the ethical rules governing judicial conduct.
Profanity and Injudicious Comments
Gentile also faced discipline for his courtroom demeanor. The record shows he used profanity during proceedings, specifically telling a litigant, “That doesn’t make me want to do shit for you, okay?” In another instance, he accused a mother of perjury regarding her marital status without evidence. These outbursts violated the requirement for judges to maintain dignity and courtesy in the courtroom.
Baseless Gossip Regarding Fellow Officials
In January 2023, Gentile made recorded comments to an attorney suggesting an illicit relationship between a judge and a code enforcement officer in the nearby town of Theresa. He claimed the two “were tight” and “boyfriends and girlfriends,” comparing them to characters in the 1981 film Body Heat. The Commission determined these statements were gratuitous, devoid of evidence, and damaging to the integrity of the judiciary.
| Charge Category | Specific Action | Date of Occurrence |
|---|---|---|
| Ex Parte Communication | Private discussion with prosecutor and school official in People v. Bender | Nov 2022, Mar 2024 |
| Courtroom Decorum | Used profanity (“shit”) and made baseless perjury accusations | Various dates |
| Injudicious Comments | Spread rumors about another judge (“Body Heat” comparison) | January 2023 |
Unauthorized Private Communications with Prosecutor in Bender Assault Case
The People v. Jesse R. Bender Case Timeline
The underlying criminal matter originated from a July 4, 2022, incident involving a physical altercation on the grounds of a local school. The defendant, Jesse R. Bender, and April Price, the mother of his child, were involved in a confrontation with Arthur and Lori Howie. Following the incident, Bender was arraigned on August 7, 2022, by Morristown Town Justice James T. Phillips, Jr., who issued a temporary Order of Protection directing Bender to stay away from the complainants and their place of employment, the very school where the altercation took place. On September 2, 2022, the case was transferred to the Rossie Town Court, placing it under the jurisdiction of Judge Gentile. This transfer marked the beginning of a judicial process characterized by what the Commission later described as a failure to maintain high standards of conduct.
| Date | Event | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| July 4, 2022 | School Altercation | Incident leading to Assault 3rd Degree charges against Bender. |
| Aug 7, 2022 | Arraignment (Morristown) | Judge Phillips problem Order of Protection barring Bender from the school. |
| Sept 2, 2022 | Case Transfer | Jurisdiction moves to Judge Gentile in Rossie Town Court. |
| Nov 16, 2022 | Defense Motion | Attorney Riendeau requests modification of Order of Protection. |
| Nov 2022, Mar 2024 | Misconduct Period | Gentile engages in ex parte communications and uses profanity. |
| May 17, 2023 | Jury Trial | Bender found guilty of Assault; acquitted of other charges. |
| June 12, 2025 | Censure Issued | Commission cites Bender case violations as primary cause for discipline. |
The Ex Parte Communication with the Prosecutor
The core of the Commission’s charge regarding the prosecutor involves a specific incident following a court appearance. On November 16, 2022, Bender appeared before Judge Gentile with his attorney, Brad Riendeau. ADA Dillon Bullard represented the People. During this session, the defense moved to modify the Order of Protection, arguing that the current terms prevented Bender from visiting his son’s school for legitimate parental reasons. Minutes after this proceeding concluded, and after Bender and Riendeau had departed the courtroom, Judge Gentile detained ADA Bullard. In a private conversation from which the defense was excluded, Gentile discussed “problem relating to the case” with the prosecutor. This act constituted a direct violation of Section 100. 3(B)(6) of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct, which prohibits judges from initiating, permitting, or considering ex parte communications concerning a pending proceeding. By discussing the merits or logistics of the Bender case with only the prosecution present, Gentile created an informational imbalance. The defense was left unaware of the content of this discussion, unable to rebut any arguments made or correct any factual inaccuracies that may have arisen. The Commission’s determination emphasized that such conduct “undermines the judicial obligation to be fair and impartial,” as it allows one party unchecked access to the decision-maker.
Parallel Unauthorized Investigations
Gentile’s disregard for the adversarial process extended beyond his private chats with the prosecutor. In the same timeframe, he initiated an independent, unauthorized investigation into the facts of the case. To rule on the defense’s motion to modify the Order of Protection, Gentile privately contacted the superintendent of the school district where Bender’s son was enrolled. During this telephone call, Gentile sought information regarding school policies and the specifics of the defendant’s access rights. He did not notify the defense or the prosecution that he was seeking this evidence, nor did he give them an opportunity to be heard on the information he obtained. Gentile later admitted that he denied the defense’s motion to modify the order based, in part, on the information he gleaned from this private call. At the time, he believed he could take “judicial notice” of the school’s policies. The Commission rejected this reasoning, clarifying that a judge cannot step outside their role to become an investigator. The proper procedure required Gentile to ask the parties to submit evidence regarding the school’s policies in open court, where it could be challenged and verified.
Hostility and Profanity in the Courtroom
The Bender proceedings were further marred by Gentile’s open hostility toward the defendant. The Commission’s transcripts reveal a judicial demeanor that absence the required patience and dignity. During one exchange regarding the defendant’s request for counsel or assistance, Gentile lost his temper. “That doesn’t make me want to do shit for you, okay?” Gentile told the litigant in open court. This use of profanity was not an slip part of a pattern of discourtesy. In a March 6, 2024 appearance, Gentile accused Ms. Price, the mother of Bender’s child, of having “perjured” herself and “lied to the court” regarding her marital status. These accusations were made without a formal hearing or evidence presented by a prosecutor to support a perjury charge. The Commission found that such remarks “detract from the dignity of judicial office” and violate the duty to be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants.
Sentencing and the Appearance of Partiality
The cumulative effect of these ex parte communications and hostile remarks cast a shadow over the eventual outcome of the case. On May 17, 2023, a jury convicted Bender of Assault in the Third Degree and Disorderly Conduct. On August 2, 2023, Gentile sentenced Bender to six months in jail, along with fines and surcharges totaling $455. While the sentence itself was within statutory limits, and notably four months less than the maximum recommended by the prosecution, the Commission determined that Gentile’s prior conduct created a “reasonable appearance of partiality.” By privately consulting the prosecutor and the school superintendent, and by cursing at the defendant, Gentile compromised the public’s confidence that the sentence was the result of a fair and neutral process. also, the Commitment Order signed by Gentile contained a significant error: it indicated that Bender had been convicted of a charge for which the jury had actually acquitted him. While likely a clerical error, it underscored the absence of rigorous attention to detail that characterized the court’s handling of the Bender file.
Commission Findings
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, in its determination dated May 30, 2025, and released June 12, 2025, sustained the charges related to the Bender case. The Commission noted that Gentile “acknowledged that his conduct was improper and warrants public discipline.” Commission Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian stated, “It undermines the judicial obligation to be fair and impartial when a judge bases decisions on outside conversations to which one or more parties are not privy and cannot counter.” The censure serves as a permanent public record that in People v. Jesse R. Bender, the Rossie Town Court failed to provide the defendant with a trial process free from unauthorized prosecutorial access and judicial bias.
Improper Ex Parte Investigation with School Superintendent Regarding Order of Protection
Unauthorized Investigation in People v. Jesse R. Bender
The core of the Commission’s censure regarding ex parte investigation centers on Judge Gentile’s handling of People v. Jesse R. Bender, a criminal case transferred to the Rossie Town Court in September 2022. The defendant, Jesse R. Bender, faced charges of Assault in the Third Degree and Disorderly Conduct stemming from a July 4, 2022, physical altercation on the grounds of a local school. The initial arraignment, conducted by Morristown Town Justice James T. Phillips Jr., resulted in a temporary Order of Protection (OOP) requiring Bender to stay away from the complainants, Arthur and Lori Howie, who were employees of the school district where Bender’s son was a student.
On November 16, 2022, Bender appeared before Judge Gentile with his attorney, Brad Riendeau. During this proceeding, Riendeau moved to modify the existing Order of Protection. The defense argued that the full stay-away order prevented Bender from entering the school property, thereby barring him from attending his son’s educational and extracurricular events. Rather than ruling on the motion based on the arguments presented in open court, Judge Gentile reserved judgment until November 23, 2022, ostensibly to allow the parties time to reach an agreement.
The Ex Parte Call to the Superintendent
In the interim period between the court appearance and the scheduled decision date, Judge Gentile initiated an independent, out-of-court investigation into the facts of the case. Without notifying the defendant, defense counsel, or the prosecutor, Gentile telephoned the superintendent of the school district where the altercation occurred.
During this private conversation, Gentile questioned the superintendent regarding the school district’s policies and specific information concerning the defendant. This action transformed the judge from a neutral arbiter into an investigator gathering evidence outside the judicial record. The Commission’s determination explicitly noted that Gentile “learned information regarding the defendant as well as the school district’s policies” during this call, information that was never subjected to cross-examination or rebuttal by the defense.
Judicial Notice vs. Independent Investigation
When later questioned by the Commission, Gentile attempted to justify his actions by claiming he believed the information sought was “public information” subject to judicial notice. This defense demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of evidentiary rules and judicial ethics. While judges may take judicial notice of indisputable facts (such as calendar dates or geographical locations), they are strictly prohibited from conducting private inquiries into the specific facts of a pending matter.
The Commission rejected his justification, stating that a judge cannot “seek or obtain such information concerning a pending matter on an ex parte basis.” By privately gathering facts that influenced his judicial discretion, Gentile violated Rule 100. 3(B)(6), which mandates that a judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding.
Impact on the Proceedings
The consequences of this ex parte investigation were immediate and prejudicial. When the court reconvened, Judge Gentile denied the defense’s motion to modify the Order of Protection. The Commission found that this denial was based, at least in part, on the information Gentile had secretly acquired from the superintendent.
This conduct deprived the defendant of his due process rights. Because the defense was unaware of the conversation, they had no opportunity to challenge the accuracy of the superintendent’s statements, contextualize the school’s policies, or why those factors should not preclude a modification of the OOP. The judge’s reliance on untested, out-of-court evidence fundamentally skewed the proceeding against the defendant.
Timeline of the Improper Investigation
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 4, 2022 | Incident occurs at school property involving Jesse R. Bender and school employees. |
| August 7, 2022 | Arraignment by Judge Phillips; temporary Order of Protection issued barring Bender from school grounds. |
| September 2, 2022 | Case transferred to Judge Gentile at Rossie Town Court. |
| November 16, 2022 | Defense moves to modify OOP to allow school access. Gentile reserves decision. |
| Nov 16, 23, 2022 | Violation: Gentile secretly calls school superintendent to investigate merits of the motion. |
| November 23, 2022 | Gentile denies the motion to modify, relying on the secret ex parte information. |
Ethical Violations
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct determined that this specific incident violated multiple sections of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct. Beyond the breach of Rule 100. 3(B)(6) regarding ex parte communications, Gentile’s conduct violated Rule 100. 2(A), which requires a judge to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
By stepping outside his role and acting as an investigator, Gentile created an appearance of bias and compromised the neutrality of the Rossie Town Court. Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian emphasized in the determination that such actions “undermine the judicial obligation to be fair and impartial,” as decisions must be based solely on the evidence presented in the courtroom where all parties have an equal opportunity to be heard.
Profane Courtroom Outbursts and Lack of Judicial Temperament
Commission Determination of Censure: June 12, 2025
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct formally censured Rossie Town Court Justice Philip J. Gentile on June 12, 2025, citing a pattern of injudicious behavior that included profane courtroom outbursts and the dissemination of salacious, baseless rumors about a fellow magistrate. The determination, which resulted from a stipulated agreement, detailed misconduct occurring between November 2022 and March 2024. The Commission concluded that Gentile’s demeanor violated the fundamental judicial obligation to remain patient, dignified, and courteous to all participants in the legal process.
Baseless Rumors and the “Body Heat” Comparison
A central component of the Commission’s findings involved an incident on January 18, 2023. While presiding over court proceedings, Judge Gentile engaged in a recorded conversation with an attorney during a break. The audio recording system captured Gentile making gratuitous and unsubstantiated allegations regarding the personal lives of a town justice from a neighboring jurisdiction and a local code enforcement officer. The Commission’s investigation revealed that Gentile insinuated the two officials were involved in an illicit romantic affair. He described them as “tight” and “boyfriends and girlfriends,” explicitly comparing their relationship to characters in the 1981 neo-noir film Body Heat. In the film, the characters plot to murder the woman’s husband. The Commission noted that Gentile’s comments were “uttered out of pique” because the other judge had previously presided over a zoning ordinance violation filed against Gentile. Commission Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian condemned these remarks, stating that spreading “baseless gossip about other judges or public officials” degrades the integrity of the court. The determination emphasized that these comments were not casual conversation a violation of the duty to conduct extra-judicial activities in a manner that does not detract from the dignity of judicial office.
Profane Outbursts in People v. Bender
The Commission also documented specific instances of profanity and aggression during the adjudication of People v. Jesse R. Bender. Between November 2022 and March 2024, Gentile demonstrated a absence of judicial temperament while interacting with litigants. * “Do Shit for You”: During one proceeding, Gentile became frustrated with a litigant and stated on the record, “That doesn’t make me want to do shit for you, okay?” * “Get an Education”: In another exchange, he disparaged a participant’s understanding of the proceedings, remarking, “If you think I enjoy that, you need to go back and get an education then, okay?” * Recorded Profanity: The court’s audio system captured Gentile muttering, “Fucking– and they just continue on with their…” during a pause in proceedings.
Mistreatment of Litigants
Beyond the use of profanity, the Commission found that Gentile engaged in bullying tactics against those appearing before him. In the Bender case, he aggressively interrogated April Price, the mother of the defendant’s son, regarding her marital status. Without evidence, he accused her of “perjuring” herself when she stated she was married, even with her explanation that the marriage took place in Massachusetts. Gentile erroneously insisted this meant she was not legally married in New York State, a legal error he compounded by using it to berate the witness.
Violations of Judicial Standards
The Commission determined that Judge Gentile’s conduct violated multiple sections of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct.
| Rule Section | Requirement | Violation Details |
|---|---|---|
| 100. 3(B)(3) | A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others. | Gentile used profanity (“shit,” “fucking”) and told a litigant to “get an education.” |
| 100. 2(A) | A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. | Spreading rumors about a fellow judge engaging in a Body Heat-style plot undermined public trust. |
| 100. 4(A)(2) | A judge shall conduct all extra-judicial activities so that they do not detract from the dignity of judicial office. | Gossip regarding the zoning officer and neighboring judge degraded the office. |
Gentile, who is not an attorney and has served as a Justice of the Rossie Town Court since 2018, agreed to the censure. He acknowledged that his comments were “improper” and “warranted public discipline.” The Commission’s determination noted that while removal was not recommended, the severity of the conduct required a public sanction to deter future breaches of judicial decorum.
Baseless Body Heat Movie Comparisons Regarding Fellow Judge and Town Official
The “Body Heat” Conspiracy: Baseless Accusations Against a Fellow Judge
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s June 12, 2025, determination details a specific and bizarre instance of misconduct involving 1981 neo-noir film Body Heat. On January 18, 2023, while presiding at the Rossie Town Court, Judge Philip J. Gentile engaged in a recorded conversation with an attorney between proceedings. During this exchange, Gentile made unfounded allegations regarding a Town Justice from a neighboring community and a local Code Enforcement Officer, comparing their professional relationship to the illicit, murderous conspiracy depicted in the movie.
The Recorded Incident
The incident occurred while the court’s audio recording system was active. Gentile, speaking to an attorney, referenced his own prior appearance as a defendant in the Theresa Town Court. He had appeared there in September 2021 to contest a zoning violation regarding a recreational vehicle parked on his property. Still harboring a grievance over the zoning matter nearly two years later, Gentile alleged that the presiding judge in that case, Theresa Town Justice Rachel A. Roberts, and the Code Enforcement Officer who issued the ticket, Mr. McKeever, were engaged in an improper relationship. According to the transcript in the Commission’s determination, Gentile stated:
“It was kind of like… Kathleen Turner and William Hurt in Body Heat you know because they were so… close in the court that they were finishing each other’s sentences and stuff.”
Gentile further explicitly described them as “tight” and “boyfriends and girlfriends,” insinuating that their relationship compromised the fairness of the proceedings against him.
of the Movie Comparison
The Commission’s determination emphasized the severity of invoking Body Heat to describe judicial conduct. The 1981 film centers on a lawyer (played by William Hurt) and a married woman (played by Kathleen Turner) who begin a passionate affair and subsequently plot to murder the woman’s husband to secure her inheritance. By drawing this parallel, Gentile did not suggest a absence of impartiality; he implied that Justice Roberts and Officer McKeever were: 1. Engaged in a secret, illicit romantic affair. 2. Conspiring together to “get” Gentile, akin to the movie’s plot to remove an obstacle. 3. Conducting a “sham” judicial proceeding where the outcome was predetermined by their personal relationship. The Commission found these remarks to be “gratuitous,” “without evidence,” and “baseless.” The investigation revealed no factual support for Gentile’s claims regarding the personal relationship between Justice Roberts and Officer McKeever.
Retaliatory Motive and Timeline
The investigation linked these comments directly to Gentile’s personal resentment regarding the 2021 zoning dispute. The timeline of events establishes a clear pattern of holding a grudge:
| Date | Event | Details |
|---|---|---|
| September 21, 2021 | Zoning Hearing | Gentile appears in Theresa Town Court (Judge Roberts presiding) to contest a ticket from Officer McKeever regarding a parked RV. |
| December 2021 | Case Dismissal | The zoning charge is dismissed following a motion by Gentile’s attorney, yet Gentile remains aggrieved by the process. |
| January 18, 2023 | The “Body Heat” Rant | Gentile makes the recorded comments in Rossie Town Court, resurrecting the problem and spreading rumors about Roberts and McKeever. |
| March 3, 2025 | Formal Complaint | The Commission charges Gentile with misconduct, citing the Body Heat comments as a violation of judicial integrity. |
Violation of Judicial Standards
The Commission ruled that these comments violated Sections 100. 2(A) and 100. 4(A)(2) of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct. Section 100. 2(A) requires judges to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Commission Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian noted in the determination that spreading “baseless gossip about other judges or public officials” directly undermines the dignity of the court. The fact that Gentile made these assertions to a practicing attorney inside a courtroom—while wearing his judicial robes—amplified the ethical breach. The Commission concluded that such behavior creates a toxic environment where judicial decisions are viewed through the lens of personal vendettas rather than the law. Gentile admitted that his comments were “improper” and “warranted public discipline” as part of the Agreed Statement of Facts accepted by the Commission on May 1, 2025. He acknowledged that his frustration with the zoning case did not justify impugning the character of a fellow magistrate.
Breach of Judicial Canons Requiring Patience, Dignity, and Courtesy
Breach of Judicial Canons Requiring Patience, Dignity, and Courtesy
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s June 2025 determination against Rossie Town Court Justice Philip J. Gentile centered heavily on his repeated failure to maintain the “patience, dignity, and courtesy” required by Section 100. 3(B)(3) of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct. While procedural errors frequently from a absence of training, the Commission identified Gentile’s behavioral misconduct, specifically his use of profanity, aggression toward litigants, and dissemination of salacious rumors, as a fundamental violation of judicial temperament.
The “Body Heat” Allegations
In one of the most bizarre instances in the determination, Judge Gentile was recorded on January 18, 2023, spreading baseless rumors about a fellow sitting judge. During a break in proceedings, while the court’s audio recording system remained active, Gentile engaged in a conversation with an attorney regarding a town justice from a neighboring community. This other justice had previously presided over a zoning ordinance violation filed against Gentile personally.
Driven by what the Commission described as “pique,” Gentile gratuitously insinuated that the neighboring judge was involved in an illicit romantic affair with the code enforcement officer who had issued the zoning violation against him. He described the two officials as being “tight” and “boyfriends and girlfriends.”
Gentile escalated the baseless gossip by comparing the pair to the lead characters in the 1981 neo-noir film Body Heat. In the film, characters played by Kathleen Turner and William Hurt engage in a steamy affair and plot to murder the woman’s husband. The Commission found that Gentile’s comparison was not a casual remark a specific, malicious insinuation that the officials were conspiring against him due to a romantic entanglement. Gentile later stipulated that these comments were “without basis” and “highly inappropriate.”
Profanity and Hostility in People v. Bender
The Commission’s investigation into Gentile’s handling of People v. Jesse R. Bender revealed a pattern of hostility that violated the requirement for judicial courtesy. Between November 2022 and March 2024, Gentile repeatedly berated the defendant and the mother of the defendant’s child, April Price, using language incompatible with the dignity of the bench.
On March 6, 2024, following a heated exchange regarding the payment of a fine, Gentile directed a profane outburst at the litigants. The official transcript records Gentile stating:
“That doesn’t make me want to do shit for you, okay?”
In the same proceeding, when the defendant attempted to speak, Gentile retorted with aggressive condescension, telling the litigant: “If you think I enjoy that, you need to go back and get an education then, okay?”
Beyond the use of profanity, Gentile’s conduct included unfounded accusations of criminal behavior against a witness. During the same dispute, he accused Ms. Price of having “perjured” herself regarding her marital status. The Commission determined that this accusation was baseless and served only to intimidate and demean the individual in open court.
Commission Findings on Judicial Temperament
The Commission’s determination emphasized that a judge’s obligation to be patient and dignified is not a suggestion a mandatory ethical standard. Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian noted that such behavior “undermines the judicial obligation to be fair and impartial.” The use of profanity and the spreading of gossip do not offend the sensibilities of those present; they public confidence in the integrity of the court system itself.
The following table outlines the specific actions by Judge Gentile and the corresponding Judicial Canons they violated, as in the May 30, 2025 determination.
| Incident Date | Action Taken | Specific Quote/Detail | Canon Violated |
|---|---|---|---|
| January 18, 2023 | Spreading Rumors | Compared a fellow judge and code officer to characters in Body Heat; claimed they were “tight.” | Section 100. 2(A): Failure to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. |
| March 6, 2024 | Courtroom Profanity | “That doesn’t make me want to do shit for you, okay?” | Section 100. 3(B)(3): Failure to be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants. |
| March 6, 2024 | Abusive Conduct | “If you think I enjoy that, you need to go back and get an education then, okay?” | Section 100. 3(B)(3): Failure to maintain decorum. |
| March 6, 2024 | Baseless Accusation | Accused a witness (Ms. Price) of “perjury” regarding her marital status without evidence. | Section 100. 3(B)(3): Failure to treat those participating in proceedings with dignity. |
The Commission concluded that these actions, taken together, demonstrated a serious absence of judicial temperament. While Gentile agreed to the censure and acknowledged his misconduct, the detailed findings serve as a permanent record of the consequences when a judge allows personal grievances and anger to dictate their conduct on the bench.
The Jesse R. Bender Case and Denial of Motion to Modify Order
The Underlying Incident and Transfer
The case originated from a July 4, 2022, physical altercation involving Jesse R. Bender and April Price against Arthur and Lori Howie on the grounds of a local school. Bender was arraigned on August 7, 2022, by Morristown Town Justice James T. Phillips, Jr., on charges of Assault in the Third Degree and Disorderly Conduct. At arraignment, Judge Phillips issued a temporary Order of Protection (OOP) barring Bender from contact with the Howies or their place of employment. Because one of the protected parties worked at the school attended by Bender’s son, the OOP barred Bender from entering the school grounds. The case was transferred to Judge Gentile in Rossie Town Court on September 2, 2022, setting the stage for the subsequent procedural violations.
Unauthorized Ex Parte Investigation
On November 16, 2022, Bender’s defense counsel, Brad Riendeau, filed a motion to modify the Order of Protection. The defense sought a limited exception allowing Bender to enter school property for legitimate parenting purposes, such as transporting his son. Rather than ruling on the arguments presented in court, Gentile initiated his own private investigation. Between November 16 and November 23, 2022, Gentile contacted the school district superintendent privately. He solicited information regarding the school’s internal policies on individuals with orders of protection. This communication occurred without the knowledge or consent of the defense counsel or the prosecutor. Judicial ethics rules strictly prohibit judges from conducting independent factual research or engaging in ex parte communications concerning pending matters. By seeking evidence outside the record, Gentile denied the defendant the opportunity to challenge or contextualize the information provided by the school official.
The Secret Meeting with the Prosecution
During the same one-week adjournment, Gentile engaged in a separate unauthorized communication with Assistant District Attorney Dillon Bullard. The Commission’s findings reveal that Gentile discussed the merits of the defense’s motion with the prosecutor outside the presence of the defendant and his attorney. The conversation extended beyond the immediate motion. Gentile and the prosecutor discussed the defendant’s reputation and criminal history, topics that are prejudicial and irrelevant to the legal standard for modifying an order of protection. This ex parte conference gave the prosecution a secret channel to influence the judge’s perception of the defendant, violating the fundamental due process requirement that both sides have equal access to the tribunal.
Denial of Motion Based on Non-Record Evidence
On November 23, 2022, the parties returned to court for a decision on the motion. Gentile denied the request to modify the Order of Protection. In his ruling, he explicitly admitted to the procedural violation, stating on the record: “The school itself has a policy on this. I was in contact with the school district… They have a policy in place for this specific situation.” Gentile characterized the defendant’s justification for the modification as “baseless and nonsensical.” The denial was not grounded solely in the arguments presented by the ADA in open court relied heavily on the unverified information Gentile had obtained through his private telephone calls. This ruling cemented the violation, as the decision was based on evidence that never underwent the adversarial process.
Falsification of Commitment Order
The misconduct continued through the trial phase. On May 17, 2023, a jury convicted Bender of Assault in the Third Degree and Disorderly Conduct acquitted him of a third charge. On August 2, 2023, Gentile sentenced Bender to six months in jail and a one-year conditional discharge. yet, the Commitment Order signed by Gentile contained a serious error. It indicated that Bender had been convicted of the charge for which the jury had acquitted him. This administrative failure resulted in an official court document falsely attesting to a conviction that did not exist. While Bender served his six-month term, the record of his incarceration was legally inaccurate due to Gentile’s absence of attention to the verdict sheet.
Post-Judgment Harassment and Profanity
The Commission’s investigation highlighted a disturbing coda to the case in early 2024, long after the sentencing. On February 7, 2024, Bender appeared in court regarding payment of his fine, accompanied by April Price, the mother of his son. During a financial inquiry, Gentile asked if the pair were married. When Price answered “No,” Gentile aggressively demanded to know if they were “legally married.” The relevance of their marital status to the payment of a court fine was negligible, yet Gentile pursued the line of questioning with hostility. One month later, on March 6, 2024, the situation escalated. When Bender and Price returned to court, Gentile accused Price of having “perjured” herself and “lied to the court” regarding her marital status during the previous appearance. He engaged in an undignified exchange, using profanity and berating the couple. The Commission noted that Gentile’s behavior was “rude, discourteous, and otherwise inappropriate,” and that his accusations of perjury were legally baseless and uttered “out of pique.”
| Date | Event | Misconduct Type |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 16-23, 2022 | Call to School Superintendent | Unauthorized Independent Investigation |
| Nov 16-23, 2022 | Meeting with ADA Bullard | Ex Parte Communication |
| Nov 23, 2022 | Denial of Motion | Ruling based on non-record evidence |
| Aug 2, 2023 | Sentencing | Signed Order listing acquitted charge as conviction |
| Mar 6, 2024 | Fine Payment Hearing | Profanity and baseless perjury accusations |
widespread Failure of Impartiality
The handling of the Bender case demonstrates a widespread failure to adhere to the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct. Section 100. 3(B)(6) explicitly prohibits ex parte communications. Section 100. 3(B)(3) requires a judge to be patient, dignified, and courteous. Gentile violated both provisions repeatedly within the same matter. The Commission’s determination emphasized that a judge’s role is to decide cases based on the law and facts presented, not to “fill in the gaps” through private detective work. By stepping outside his judicial role to gather evidence from the school and the prosecutor, Gentile dismantled the presumption of innocence and the right to counsel. The subsequent administrative errors and courtroom outbursts further degraded the integrity of the Rossie Town Court, reducing serious legal proceedings to a venue for personal grievances and procedural incompetence.
Administrator Tembeckjian's Condemnation of Gossip and Bias
Administrator Tembeckjian’s Condemnation of Gossip and Bias
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s censure of Rossie Town Court Justice Philip J. Gentile in June 2025 was punctuated by a sharp rebuke from Commission Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian. While the procedural violations regarding ex parte communications were serious, Tembeckjian specifically highlighted the corrosive nature of the judge’s “baseless gossip” and demonstrated bias. The Administrator’s statement underscored that judicial integrity is compromised not just by legal errors, by conduct that reveals a absence of temperament and impartiality.
The “Body Heat” Rumor
A central element of the Commission’s findings involved a bizarre and gratuitous instance of gossip spread by Judge Gentile on January 18, 2023. While the court’s audio recording system was active, Gentile engaged in a conversation with an attorney between proceedings. During this exchange, he made unfounded allegations regarding a town justice and a code enforcement officer from the nearby town of Theresa, New York.
Gentile, who had previously appeared in the Theresa court regarding a personal zoning violation, insinuated that the presiding judge and the code officer were involved in a romantic relationship. According to the Commission’s determination, Gentile described the pair as being “tight” and “boyfriends and girlfriends.” He escalated the rumor by comparing them to the lead characters in the 1981 noir film Body Heat, explicitly referencing the plot where lovers conspire to murder a husband. The Commission found these remarks to be “baseless,” “injudicious,” and a violation of the duty to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.
Demonstrations of Bias and Hostility
Tembeckjian’s condemnation also addressed Gentile’s hostile demeanor toward litigants, which the Commission viewed as evidence of bias. The investigation focused on Gentile’s conduct in People v. Jesse R. Bender, where his interactions with the defendant and the defendant’s family breached the standards of patience and dignity required of a judge.
On March 6, 2024, when the defendant and the mother of his child appeared to pay a fine, Gentile engaged in what the Commission termed an “undignified” and “discourteous” exchange. He accused the mother, without evidence, of having “perjured” herself regarding her marital status. When the discussion became heated, Gentile directed profanity at the defendant, stating, “That doesn’t make me want to do shit for you, okay?”
In another instance, Gentile responded to the mother’s distress by telling her, “If you think I enjoy [putting people in jail], you need to go back and get an education then, okay?” These remarks, combined with his earlier ex parte investigations, painted a picture of a jurist who had abandoned the role of a neutral arbiter in favor of a combative and prejudiced stance.
Official Statement on Judicial Integrity
Administrator Tembeckjian’s official statement on June 12, 2025, connected these behavioral failures directly to the of public confidence in the courts. He emphasized that a judge’s power relies on the perception of fairness, which Gentile had repeatedly damaged.
“It undermines the judicial obligation to be fair and impartial when a judge bases decisions on outside conversations to which one or more parties are not privy and cannot counter. Nor does it enhance the integrity of the court for a judge to utter profanities on the bench or spread baseless gossip about other judges or public officials.”
The Commission’s determination multiple violations of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct, specifically noting that Gentile failed to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary” (Section 100. 2(A)) and failed to be “patient, dignified and courteous” (Section 100. 3(B)(3)).
Table: Specific Conduct in Condemnation
| Date | Category | Specific Conduct | Target |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 18, 2023 | Gossip | Compared a fellow judge and code officer to characters in Body Heat; implied an illicit affair and murder plot. | Town Justice & Code Officer (Theresa, NY) |
| Mar 6, 2024 | Bias / Hostility | Stated “That doesn’t make me want to do shit for you” to a defendant during a dispute over records. | Jesse R. Bender (Defendant) |
| Mar 6, 2024 | Bias / Hostility | Baselessly accused a witness of perjury and told her to “get an education.” | April Price (Mother of Defendant’s child) |
Tembeckjian’s remarks served as a reminder that the Commission views “courthouse gossip” not as unprofessional chatter, as a substantive ethical breach. By insinuating criminal or immoral conduct by a fellow magistrate without a shred of evidence, Gentile attacked the reputation of the judiciary itself. The Administrator’s focus on these aspects of the case highlighted that while procedural errors can be corrected on appeal, the loss of judicial temperament inflicts lasting damage on the court’s standing in the community.
Agreed Statement of Facts and Waiver of Formal Hearing
Agreed Statement of Facts and Waiver of Formal Hearing
On April 24, 2025, Rossie Town Court Justice Philip J. Gentile entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. This stipulation followed a Formal Written Complaint served on March 3, 2025, which detailed two charges of misconduct. Represented by attorney Henry J. Leader, Gentile admitted to the factual allegations and waived his right to a formal hearing, further submissions, and oral argument. The Commission accepted this agreement on May 1, 2025.
The agreement confirmed that Gentile engaged in unauthorized ex parte communications between November 2022 and March 2024 regarding a defendant charged with assault. Specifically, Gentile admitted to speaking privately with a prosecutor without disclosing the conversation to the defense and contacting a local school superintendent to discuss the merits of a defense motion. He subsequently denied the motion based on information obtained during this private call. also, Gentile acknowledged using profanity in court, telling a litigant, “That doesn’t make me want to do shit for you, okay?”
Gentile also stipulated to making baseless and undignified remarks about a fellow judge. In January 2023, while the court’s audio recording system was active, he insinuated that a justice from another town court was involved in a romantic affair with a code enforcement officer. He compared the pair to characters in the movie Body Heat and described them as “tight.” In the Agreed Statement, Gentile conceded that these comments were “without basis, uttered out of pique and highly inappropriate.” Both parties jointly recommended censure as the appropriate sanction.
Status as Lay Justice in St. Lawrence County System
The Lay Justice System in St. Lawrence County
Philip J. Gentile served as a Town Justice for the Rossie Town Court from 2018 until the events leading to his 2025 censure. Crucially, Gentile is not an attorney. He falls into the category of “lay justice,” a role unique to New York’s Town and Village Justice Court system. While the New York State Constitution allows non-lawyers to preside over criminal arraignments, misdemeanors, and civil matters in these local courts, the position comes with significant scrutiny regarding legal competency and ethical adherence. Gentile’s misconduct, specifically unauthorized ex parte communications and courtroom profanity, exemplifies the widespread risks frequently by critics of the lay justice model.
The Rossie Town Court, located in St. Lawrence County, operates within the Fourth Judicial Department. Like rural courts in the North Country, it relies on part-time justices who live in the community they serve. These justices are elected officials, frequently with no prior legal education before taking the bench. In St. Lawrence County, a vast geographic area with scattered populations, the Town Court system is the primary interface between citizens and the judiciary. Justices like Gentile handle arraignments, set bail, problem orders of protection, and adjudicate small claims and vehicle traffic law violations. even with their absence of a law degree, they possess the power to sentence defendants to up to one year in jail.
Training Requirements vs. Legal Reality
New York State mandates specific training for non-attorney justices to the gap between lay status and judicial responsibility. Upon election, a lay justice must complete the “Taking the Bench” certification course administered by the Office of Justice Court Support (OJCS). This program covers the fundamentals of criminal and civil procedure, evidence, and judicial ethics. also, lay justices are required to complete 12 hours of Continuing Judicial Education (CJE) annually. Gentile, having taken office in 2018, would have completed his initial certification and several pattern of annual training by the time of his misconduct in 2022 and 2023.
yet, the Commission on Judicial Conduct’s determination in the Gentile case exposes the limitations of this training when pitted against the complexities of due process. Gentile’s primary violation involved ex parte communications, private conversations with a prosecutor and a school official regarding a pending case. For a trained attorney, the prohibition against ex parte communication is a foundational tenet of legal practice, drilled into students during law school professional responsibility courses. For a lay justice, the line between “gathering information” and “violating due process” can appear blurred, particularly in a small town where informal communication is the norm. Gentile admitted to speaking privately with a prosecutor about a defendant’s motion and calling a school superintendent to verify facts, actions that directly stripped the defendant of the right to be heard.
Disproportionate Discipline Statistics (2024-2025)
The censure of Judge Gentile aligns with a broader statistical trend identified in the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s 2024 and 2025 Annual Reports. While Town and Village justices comprise approximately 60% of the state’s judiciary, they frequently account for a disproportionate share of disciplinary investigations. In 2024, the Commission received a record 3, 353 complaints. Data indicates that while complaints against Town and Village justices made up only about 10% of the total volume, these complaints resulted in 55% of the Commission’s authorized investigations. while the public may file fewer complaints against local justices compared to high-volume city courts, the complaints that are filed frequently contain substantive evidence of misconduct warranting full investigation.
The Commission’s data further reveals that non-attorney justices are more susceptible to discipline for procedural errors than their lawyer counterparts. Attorney judges are more likely to face discipline for demeanor or conflicts of interest, whereas lay justices frequently face censure or removal for failures in basic legal mechanics, such as the ex parte violations committed by Gentile. The Commission has repeatedly emphasized that ignorance of the law is no defense for a judge, regardless of their lay status. By 2025, the Commission had intensified its focus on ensuring that rural courts strictly adhere to the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct, refusing to accept “local custom” as a valid excuse for procedural lapses.
The “Local” Factor in St. Lawrence County
Gentile’s conduct also highlights the specific pitfalls of the “local justice” model prevalent in St. Lawrence County. The Commission found that Gentile spread baseless rumors about a fellow judge (Morristown Town Justice James T. Phillips, Jr.) and a code enforcement officer, insinuating an illicit affair. He made these comments to an attorney in his own courtroom, while the audio recording system was active. This behavior reflects a collapse of the professional distance required of a magistrate. in small communities like Rossie (population approx. 800), the judge frequently knows the litigants, the attorneys, and the officials personally. Without the rigid ethical framework that legal training provides, the boundary between “community member” and “impartial arbiter” can disintegrate.
The “Body Heat” comment, where Gentile compared the alleged affair of his colleague to the 1981 film, was not a lapse in decorum; it was an abuse of the judicial platform to settle personal scores. The investigation revealed that the target of his gossip had previously presided over a zoning violation case against Gentile himself. This retaliatory gossip, conducted from the bench, demonstrates how personal grievances in a small legal ecosystem can infect judicial conduct. The Commission’s Administrator, Robert H. Tembeckjian, noted that such behavior “undermines the judicial obligation to remain fair and impartial,” a standard that applies equally to the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and a lay justice in Rossie.
Comparative Analysis: Lay vs. Attorney Justices
The following table outlines the structural differences between lay justices and attorney justices in the New York State system, highlighting the specific vulnerabilities that contributed to Gentile’s censure.
| Requirement / Risk Factor | Lay Justice (Non-Attorney) | Attorney Justice |
|---|---|---|
| Educational Prerequisite | None (High School Diploma/GED typical) | Juris Doctor (Law Degree) + Bar Admission |
| Initial Training | “Taking the Bench” Certification (approx. 6 days) | Law School (3 years) + “Taking the Bench” |
| Annual CLE Requirements | 12 Hours (Judicial Education) | 24 Hours (Attorney CLE) + Judicial Training |
| Primary Disciplinary Risks | Procedural errors, Ex Parte communication, Failure to record proceedings | Conflicts of interest, Demeanor, Abuse of power |
| Jurisdiction Scope | Misdemeanors, Arraignments, Small Claims (up to $3, 000), Summary Proceedings | Full jurisdiction depending on court level (Supreme, County, City) |
| Legal Advisor Access | Relies on Resource Center or clerks; no inherent legal knowledge | Self-reliant on legal research and training |
widespread of the Gentile Censure
The censure of Philip J. Gentile serves as a serious data point in the ongoing debate regarding the efficacy of New York’s lay justice system. Proponents that lay justices provide essential, cost- dispute resolution in rural areas where attorneys are scarce. St. Lawrence County, with its vast distances and lower population density, struggles to attract enough resident attorneys to staff every town bench. yet, the Gentile case reinforces the counter-argument: that the cost of accessibility is frequently paid in the currency of due process violations.
When Gentile denied a defense motion based on secret information he obtained from a school superintendent, he converted his courtroom from a court of law into a venue of personal arbitration. The Commission’s swift action in June 2025 signals a zero-tolerance policy for such conversions. The determination made clear that while the state accommodates non-lawyers on the bench, it does not accommodate non-legal standards of justice. Gentile’s agreement to the censure, and his acknowledgment of the misconduct, prevented his removal, the record stands as a permanent admonishment of the risks inherent in the lay justice model.
As of late 2025, the New York State Magistrates Association and the Office of Court Administration continue to refine training modules to specifically address the types of errors Gentile committed. The focus has shifted toward “scenario-based” training that mimics the pressure of real-time decision-making, attempting to inoculate lay justices against the impulse to go outside the record for information. For the residents of Rossie and the broader St. Lawrence County, the Gentile censure is a reminder that their local courts, while informal in setting, are bound by the rigid strictures of the state constitution.
Failure to Maintain Impartiality and Disclose Outside Information
Unauthorized Ex Parte Communications in People v. Jesse R. Bender
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s June 12, 2025, censure of Rossie Town Court Justice Philip J. Gentile centered on his handling of People v. Jesse R. Bender. Between November 2022 and March 2024, Gentile repeatedly violated the fundamental requirement of judicial impartiality by seeking and relying on information obtained outside the presence of the defense.
The misconduct began following a court appearance on November 16, 2022. After the defendant, Jesse R. Bender, and his attorney left the courtroom, Gentile engaged in a private, off-the-record conversation with the prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Dillon Bullard. During this unauthorized exchange, Gentile discussed the merits of the defendant’s pending motion to modify an order of protection, as well as the defendant’s reputation and criminal history. This conversation occurred without the knowledge or consent of the defense counsel, directly violating 22 NYCRR 100. 3(B)(6), which prohibits judges from initiating or considering ex parte communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding.
Gentile further compromised his impartiality by conducting an independent investigation into the facts of the case. The defense had requested a modification to an order of protection that barred Bender from entering his son’s school. Rather than relying solely on evidence presented in court, Gentile initiated a private telephone conversation with the school superintendent to discuss the motion. He subsequently denied the defense’s request, basing his decision, in part, on the unverified information obtained during this call. He failed to disclose the substance of this conversation to the defendant or his attorney, depriving them of the opportunity to refute or explain the information.
Baseless Rumors and Attacks on Judicial Integrity
Beyond the Bender case, the Commission found that Gentile failed to maintain the dignity of his office by spreading salacious and unfounded rumors about a fellow member of the judiciary. On January 18, 2023, while the court’s audio recording system was active, Gentile engaged in a conversation with an attorney regarding a zoning violation case that had been filed against him in the nearby Town of Theresa.
Gentile gratuitously insinuated that the Theresa Town Justice who presided over his zoning case was involved in a romantic relationship with the code enforcement officer who issued the violation. He described the two officials as being “tight” and “boyfriends and girlfriends,” explicitly comparing their relationship to the characters in the 1981 erotic thriller Body Heat. The Commission determined these remarks were made without a shred of evidence and served only to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the court system. This conduct violated 22 NYCRR 100. 2(A), which requires judges to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Profanity and Abusive Courtroom Demeanor
The investigation also documented Gentile’s use of profanity and abusive language while performing his judicial duties. In February 2024, when Bender and the mother of his child, April Price, appeared in court to pay a fine, Gentile engaged in an “undignified, discourteous, and otherwise inappropriate exchange.”
During this recorded interaction, Gentile:
- Used profanity while addressing the litigants.
- Baselessly accused Ms. Price of committing perjury regarding her marital status.
- Improperly discussed evidence from Bender’s jury trial and offered opinions on what evidence should have been presented, even with the case having concluded.
Commission Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian noted that such behavior “undermines the judicial obligation to be fair and impartial,” emphasizing that judges cannot base decisions on “outside conversations to which one or more parties are not privy and cannot counter.”
Summary of Violations
| Violation Category | Specific Misconduct | Date of Occurrence |
|---|---|---|
| Ex Parte Communication | Private discussion with ADA Bullard regarding People v. Bender without defense counsel. | November 16, 2022 |
| Independent Investigation | Telephone call to school superintendent regarding order of protection; failure to disclose. | Nov 2022 , Mar 2024 |
| Injudicious Comments | Stating a fellow judge and code officer were “boyfriends and girlfriends” akin to Body Heat characters. | January 18, 2023 |
| Courtroom Decorum | Using profanity and accusing a litigant’s partner of perjury without basis. | February 7, 2024 |
Broader Context of 2025 NYS Judicial Disciplinary Determinations
2025 Annual Report: A Record-Breaking Caseload
The broader context of the Gentile determination is defined by the Commission’s workload metrics. In March 2025, Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian released data covering the prior year’s activities, revealing that the Commission received 3, 353 new complaints, the highest number in its history. This figure represented a 12% increase over the previous record and a 37% rise above the five-year average. The data indicates that while the number of complaints surged, the Commission maintained a high threshold for authorizing full- investigations. Of the 3, 353 complaints, only 363 resulted in full-fledged investigations. Justice Gentile’s case fell within this fraction of matters that warranted formal charges.
| Metric | Count/Percentage | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Total Complaints Received | 3, 353 | Highest volume in Commission history (12% YoY increase). |
| Investigations Authorized | 363 | Includes 159 new investigations and 204 carried over. |
| Town & Village Justice Investigations | 55% | Disproportionate scrutiny on non-attorney justices like Gentile. |
| Public Disciplines (Prior pattern) | 11 | 3 Removals, 3 Censures, 5 Admonitions. |
Disproportionate Focus on Town and Village Courts
A consistent theme in the 2025 disciplinary was the focus on Town and Village Courts. While these justices, of whom are non-attorneys like Gentile, accounted for only 10% of the total complaints received, they constituted 55% of the investigations authorized by the Commission. The Gentile determination exemplifies the specific vulnerabilities of this judicial tier: * absence of Legal Training: Non-attorney justices frequently face discipline for procedural errors, such as the ex parte communications in the Gentile matter. * Informality: The “Body Heat” comments and courtroom profanity reflect a breakdown in the formal decorum expected of the bench, a recurring problem in local justice courts where familiarity with litigants can breed ethical lapses.
Precedential Determinations: The route to Censure
The sanctions imposed in 2025 were informed by significant determinations from late 2024, which established clear benchmarks for “removal” versus “censure.” The Commission’s decisions in the Gall and Storie cases provided the immediate legal backdrop for the Gentile negotiation.
Matter of Erin P. Gall (Removal)
In the most notable determination preceding the Gentile case, the Commission removed Oneida County Supreme Court Justice Erin P. Gall from office. Gall’s misconduct involved a “profane, racist, and sexist tirade” at a graduation party, where she invoked her judicial office to threaten police officers. * Relevance to Gentile: The Gall removal set a “zero tolerance” standard for the abuse of judicial prestige and the use of profanity. yet, Gentile avoided removal likely because his conduct, while profane and improper, occurred within the scope of misguided judicial duties (ex parte communications) rather than a purely personal abuse of power for private gain, and he cooperated with the Commission by agreeing to the censure.
Matter of Gregory P. Storie (Censure)
In April 2024, the Commission censured St. Lawrence County Court Judge Gregory P. Storie (a contemporary of Gentile in the same county). Storie was disciplined for ex parte communications and for failing to be faithful to the law. * Relevance to Gentile: The Storie precedent reinforced that ex parte communications, even when not malicious, warrant public censure. Gentile’s acceptance of censure aligns with the sanction imposed on Storie, confirming a consistent penalty structure for procedural misconduct in the North Country region.
The “Ex Parte” Epidemic
The Gentile case contributed to a specific category of misconduct that dominated the Commission’s 2025 docket: unauthorized ex parte communications. The Commission repeatedly emphasized that “justice must be done in the open.” The 2025 Annual Report highlighted that independent investigations into ex parte violations remain a priority, particularly in cases involving domestic disputes or orders of protection, where judges frequently attempt to “fix” situations through back-channel conversations. In the Gentile matter, the judge’s private conversation with a school official regarding an order of protection mirrored other 2025 investigations where magistrates attempted to gather their own facts outside the presence of counsel. Administrator Tembeckjian’s statement on the Gentile censure reiterated the Commission’s stance:
“It undermines the judicial obligation to be fair and impartial when a judge bases decisions on outside conversations to which one or more parties are not privy and cannot counter.”
Resignations and Stipulations
The 2025 disciplinary pattern also saw a high number of resignations. The Annual Report noted that 13 judges resigned and agreed never to return to judicial office after facing formal charges. This “permanent resignation” method remains a primary tool for resolving cases where the misconduct might warrant removal, the judge chooses to vacate the seat to avoid a public trial. Gentile’s decision to remain in office and accept censure distinguishes his case from those who resigned. By stipulating to the facts, he retained his position until the expiration of his term on December 31, 2025, placing him in the minority of judges who survive serious charges of profanity and ex parte misconduct.
Regional Scrutiny: St. Lawrence County
St. Lawrence County emerged as a focal point for judicial inquiries in the 2024-2025 period. With both the Storie and Gentile censures occurring within a 14-month window, the region’s judiciary faced intensified oversight. This geographic cluster of cases suggests a localized effort by the Commission to enforce uniform standards in upstate jurisdictions, ensuring that rural courts adhere to the same ethical rigor as their metropolitan counterparts.
Gratuitous Gossip Alleging Illicit Relations Between Public Officials
Justice Philip J. Gentile: The “Body Heat” Allegation
The primary instance of misconduct regarding illicit relations involves Justice Philip J. Gentile of the Rossie Town Court in St. Lawrence County. The Commission’s determination, dated May 30, 2025, and released June 12, 2025, detailed a specific event on January 18, 2023. During a break in court proceedings, while the court’s audio recording system remained active, Justice Gentile engaged in a conversation with an attorney that strayed far beyond professional boundaries. Justice Gentile recounted his personal experience as a defendant in the nearby Town of Theresa Court, where he had been charged with a zoning violation in September 2021 regarding a parked recreational vehicle. He harbored a grievance against the Theresa Town Justice who presided over his case and the Code Enforcement Officer who issued the violation. During the recorded conversation, Justice Gentile made the following baseless assertions: * He claimed the Theresa Town Justice and the Code Enforcement Officer “were tight.” * He explicitly characterized them as “boyfriends and girlfriends.” * He compared their relationship to the characters in the 1981 neo-noir erotic thriller Body Heat. The “Body Heat” Implication The Commission noted the severity of the Body Heat comparison. The film features a plot where a lawyer and a married woman engage in an intense affair and conspire to murder the woman’s wealthy husband. By invoking this specific cultural reference, Justice Gentile did not allege a romantic relationship; he insinuated a conspiratorial, malevolent alliance between a sitting judge and a code enforcement officer. This comparison implied that the two officials were colluding against him in his zoning case, much like the film’s protagonists plotted against their victim. The Commission found these remarks to be “gratuitous and without evidence.” Justice Gentile admitted he had no proof of any such relationship, yet he presented the rumor as fact to a practicing attorney within his own courtroom. This conduct violated Sections 100. 3(B)(3) and 100. 4(A)(2) of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct, which require judges to be patient, dignified, and courteous, and to conduct extra-judicial activities in a manner that does not detract from the dignity of their office.
| Element | Details of Misconduct |
|---|---|
| Setting | Rossie Town Court, during a break on the bench/record. |
| Audience | A private attorney appearing before the judge. |
| A Town Justice (Theresa, NY) and a Code Enforcement Officer. | |
| Allegation | Illicit romantic affair (“boyfriends and girlfriends”). |
| Aggravating Factor | Comparison to Body Heat (implying conspiracy/malice). |
| Verification | None. Gentile admitted the claims were “baseless.” |
Commission Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian emphasized that spreading “baseless gossip about other judges or public officials” does not enhance the integrity of the court. The censure serves as a permanent public record that such “mean-spirited” retaliation against colleagues is incompatible with judicial office.
Judge Daniel L. Seiden: Disparagement of Administration
While Justice Gentile focused on sexual innuendo, other New York judges faced discipline in the half of 2025 for gratuitous disparagement of colleagues, demonstrating a pattern of “courthouse gossip” turning into actionable misconduct. In April 2025, the Commission censured Judge Daniel L. Seiden of the Binghamton City Court. Judge Seiden’s misconduct involved disparaging remarks directed at court administration and clerks, stemming from his frustration over a transfer to a different court and the implementation of new case management software. Unlike Gentile’s quiet rumor-mongering, Seiden’s disparagement was confrontational. In April 2023, he told the chief clerk and deputy chief clerk to “stay out of my shorts”, a phrase he later claimed meant “stay out of my business,” yet the Commission found it undignified and unprofessional. also, Judge Seiden sent emails to senior court officials accusing them of “nefarious purposes” and “administrative sleight of hand” regarding his reassignment. The link between Gentile and Seiden lies in the use of the judicial position to air personal grievances. Both judges allowed personal dissatisfaction, Gentile with his zoning ticket, Seiden with his transfer, to manifest as unprofessional commentary on other public officials. Seiden’s case reinforces the Commission’s 2025 stance that a judge’s frustration does not grant license to disparage the motives or morals of colleagues.
Judge Jill Kehn: Abusive Disparagement of Staff
The Commission also addressed the “downward” disparagement of court staff, which frequently overlaps with the spreading of negative rumors about employee competence. In a determination finalized in late 2024 and in 2025 reports, Rensselaer County Family Court Judge Jill Kehn was censured for verbally abusing and denigrating court staff. Judge Kehn’s conduct included yelling at staff members and making demeaning comments about their performance. While not alleging “illicit relations,” this behavior falls under the same umbrella of “gratuitous disparagement” as Gentile’s conduct. The Commission views the dignity of the court as a environment; a judge who gossips about a colleague’s sex life (Gentile) or screams about a clerk’s competence (Kehn) causes similar damage to the institution’s reputation.
The “Pledge of Public Confidence”
The Commission’s determination in the Gentile case explicitly referenced the “Pledge of Public Confidence.” When a judge spreads rumors of illicit affairs, they suggest that judicial decisions (such as the zoning violation against Gentile) are the product of personal relationships rather than the law. The Commission rejected Gentile’s defense that the conversation was “private” or “banter.” Because it occurred in the courtroom (even during a break) and involved an attorney, it was a judicial act. The determination stated: “It undermines the judicial obligation to be fair and impartial when a judge bases decisions on outside conversations… Nor does it enhance the integrity of the court for a judge to… spread baseless gossip.”
Comparative Analysis of Misconduct
The following list categorizes the types of “Gratuitous Speech” penalized by the NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct between 2024 and 2025, placing Gentile’s “Body Heat” comments in context. * Allegations of Corruption/Conspiracy: * Entity: Justice Philip J. Gentile. * Conduct: Alleging a judge and code officer were “in cahoots” via a sexual relationship to persecute him. * Outcome: Censure (June 2025). * Allegations of Administrative Malfeasance: * Entity: Judge Daniel L. Seiden. * Conduct: Accusing administrative judges of “nefarious purposes” and “games.” * Outcome: Censure (April 2025). * Allegations of Universal Guilt: * Entity: Justice Richard T. Snyder (Petersburgh Town Court). * Conduct: Stating on the record that “everyone” who comes before him is guilty, disparaging the presumption of innocence and the defendants themselves. * Outcome: Resignation (Early 2025). The Gentile case stands out as the only recent instance involving specific allegations of sexual impropriety between officials. The specificity of the Body Heat reference provided the Commission with irrefutable evidence of the judge’s intent to malign the character of his, rather than criticizing their professional rulings.
Final Disposition and Expiration of Current Term in December 2025
Commission Determination of Censure: June 12, 2025
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct formally censured Rossie Town Court Justice Philip J. Gentile on June 12, 2025, concluding a disciplinary proceeding that exposed a pattern of procedural misconduct and injudicious courtroom behavior. The determination, which was agreed upon by Justice Gentile, the Commission’s Administrator, and his legal counsel, marks the final disposition of complaints regarding his handling of the People v. Jesse R. Bender case and his unprofessional comments regarding fellow public officials. The censure serves as a public reprimand, the most severe sanction available short of removal from office. In its written determination, the Commission Justice Gentile’s willingness to admit to the misconduct and his status as a non-attorney judge as mitigating factors that allowed him to avoid removal. yet, the Commission’s findings were clear, detailing specific instances where Gentile abandoned his role as a neutral arbiter to become an investigator, a gossip, and a source of courtroom profanity.
Stipulation and Waiver of Hearing
The route to censure began formally on March 3, 2025, when the Commission served Gentile with a Formal Written Complaint containing two charges. Rather than contest the charges in a public hearing, Gentile entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts on April 24, 2025. By signing this stipulation, Gentile waived his right to further submissions and oral argument, accepting the Commission’s findings as the definitive record of his conduct. The Commission accepted this agreement on May 1, 2025, and issued its final determination on May 30, 2025. The document was released to the public on June 12, 2025, after Gentile received formal notice. The unanimous decision involved all 11 members of the Commission, including Chair Joseph W. Belluck and Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian.
Findings of Fact: The Bender Case Violations
The core of the Commission’s disciplinary action revolved around Gentile’s conduct between November 2022 and March 2024 while presiding over People v. Jesse R. Bender. The defendant, charged with Assault in the Third Degree and Disorderly Conduct following a July 4, 2022 altercation, became the subject of Gentile’s unauthorized independent investigations. The Commission established that Gentile violated the fundamental prohibition against ex parte communications, private discussions with one party without the other present. Specifically, the determination listed the following infractions: * Unauthorized School Investigation: Gentile initiated a private telephone conversation with the superintendent of the school district where the defendant’s son was enrolled. He sought information regarding the defendant’s conduct to adjudicate a defense motion to modify an Order of Protection. This action violated the requirement that judges decide cases solely on evidence presented in court, not on private inquiries. * Prosecutorial Ex Parte: Following a court appearance, Gentile engaged in a private discussion with the prosecutor regarding the Bender case. The defense counsel was not present, and Gentile failed to disclose the substance of this conversation to the defense, compromising the defendant’s right to a fair hearing. * Courtroom Profanity: During a contentious exchange on March 6, 2024, Gentile lost his judicial temperament. Addressing a litigant in open court, he stated, “That doesn’t make me want to do s— for you, okay?” The transcript of this outburst became a primary piece of evidence demonstrating his failure to maintain the dignity of judicial office.
The “Body Heat” Incident and Gossip
Beyond the procedural violations in the Bender case, the Commission censured Gentile for spreading baseless and salacious rumors about a fellow judge and a code enforcement officer from a neighboring town. On January 18, 2023, while the court’s audio recording system was active, Gentile engaged in a conversation with an attorney between proceedings. He gratuitously insinuated that a town justice from Theresa, New York, and a local code enforcement officer were involved in a romantic affair. The determination noted that Gentile compared the two officials to the protagonists of the 1981 film Body Heat, stating they were “tight” and “boyfriends and girlfriends.” The Commission’s report included a footnote explaining the film reference, noting that the characters in Body Heat engage in a “passionate affair” and “plot to murder the latter’s husband.” Gentile admitted that these comments were “without basis, uttered out of pique and highly inappropriate.”
Violations of Judicial Rules
The Commission’s determination legally anchored the censure in specific sections of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (22 NYCRR). The following table outlines the specific rules Gentile was found to have violated:
| Rule Section | Description of Violation |
|---|---|
| 100. 1 | Failure to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. |
| 100. 2(A) | Failure to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; failure to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary. |
| 100. 3(B)(3) | Failure to be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. |
| 100. 3(B)(6) | Initiating, permitting, or considering ex parte communications, or considering other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding. |
| 100. 4(A)(2) | Conducting extra-judicial activities that detract from the dignity of judicial office. |
Expiration of Term: December 31, 2025
Justice Gentile’s tenure on the Rossie Town Court bench is set to conclude shortly after the censure. His current four-year term expires on December 31, 2025. The censure does not legally bar him from finishing his term, nor does it automatically disqualify him from seeking re-election. yet, the severity of the public discipline and the detailed admissions of misconduct present significant political obstacles should he choose to run again. The Rossie Town Court, located in St. Lawrence County, handles misdemeanors, traffic infractions, and small claims. As a non-attorney justice, Gentile was required to complete mandatory training, yet the Commission found his grasp of fundamental judicial ethics, particularly regarding ex parte communications, severely absence. Commission Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian emphasized the of these failures in his statement accompanying the release. “It undermines the judicial obligation to be fair and impartial when a judge bases decisions on outside conversations to which one or more parties are not privy and cannot counter,” Tembeckjian stated. “Nor does it enhance the integrity of the court for a judge to utter profanities on the bench or spread baseless gossip about other judges or public officials.”
Procedural Timeline of the Gentile Matter
The following timeline reconstructs the disciplinary process leading to the final disposition in June 2025:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 4, 2022 | Underlying incident in People v. Bender occurs (Assault 3rd Degree). |
| Nov 2022, Mar 2024 | Period of misconduct: Ex parte communications with prosecutor and school superintendent; profanity in court. |
| Jan 18, 2023 | Gentile makes “Body Heat” comments about a fellow judge while recorded. |
| March 3, 2025 | Commission serves Formal Written Complaint containing two charges. |
| April 24, 2025 | Gentile signs Agreed Statement of Facts, admitting to misconduct. |
| May 1, 2025 | Commission accepts the Agreed Statement. |
| May 30, 2025 | Commission problem final Determination of Censure. |
| June 12, 2025 | Determination released to the public; Censure becomes. |
| Dec 31, 2025 | Scheduled expiration of Philip J. Gentile’s current judicial term. |
The censure of Philip J. Gentile adds to the record of judicial discipline in St. Lawrence County, reinforcing the Commission’s mandate to police the conduct of the state’s town and village justices. While Gentile remains on the bench until the end of 2025, the determination stands as a permanent mark on his judicial record, citing his failure to adhere to the high standards of integrity required of the office.
