TRENTON — A committee of the state Supreme Court has recommended censure for retired Superior Court Judge Steven Perskie who it said belatedly recused himself from a case that involved his former campaign treasurer and misled a Senate committee considering whether to reappoint him. The Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct released its recommendation — the third harshest penalty for...
A New Jersey Supreme Court committee has recommended censure for Steven Perskie, seen here testifying before a U.S. Senate hearing on Indian gaming in 1994. TRENTON — A committee of the state Supreme Court has recommended censure for retired Superior Court Judge Steven Perskie who it said belatedly recused himself from a case that involved his former campaign treasurer and misled a Senate committee considering whether to reappoint him.
The Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct released its recommendation — the third harshest penalty for a judge in New Jersey — today after conducting two days of hearings conducted last summer after Perskie retired.
The ACJC said Perskie — the main architect of the laws bringing legalized gambling to Atlantic City in the 1970s — failed to recuse himself from a case in a timely manner, appeared twice in the courtroom of another judge who eventually took over that case and was not candid about his actions in that case when he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2008.
The allegations centered around a case in 2006 in which Perskie’s former business associate and campaign treasurer Frank Siracusa was to be a witness. One of the attorneys in the case asked Perskie to transfer the matter to another judge, but Perskie refused, insisting his relationship with Siracusa was so far in the past that it would not interfere with his presiding over the case.
Perskie, a former state assemblyman and senator, eventually recused himself, not for his relationship with Siracusa but because he had "blown up" at the attorney who asked for the transfer, Steven Fram.
After the case had been assigned to another judge, Perskie sat in the courtroom twice during the trial and spoke to Fram’s adversary, actions the ACJC said "were highly inappropriate and had the undesirable but proven effect of creating the appearance that he was not impartial.’’
Through his attorney, Perskie released a statement today accepting the findings about the need to recuse himself but disputing the allegation that he was not forthcoming with the judiciary committee.
"I share the Committee's view that the appearance of the integrity and independence of the court is of paramount importance, and I regret that, in this case, I allowed that standard to be violated,’’ Perskie said.
But, he continued, "It is certainly true that some of the statements that I made to the judiciary committee, several years after the fact and relying only on my memory, were simply wrong. I have so acknowledged to the advisory committee. But to extend that unintended error into a suggestion that I intentionally misled the judiciary committee, is inaccurate and unfair."
Related coverage:
• N.J. Senate to consider deregulation of Atlantic City casinos
• Man convicted in Toms River slayings is ordered released from N.J. prison