In the Matter of Perskie, D-75 September Term; Supreme Court; per curiam opinion; decided August 1, 2011. On an order to show cause why respondent should not be publicly disciplined through the imposition of an appropriate sanction that does not include removal from judicial office. DDS No. 48-1-3133 [30 pp.]
Alan Rosefielde, a litigant in Kaye v. Rosefielde, filed a complaint against respondent Judge Steven Perskie, now retired, with the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct alleging that (1) respondent inappropriately failed to recuse himself from presiding over Kaye despite a conflict of interest with Frank Siracusa, a witness in the case; and (2) after his recusal, respondent twice inappropriately appeared in the back of the courtroom where Kaye was being tried before another judge. After respondent’s appearance before the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee in connection with his reappointment, Rosefielde amended his complaint to include an allegation that respondent had deliberately misled the committee when asked about his conduct in the Kaye case.
