Retired Judge of Appellate Division 3rd Department Carl Mugglin as the pronouncer of the court's review policy

Back in 2009 during an appellate "settlement conference", a retired judge of the Appellate Division Third Department, Carl Mugglin, without reading the record in the case that the settlement conference was for, but after hearing my constitutional arguments, started to discuss a topic that was irrelevant to the pending appeal.

The topic was - whether a private attorney can invoked the power of the People of the State of New York to order appearance of litigants who are not religious, at a deposition in a church, if litigants object.

Carl Mugglin pointed out to me that a criminal trial was allegedly held in a church in Cooperstown, NY (Otsego County), and if that was ok for a criminal defendant, a deposition in a church of non-religious litigants over their objection as to having to enter the house of worship on the threat of contempt of court is surely ok for my clients.  

(1) the issue of the deposition was not part of the appeal, and Carl Mugglin had no business discussing that issue;

(2) what was allowed by another attorney and other parties in another case decades ago, without even knowing whether it was done on consent or not, was not applicable in a case with clear 1st Amendment implications nowadays;

I attempted to point these simple things out to Carl Mugglin.

Carl Mugglin, whose ONLY authority as a retired judge handling the settlement conference was to inquire whether parties can settle or whether the appeal was to proceed (and at that early stage in the appellate litigation the Record on Appeal and appellant's brief were not yet filed and were not in front of him, so he did not know the record or issues in the case), started then lecturing to me and stated, in response to my arguments to him to stick to what he is supposed to do ,the following;

"you will dig a hole, Mrs. Neroni, for your clients by your intellectual efforts".

My client, an educated female, was shocked by the sexism of his statement.  

Practicing law is making intellectual efforts on behalf of a client.

Yet, for the 3rd Department court, from the times of Carl Mugglin to this time, judging by their decisions, including the latest decision I just posted about, judges fail to engage in proper intellectual efforts to provide full judicial review - and consider rightful indignation of litigants as to lack of, let's say, intellectual rigor and competence of judicial decisions in New York from trial to appellate level as questionable and sanctionable.

And it is time to make collective public efforts to introduce legislation or changes to the State Constitution to end this judicial arrogance, introduce true judicial accountability and ensure true access to courts and proper judicial review of court cases.