Judge Mora Ordered Removed for Suing Complainant

A Mask Dispute That Would Not End

On December 28, 2021, Mora brought one of his children to Seeta Eye Center, an ophthalmology practice in Poughkeepsie, for an appointment. The practice required masks under its pandemic safety protocols, posted on the front door and included in appointment reminder texts. Mora wore a clear plastic face shield instead, which did not satisfy the policy. When a receptionist and then the office manager, Stacey Koch, asked him to put on a mask, he refused, citing an unspecified medical condition he could not document. Koch asked him more than once to either mask up or leave; he refused both, prompting her to call the police, not once but twice, while roughly 15 to 20 patients waited in the room. According to the Commission’s findings, Mora remained in the office for 30 to 40 minutes after first being asked to leave, and only departed as police were en route. He later obtained a same-day letter from his chiropractor stating he was “medically unable to wear a mask,” which he had not been diagnosed as needing at the time of the incident.

A separate charge alleging that Mora had also been personally discourteous during the confrontation was not sustained; the Commission accepted the hearing referee’s finding that the evidence did not establish inappropriate demeanor on that point. But the Commission found his prolonged refusal to leave after repeated requests was itself improper and violated the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct, regardless of his tone.

Suing the Woman Who Complained About Him

The day after the incident, Koch filed a complaint against Mora with the Commission. Roughly four months later, when the Commission wrote to Mora seeking his response, it included a copy of Koch’s complaint, standard practice that let him know who had complained and what she had said. A year almost to the day after the original incident, on December 29, 2022, Mora filed a defamation lawsuit against Koch in Dutchess County Supreme Court, seeking $425,000 in damages, $250,000 compensatory and $175,000 punitive, based solely on statements Koch had made in her confidential complaint to the Commission.

The attorney Mora hired for that lawsuit, Michael Sussman, testified that Mora was “very angry” and wanted to make Koch “pay” because the Commission’s own process could not award him money damages even if her complaint were dismissed as meritless. Sussman told Mora directly that suing a Commission complainant “does not look good” for a judge; Mora went ahead anyway, and did not consult the separate ethics attorney who was already representing him on the underlying Commission complaint, or New York’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, whom he testified he otherwise consulted regularly.

Koch and the Commission itself, which intervened to protect her, moved to dismiss the suit, arguing her complaint statements were absolutely privileged and that the case was barred by New York’s anti-SLAPP statute. Sussman again advised Mora to withdraw the suit before the motion was decided; Mora again refused. On April 4, 2023, Dutchess County Supreme Court Justice Maria Rosa dismissed Mora’s lawsuit and ordered him to pay Koch’s attorney’s fees, writing that allowing judges to sue Commission complainants would create “a very real fear that others may be deterred from bringing legitimate and serious complaints before the Commission.” Mora did not appeal that ruling. The parties settled a month later: Mora paid Koch $20,000, sent her a signed letter of apology, and agreed to stay away from her and any Seeta location.

The Discipline Ladder (New York)

New York’s Commission on Judicial Conduct can determine a sanction directly, up through admonition, censure, and removal, rather than merely recommending one to a court. A judge who disagrees has 30 days to seek review by the New York Court of Appeals, which can accept, reduce, increase, or reject the Commission’s findings and sanction. If no review is sought in that window, the Commission’s determination becomes final on its own. While review is pending, the Court of Appeals may suspend the judge, with or without pay.

“The Impropriety Cannot Be Overstated”

The Commission wrote that Mora appears to be the first New York judge ever to retaliate against a Commission complainant by suing them, and called doing so for $425,000 “aggressive and egregious.” It found that even setting aside every other issue in the case, the retaliatory lawsuit alone would justify removal, reasoning that a judicial disciplinary system depends entirely on the public’s willingness to come forward, and that letting judges sue their own complainants risks discouraging genuine complaints from ever being filed. It treated as an aggravating factor that Mora never seemed to accept that his lawsuit could deter future complainants, even after a sitting judge had told him so directly in dismissing the case, and that he ignored his own attorney’s advice not once but twice.

Mora had separately been in the news over New York’s own COVID-19 vaccine mandate for court staff: he sought and was denied a religious exemption, was ordered out of his courtroom in January 2022 for being unvaccinated, and unsuccessfully sued the state court system in federal court over the mandate before it was lifted in February 2023. None of that is part of the Commission’s charges against him here; it is background to, not the basis for, the retaliation and mask-dispute findings above.

The Rules He Broke

How Texas Handles the Same Thing

Texas runs the same basic machinery through a different set of bodies. Complaints against Texas judges go to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, created by the Texas Constitution in 1965. Anyone can file one: a defendant, a lawyer, a juror, a court employee, a family member who sat through a hearing and thought something was wrong. It costs nothing, no lawyer is required, and the complaint itself is confidential.

The Texas Sanction Ladder

Private admonition, warning, or reprimand (the public never sees these); an order of additional education; the same three sanctions issued publicly; and public censure, the most severe sanction the Commission can impose on its own. What it cannot do is remove a judge. Removal runs through a separate Review Tribunal of appellate justices, with an appeal to the Texas Supreme Court. A judge sanctioned short of removal can instead demand a Special Court of Review and a fresh trial.

That structure changed recently. Proposition 12, approved by Texas voters in November 2025, restructured both the Commission and the Review Tribunal, authorized private discipline or training for first-time non-criminal matters, required public sanctions or a removal referral when misconduct is willful or persistent, and gave the Tribunal power to suspend a judge without pay and, in some cases, to bar a removed judge from ever holding judicial office in Texas again.

The practical difference from New York is where the final word sits. New York’s Commission determines the sanction itself and the Court of Appeals reviews it, which is why Mora is suspended today rather than waiting on a recommendation. In Texas the Commission sanctions directly up to public censure, but anything beyond that has to go to a court. Either way, neither case exists unless somebody files a complaint. In Mora’s case, the person who did was an office manager who had asked a patron to put on a mask.

Texas had its own version of a judge leaving the bench mid-proceeding this year. Rosie Speedlin Gonzalez, who presided over Bexar County Court at Law No. 13, was suspended without pay by the Commission in February 2026 after an incident in which a defense attorney was handcuffed and placed in the jury box during a probation revocation hearing. She resigned in April 2026 under a voluntary agreement to leave judicial office in lieu of disciplinary action, an arrangement carrying a lifetime bar from serving as a judge in Texas. The agreement included no admission of wrongdoing, and the criminal charges that had been filed against her were afterward dismissed by the special prosecutor. The disciplinary case ended without a finding either way, which is its own lesson: not every judicial-conduct matter produces a determination like the one Mora is now contesting.

How It Played in the Press

Mid Hudson News covered nearly every stage of this case as it happened, from the original 2023 defamation filing through its dismissal to the Commission’s 2026 removal determination, and the ABA Journal and News 12 Westchester both picked up the removal determination directly, including Mora’s attorney’s on-the-record statement that he intends to appeal. The September 17, 2026, suspension order drew a second round of coverage across Hudson Valley and statewide outlets.

Where Things Stand Now

On September 17, 2026, the New York Court of Appeals suspended Mora from the bench with pay while it considers the Commission’s determination. He has 30 days from that order to ask the court for full review. If he does, the court’s practice is to leave the suspension in place until it rules; if he lets the 30 days pass, the removal determination becomes final on its own. On review the court can accept or reject the Commission’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, impose the removal the Commission determined, substitute a lesser sanction such as admonition or censure, or impose no sanction at all. No argument date has been set.

Mora’s attorney, Stephen R. Coffey, said after the determination issued that he would take the case up, telling the ABA Journal, “They got it wrong. Now we are going to go to the Court of Appeals, and we will finally have a totally independent body that will look at this case.” Mora has served on the Poughkeepsie City Court since 2011, and his current term runs through December 31, 2030.

Sources

PRIMARY SOURCE

• New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Determination, In the Matter of Frank M. Mora, dated August 21, 2026. cjc.ny.gov
• New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct: case page and full record for In the Matter of Frank M. Mora. cjc.ny.gov
• New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, news page noting the Court of Appeals suspension order of September 17, 2026. cjc.ny.gov

NEWS COVERAGE

• Mid Hudson News: Poughkeepsie judge suspended after commission recommends his removal (September 17, 2026). midhudsonnews.com
• ABA Journal: Judge should be benched for suing eye doc employee who filed complaint against him, agency says. abajournal.com
• Mid Hudson News: Commission recommends ouster of City judge for “shocking act of retaliation” (August 25, 2026). midhudsonnews.com
• News 12 Westchester: NYC Commission: Poughkeepsie judge should be removed for retaliating against doctor’s office manager. westchester.news12.com
• Times Union: Poughkeepsie judge Frank Mora’s defamation lawsuit dismissed (April 11, 2023). timesunion.com
• Mid Hudson News: Judge suing office manager for defamation after argument over mask policy at doctor’s office (January 3, 2023). midhudsonnews.com

REFERENCE

• Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct: how to file a complaint against a Texas judge. scjc.texas.gov
• Ballotpedia: Texas Proposition 12 (2025), restructuring the State Commission on Judicial Conduct and the Review Tribunal. ballotpedia.org

This post summarizes public judicial-discipline records and news reporting for general informational purposes as of publication. It is not legal advice, and nothing here implies that Judge Mora’s still-reviewable determination has been finally decided. A suspension pending review is not a finding of guilt.