OPINION OF THE COURT
*253 Petitioner, a Judge of the Civil Court of the City of New York and Acting Justice of Supreme Court, First Judicial District, has requested review of the determination of thе State Commission on Judicial Conduct that he failed to observe the "high standards of conduct” necessary to uphold the "integrity and independеnce of the judiciary” (Rules Governing Judicial Conduct [22 NYCRR] § 100.1; see, Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 1), and violated the rule that a Judge "shall act at all times in а manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity * * * of the judiciary” (Rules Governing Judicial Conduct [22 NYCRR] § 100.2 [A]; see, Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2 [A]) and, аs a consequence, should be removed from office.
After a full evidentiary hearing held before a Referee, submissions by the parties and oral argument, the Commission determined that petitioner made inappropriate remarks in the workplace to and about a female law intern and thereafter engaged in deceptive or duplicitous behavior with respect to those incidents and the Commission’s investigation of them. Petitioner argues that the Commission essentially "misused lack of candor charges” because there is no "contrary objеctive proof’ that petitioner lied
(see, Matter of Kiley,
The investigation of petitioner’s conduсt was triggered by a complaint stemming from a note he passed to his court attorney, allegedly concerning the physical attributes of а female law intern, and that petitioner suggested, albeit in jest, to the same intern that she remove part of her apparel in his presence. Although petitioner denied, under oath, making such remarks and gave a different explanation for writing the note, the Referee and the Commission rejected his testimony. Based upon our independent review of the record and giving due deference to the credibility determinаtions of the Referee and the Commission
(see, Matter of Sims,
Here, petitioner’s ribald note and indelicate suggestion, even if made in jest, are, without question, demeaning, entirely *254 inappropriate and deserving of some sanction. Although we agree with the Commission that these isolated occurrеnces, standing alone, would not be sufficient to justify removal, petitioner’s misconduct is magnified here by a pattern of evasive, deceitful and outright untruthful behavior, evidencing a lack of fitness to hold judicial office.
The most egregious instances of such misconduct occurred in connection with petitioner’s attempt to conceal the Commission’s pending investigation of the initial complaint while seeking an interim aрpointment to a vacancy on Supreme Court in the Twelfth Judicial District. First, in the course of completing a questionnaire for the Governоr’s Judicial Screening Committee, petitioner encountered the question: "Have you ever been the subject of any inquiry or investigation by a fеderal, state or local agency (other than for routine background investigations for employment purposes)?” Petitioner respоnded "no,” despite the fact that he unquestionably was aware of the pending investigation, having testified before the Commission only two months priоr. Petitioner signed the questionnaire and certified that "to the best of my knowledge the information I have supplied is complete, true and аccurate.”
Petitioner attempted to explain away this falsehood, asserting that he believed the question referred only to criminаl investigations. His explanation, however, was rejected by the Referee and the Commission in light of the clear language contained in the questionnaire. After reviewing the record and the questionnaire itself, we agree with the Commission that petitioner’s explanation was, at the very least, disingenuous.
Then, in May of 1995, petitioner was nominated by Governor Pataki to fill the Supreme Court vacancy and his name was submitted to thе State Senate for confirmation. In accordance with the requirements of Judiciary Law § 45 (2), petitioner was asked to execute аnd promptly return to the Senate Judiciary Committee a waiver of his right to confidentiality as to any Judicial Conduct Commission records pertаining to him. Petitioner delayed returning the waiver until the day before his scheduled confirmation hearing despite repeated efforts by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s staff counsel to contact petitioner and procure the waiver. Petitioner asserted that the delay wаs attributable to his own second thoughts about accepting his pending elevation to Supreme Court. In light of petitioner’s otherwise activе pursuit of the appointment, both the Referee and the Commission rejected petitioner’s explanation, as do we.
*255 Significantly, during this pеriod of delay, petitioner was asked directly by staff counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee whether he was the subject of any cоmplaints before the Commission. He responded, unequivocally, in the negative. When confronted with these facts, he denied, under oath, that this conversation occurred. The Referee and the Commission credited the testimony of staff counsel over that of petitioner. Based upon our review of the record, we find no reason to disturb this credibility determination.
Thus, we conclude that petitioner made false statеments to the Commission and gave deceitful, and even dishonest, responses to the Governor’s Screening Committee and to the staff of the Sеnate Judiciary Committee. By no means can this pattern of behavior be explained as a "mere lack of recall” or described as "poor judgment”
(see, Matter of Kiley,
Although the sanctiоn of removal is reserved for those instances where the conduct is "truly egregious” and not merely an exercise of poor judgment
(see, Matter of Mazzei,
Accordingly, the determined sanction should be accepted, without costs, and petitioner should be removed from his office of Judge of the Civil Court of the City of New York and Acting Justice of Supreme Court, First Judicial District.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur in Per Curiam opinion.
Determined sanction accepted, etc.