Complaint: Harassing the Public & Closing the Courtroom
March 24, 2025
The Commission on Judicial Conduct
61 Broadway, Suite 1200
New York, New York 10006
cjc@cjc.ny.gov
We respectfully submit this complaint concerning allegations of Judge Kathleen Waterman Marshall and her court personnel harassing the public and kicking them out of her courtroom.
The principle of open courtrooms is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and New York law (see NY Judiciary Law §4). As reported in the article, “Open Courtrooms Are Vital For Transparency And Public Trust,” public access to courtrooms ensures accountability and trust within the judicial system. The article also discusses the circumstances through which a lower court may seal a courtroom. In New York, while the public cannot access matrimonial filings, the public can observe matrimonial courtroom proceedings. The courtroom is open to the public unless a party makes a motion to seal the courtroom, and the judge grants the relief.
The public’s access to the courtroom was recently upheld by the appellate court in the matter of Jenica Paulson v. John Paulson. In this case, the husband, a well-known billionaire, convinced Judge Louis Nock to close the courtroom for an upcoming hearing. The wife moved the appellate court for an emergency stay, which was granted. After careful review, the Appellate Division, First Department overruled the lower court, stating in its decision:
The motion court did not provide the public and the press adequate notice of the husband’s courtroom closure request. Because it directed the parties to file their submissions on the application for courtroom closure by email, the submissions were not reflected on “the publicly maintained docket entries,” as required.
As alleged in the enclosed exhibit, Judge Waterman, without any notice or motion, kicked the public out of her courtroom in many instances. Judge Waterman seemed to do so in a manner that suggests she knew her actions were in violation of the law, as the courtroom closure often was not reflected in the official transcript.
For example, it is reported that Judge Waterman directed court staff to remove the public through hand signals, presumably to avoid a record being made. In other cases, Judge Waterman allegedly interrogated the public – asking for their names and why they were in her courtroom – during on-the-record proceedings, but those comments were not reportedly reflected in the official transcript. Separately, Judge Waterman allegedly accused the public of recording the proceedings to justify their removal. Moreover, it is reported that court staff told the public that a case was sealed and removed them from the courtroom; the case was not sealed.
We understand that some of these details were previously provided to the CJC through individual complaints.
We respectfully request access to the disciplinary process related to this complaint. We reserve all rights, especially those afforded under the First Amendment, regarding this complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
The Litigants of Waterman Watch
cc:
Hon. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, New York State Senator
Hon. Charles Lavine, New York State Assemblymember