Tribute to Judge Stewart F. Hancock, Jr.

• Author: Simons, Richard D.
• Position: New York Court of Appeals - Testimonial

I speak to you this morning as a Judge who worked more than fifteen years with Stewart Hancock in the Appellate Courts of New York and several years following our retirements developing a legal system and establishing a court for the Oneida Indian Nation.

Stewart Hancock was educated at the U.S. Naval Academy and he completed two tours of active duty with the Navy--one after graduation and one in combat during the Korean War. He graduated with honors from Cornell Law School and then he turned to an active legal practice in Syracuse with the law firm Hancock and Estabrook. It was during this time that Stewart made the wisest decision of his life--he married Ruth Pass and they began to raise a family. Eventually, he joined the court system and became one of New York's most distinguished judges. His remarkable career added luster to a distinguished family history in the law.

Stewart and I sat together on collegial courts. Collegial courts, whether they consist of three judges or nine or some number in between are established with the hope that many heads addressing a problem are better than one. In the best appellate courts the members exercise a synergistic influence on each other which enlarges the ability of the membership of the court as a whole. Stewart was an ideal candidate to sit on a collegial court. He was a judge of superb intellect and great curiosity. He read the briefs, studied the law and then began his questioning, seeking to expand his knowledge and his thinking.

Stewart loved his work, every matter before him received his full attention, and he loved the challenge of a difficult case. An appeal requiring analysis of the Rule against Perpetuities, the worst nightmare for most Judges, was manna from heaven for Stewart. He couldn't wait to get into those old English law books. He would attack the case with a vengeance.

His "study" continued in court. He challenged counsel during oral arguments to support their statements. His questions to counsel were always prefaced by his very polite request "may I ask you a question?" Over the years other members of the court waited patiently for an attorney who had the temerity to answer "no." It never happened.

The analysis of the case and the development of the holding went on in chambers until a decision was reached. His guiding principle was always a fair result that was consistent with existing law. The decision must be fair. Indeed, he had a sign in his chambers, though he hardly...