Judge Anthony V. Cardona, 1941 - 2011

He was one of those rare human beings that gave you hope. That gave you reason to believe in genuine goodness. That made you proud to be a member of the same species. If there is a Creator, He got it right with Judge Cardona.


Following a yearlong illness, Anthony Cardona ("Tony" to all who knew him) passed away this past Sunday. The Presiding Justice of New York State's intermediate appeals court in Albany--the Appellate Division, Third Department--he was beloved. Beloved as in deeply loved and greatly admired by everyone one who knew him.


I'm not sure if anything was ever said about Judge Cardona that wasn't accompanied by mention of how wonderful he was. How warm and kind and sweet and generous and compassionate and--well how much everyone just loved him. Not official, formal announcements. But sincere, heartfelt, candid, affectionate reflections about a man who was truly cherished.


Yes, he was a great judge and administrator. He was a jurist whose judicial opinions, as well as countless others he helped forge, fill the numerous volumes that record the work of his court from 1993 to 2011. And he was the head of that same court, leading it for an 18 year period of prominence, distinction, influence, and respect throughout the bench and bar. Yes, he was surely that.


But, beyond that--and to those who worked with him or otherwise knew him, even more than that--was his great humanity. You just felt good when you were in his presence. However happy and fortunate you were to see him, to say hello, to shake his hand, to give him a hug, he always seemed happier and more fortunate. Yes, a very rare, especially wonderful human being, who gave you hope in genuine goodness.


I've often spoken in this blog about how revealing it is to "connect the dots." So let's do that. Let's listen to what others have said about Judge Cardona. Chief Judge Lippman, former Chief Judge Kaye, Acting Presiding Justice Mercure, Clerk of the Court Novack, among others.

Judge Anthony V. Cardona, 1941 - 2011 -- What Others Have Said

(Albany Times Union staff photo by Lori Van Buren)

Here is a collection of what others have said about
Judge Cardona.


Those by New York Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, Acting Presiding Justice Thomas Mercure, Former Clerk of the Court Michael Novack, Senior Law Clerk Michele McKay, and the Editorial Board of the Albany Law Review are from volume 73, issue #3 (2010), of that journal. They were all written as part of a dedication to Judge Cardona, on the occasion of the inaugural special issue now entitled The Anthony V. Cardona Annual Issue of New York Appeals. Also included in this collection is the article by Paul Grondahl and Carol DeMare in today's Albany Times Union. (The photo on the left is from that article.)


As noted in the main post, Judge Anthony V. Cardona, 1941 - 2011, the common denominator in all of these is Judge Cardona's humanity, decency, kindness, warmth, and generosity, and how well he was loved--indeed cherished by all who worked with him or otherwise knew him. Here they are:

Double Jeopardy, Joe Bruno, and Basic Criminal Justice

Imagine the government was prosecuting you a second time after failing in its first try.

That's right. The government prosecuted you for a crime it claimed you committed. The government failed. Then the government wants to prosecute you again, hoping to get it right the second time around.

No they can't, you might think. Wouldn't that be double jeopardy?


Well, it might be. But there are exceptions. And the exceptions--adopted by the Supreme Court over the years--may be swallowing virtually all the double jeopardy protection the Constitution is supposed to guarantee.

I'm confident that this will be surprising. In fact, I'm confident that it will be shocking and even appalling to most Americans who care about such things.

So, let's take a closer look. Let's do so based upon a real case. One that is currently in the courts. It's the case against Joe Bruno, the former New York State Senator and Republican Majority Leader. But imagine that it's you the prosecutors are after.

The Skinny on Roberts' Goat--What Did and Didn't Get It (Part 7: Conclusion)

So, just what do John Roberts' dissenting opinions tell us?

For the last several posts on New York Court Watcher, we've been looking at the Chief Justice's public disagreements with his colleagues. His public complaints about what the majority of his Court decided. What did he reveal about himself? What are the implications of what upset him--of what got his goat? Yes, what's the skinny on Roberts?

["Skinny" isn't part of my everyday vocabulary. But it did seem like an appealing fit.]


Let's recap. But let's first do it by considering what Roberts did not dissent about. What he did not complain about.

He did not complain about the rights of the accused being violated.
--Not about searches without warrants.
--Not about incompetent legal representation.
--Not about excessive and unequal sentences.

Oh, there is an exception. Domestic violence cases.
Roberts did side with those accused of domestic assault.
Roberts did complain about the conviction and the criminal contempt of domestic assailants in 2 cases.
[Yes, I confess, I do find this aberration in Roberts' typically anti-accused stances to be quite curious--indeed, unsettling.]

Roberts' Goat (Part 6: Civil Cases [cont'd.])

In the last post, we outlined the civil cases among the total of 15, criminal and civil, in which the Chief Justice authored his most recent dissenting opinions. We then looked a bit more closely at 3 of those civil cases. In this post we'll look a bit more closely at the remaining civil cases among that group.

Recall that in the 3 civil cases already discussed: Roberts dissented against an railroad worker being compensated for his injuries because, in Roberts' view, the railroad wasn't negligent enough. He dissented against a state agency created to protect the mentally disabled because, in his view, the agency should not be permitted to sue the offending state officials in federal court. And he dissented against a foreign national seeking asylum because, in his view, that individual was not sufficiently specific about the legal basis for his incompetent counsel claim.

Again, yes, Roberts had his reasons. But so did the majority that sided with the injured worker, with the state agency protecting the mentally disabled, and with the foreign national seeking asylum. In each case, however, Roberts chose the reasons that put him on the side opposing those interests. (See Roberts' Goat (Part 5: Civil Cases), Nov. 7, 2011.)


What about his dissents in the other civil cases? He dissented in favor of a bank that was sued by a consumer for violating credit card laws. He dissented in favor of a judge who presided over an appeal by a coal company that spent $3 million to get him elected. He dissented in favor of a state that failed to build an interstate radioactive waste facility that was agreed upon and funded by a multi-state commission of which it was a member. And he dissented against a water district and power company that sought to participate in a bi-state dispute over river water in which they had significant interests. Hmmm.


Let's look closer.

Roberts' Goat (Part 5: Civil Cases)

We've already looked at the Chief Justice's dissenting opinions in criminal cases. Pretty revealing about what bothers him--gets his goat. So much so that he is driven to expend his time, resources, and collegial capital to take a public stance against the majority of his Court. (See Roberts' Goat (Part 4: Patterns in Criminal Cases), Oct. 25, 2011, and the immediately preceding 3 posts.)

Now lets look at his dissents in civil cases. Recall that we are looking at his most recent 15 dissenting opinions. [That number was chosen because we had previously surveyed the dissenting opinions of New York's Chief Judge, Jonathan Lippman, over the past year, and they happened to number 15. See Roberts' Goat--What Gets It? (Intro: The Chief Justice's Dissents), Oct. 7, 2011.]

Recall also that we are looking at dissenting opinions. These are entirely optional. These are personal statements. Not opinions written for the Court. Not opinions written to hold onto a majority vote. These are opinions written only because the author thinks--or feels--that the Court's decision, i.e., the position taken by the majority, is so wrong that no compromise is possible. It must be criticized publicly.

OK, so what did the Chief Justice dissent about? What positions did he take in his dissenting opinions in civil cases? Briefly, here they are:

• He argued that a railroad worker who was injured on the job was not entitled to compensation.
• He argued that a state agency created to protect the rights of the mentally disabled was not allowed to sue state hospitals on their behalf.
• He argued that an immigrant seeking asylum was not entitled to a hearing to determine if his attorney was incompetent. (We looked at this one in the criminal cases as well.)
• He argued that a judge who won election with the $3 million help of a coal company could preside over an appeal by that coal company.
• He argued that a credit card holder could not sue the issuing bank for violating state law, but must submit to the bank's preferred arbitration.
• He argued that a multi-state commission could not sue a member state that failed to live up to its agreement to complete a commission-funded radioactive waste facility.
• He argued that a bi-state water district and a private company could not participate in a river dispute between 2 states.

Saratoga Highlights--Summer 2011 (Part 3, Conclusion)

We've already discussed #1 through #7 on the list of Saratoga Highlights--my humble and untutored list, that is. (See Saratoga Highlights--Summer 2011 (Part 1), Oct. 28, 2011; (Part 2), Oct. 29, 2011.)

[And we've been feasting on some magnificent photographs generously supplied by Bob Mayberger--who should seriously consider taking pictures full-time, except that he is too valuable a lawyer and administrator as Clerk of the Court for the Appellate Division, Third Department. But we're grateful that he takes his Instamatic to the tracks on his time off.]

Let's get on with the Highlights. Of course, after #1 Havre de Grace in the Woodward, and maybe one or two others, even I'm not so sure about the order of my own rankings. In fact, there are plenty of highlights that don't even make the Top Ten+ list. A Top 25 or 50 would be easier. But the ones that do make these Highlights are undoubtedly deserving. Enough! Let's get on.


#8 Tizway in the Whitney
click to enlarge any photo

(All by Bob Mayberger, unless noted.)

The 6 year old son of Tiznow, who was victorious in the Grade 1 Metropolitan his last time out in May, won big in the Grade 1 Whitney over a very deep field. Suburban winner Flat Out, last year's Empire Classic winner Friend or Foe, Carter winner Morning Line, last year's Donn winner Giant Oak, and New Orleans Handicap winner Mission Impazible were among those running the mile and an 1/8th. Tizway took the lead in the stretch and won by an unchallenged 3 lengths.