Opinion 25-178

December 18, 2025

Digest:  A full-time judge may not accept an appointment to serve on a city’s Rent Guidelines Board, even if the judge is willing to decline compensation.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(A); 100.4(C)(2)(a); 100.4(H)(1)(c)(1); Opinions 21-38; 19-146; 07-112; 02-45.

Opinion:

          The inquiring full-time judge asks if he/she may accept a mayoral appointment to a city’s Rent Guidelines Board.  According to its website, the Rent Guidelines Board “is mandated to establish rent adjustments” for dwelling units subject to the Rent Stabilization Law.  The board performs this function by holding “an annual series of public meetings and hearings to consider research from staff and testimony from tenants, owners, advocacy groups, elected officials, and industry experts.”  The judge is willing to forego the “nominal per diem” compensation offered to board members (cf. 22 NYCRR 100.4[H][1][c][1] [“No full-time judge shall solicit or receive compensation for extra-judicial activities performed for or on behalf of: (1) New York State, its political subdivisions or any office or agency thereof”]). 

A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]).  A judge’s judicial duties “take precedence over all the judge’s other activities” (22 NYCRR 100.3[A]).  As relevant here, a full-time judge must not accept appointment to a governmental committee or commission or other governmental position that is “concerned with issues of fact or policy in matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice” (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][2][a]). 

          Applying this rule, we have said a full-time judge may not serve as “an advisor to the U.S. President on disability programs and services nor on an advisory committee to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services” (Opinion 19-146).  As we explained, the proposed federal appointments were “not concerned with the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice” but would instead “involve the judge in ‘issues of fact or policy’ concerning executive branch disability programs and services” (id.).  Similarly, we advised that a full-time judge may not serve on the community services board of a municipal mental health department, which is “responsible for reviewing the work of the department to ensure that it is providing statutorily mandated services” (Opinion 02-45); or on the state Regents Advisory Council on Libraries, which “advises the New York State Board of Regents on ‘[s]tate policy regarding the New York State Library, library development programs, legislation and library aid programs’” (Opinion 07-112).  Likewise, a full-time judge may not serve on a municipal community board that “regularly votes on requests for liquor licenses and land use issues,” even where such votes are merely “advisory to the government entities that ultimately issue the licenses and/or permits” (Opinion 21-38). 

          Here, the Rent Guidelines Board’s role is to conduct public meetings and hearings and otherwise solicit and review testimony and research in order to establish the amount of rent increases available to landlords under the Rent Stabilization Law.  In our view, such matters do not relate to improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice, but will rather involve the judge in issues of fact or policy that will be implemented by various executive agencies.  This is impermissible for a full-time judge (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[C][2][a]; Opinions 21-38; 19-146; 07-112; 02-45).

Accordingly, the inquiring full-time judge may not serve on the city’s Rent Guidelines Board.  The fact that the judge is willing to forgo compensation does not alter this conclusion.