On Saturday, August 30, 2025, Gothamist reported that criminal justice reform advocates are calling for the retirement of Queens Justice Michael Aloise, citing a high rate of reversed decisions due to legal errors. These advocates point to court data indicating that appellate courts have frequently overturned Aloise’s rulings on evidence and sentence lengths.
The push to remove Aloise from the bench comes amid discussions about raising the retirement age for New York judges, a move intended to ease the strain on an overburdened court system. Advocates argue that the need for judges should not supersede the need for justice and that extending the tenure of judges with questionable records is not the solution. Peter F. Martin and Katie Schaffer, representing the Center for Community Alternatives, voiced these concerns in a letter to the Office of Court Administration. They stated that Aloise has demonstrated a poor understanding of the law, his impartiality is questionable, and he has not published any decisions in the last twelve years.
The Office of Court Administration declined to comment on the certification process or individual judges’ determinations.
New York’s constitution mandates that many state judges retire at the end of the year they turn 70, though some may continue serving until age 76 if deemed fit by state officials. The evaluation process considers a judge’s legal abilities, capacity to perform duties, judicial demeanor, integrity, character, and commitment to equal justice. Martin and Schaffer argue that Aloise’s record fails to meet these standards.
Their 12-page letter details cases from 2009 to the present in which appellate courts overturned Aloise’s decisions, necessitating the reversal of convictions or reduction of sentences. In one instance, an appellate court reassigned a case due to statements Aloise made during sentencing.
Gothamist’s review of seven cases revealed that Aloise allowed prosecutors to use evidence later deemed illegally obtained by higher courts. According to data from Scrutinize, a judicial transparency organization, Aloise’s decisions on suppressing evidence have been reversed at a rate higher than approximately 95% of active New York state judges. Appellate courts have also shortened defendants’ prison terms in at least three cases, finding Aloise’s sentences excessively long. Data indicates that his sentence reduction rate is higher than almost 98% of New York state judges in the dataset.
Additionally, higher courts have overturned convictions in Aloise’s courtroom at least six times, including twice this year, citing infringements on defendants’ rights. In July, an appellate court reversed a murder conviction because Aloise ejected a friend of the defendant from the courtroom for sleeping, violating the defendant’s right to an open trial.
Martin and Schaffer’s letter also highlights instances where higher courts found Aloise mishandled jury selection and deliberations, including a 2023 appellate decision concerning a 2019 trial. In one case, appellate judges found that he did not address concerns about prosecutors illegally striking Black men from a jury. Several convictions were also reversed due to Aloise’s procedural errors in handling jury notes during deliberations.
Martin and Schaffer contend that Aloise’s actions have created a perception of bias against defendants and in favor of law enforcement. They cite the scrutiny Aloise faced during the trial of Chanel Lewis for wearing a purple tie, the color associated with Karina Vetrano’s supporters. They also point to Aloise’s lenient sentencing of NYPD Detective Kevin Desormeau, convicted of perjury, where he imposed probation and a $500 fine instead of the requested jail term, stating his disgust with the district attorney’s hypocrisy.
Source: Gothamist
