The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has upheld a ruling regarding the misconduct of Felicia Pitts Davis, a City Court Judge in Onondaga County. The court's decision, made on June 5, 2026, affirms the recommendation for her removal from the bench based on findings of misconduct. This ruling is significant as it addresses the accountability of judges and the processes involved in handling judicial misconduct.

The case, titled Matter of Davis (Onondaga County Dist. Attorney's Off.), was filed under docket number 172 KA 25-00132. The decision comes after a grand jury report recommended Judge Davis's removal, citing her misconduct or non-feasance in public office. The ruling affects not only Judge Davis but also sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future.

Background

Felicia Pitts Davis served as a City Court Judge in Onondaga County. The dispute arose when the Onondaga County Grand Jury submitted a report to the County Court, recommending her removal due to allegations of misconduct. The report was submitted in accordance with New York Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 190.85 (1) (a), which allows a grand jury to report on misconduct by public servants.

The County Court, presided over by Judge Matthew J. Doran, accepted the grand jury's report and ordered it sealed while the appeal was pending. Judge Davis contested the findings, arguing that the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC) holds exclusive jurisdiction over such matters and that the report should not have been accepted by the court.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's order without costs. The court rejected Judge Davis's argument that the CJC had exclusive authority over judicial conduct cases. The ruling stated, "Judges fall within the broad definition of public servant" and emphasized that the statutory framework allows grand juries to report on misconduct by public officials.

The judges involved in the ruling included Justice Bannister, Justice Montour, Justice Greenwood, Justice Nowak, and Justice Hannah. The court also addressed the confidentiality of CJC proceedings, asserting that the confidentiality provisions apply only to matters before the CJC and not to cases before the court. The ruling noted, "this Court is not bound by an erroneous concession of counsel or the parties with respect to a legal principle..."

Impact

This ruling has important implications for judicial accountability in New York. By affirming the grand jury's recommendation for Judge Davis's removal, the court reinforces the idea that judges are not above the law and can be held accountable for their actions. The decision clarifies the role of grand juries in addressing misconduct by public officials, including judges, and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar allegations.

The ruling also highlights the distinction between the CJC's confidential proceedings and the public nature of court cases. As the court noted, the report and order must be made public following the appeal's determination, which could encourage transparency in judicial conduct cases. This could lead to greater public trust in the judicial system as it demonstrates a commitment to addressing misconduct.

What's Next

Following this ruling, Judge Davis may consider appealing the decision to a higher court. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence future proceedings involving judicial misconduct in New York, as it establishes a clear framework for how such cases can be handled.