Opinion 25-187

 

December 18, 2025

 

Digest:  A town justice whose first cousin serves on the town board is: (1) disqualified, subject to remittal, in proceedings where the town is a party or where the cousin is likely to be a material witness and (2) disqualified, without the possibility of remittal, in matters where the cousin is a party.

 

Rules:   Judiciary Law §§ 14; 212(2)(l); 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(B); 100.3(E)(1); 100.3(E)(1)(d)(i)-(ii); 100.3(E)(1)(e); 100.3(F); 101.1; Opinions 21-101; 21-22(A); 19-92; 17-118; 10-146.

 

Opinion:

 

          A town justice’s first cousin by blood or marriage (i.e. a fourth-degree relative) was recently elected to the town board which sets the judge’s salary and the court’s budget.  The judge asks what concerns this may raise as a matter of judicial ethics.  The judge also requests guidance about the cousin’s ethical obligations when court-related matters are discussed at board meetings or executive sessions.

 

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]).  A judge must not allow family relationships to influence his/her judicial conduct or judgment (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[B]).  Judges must disqualify themselves in proceedings where “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]), including where specifically required by rule or law.  For example, disqualification is required when the judge knows that a relative within the sixth degree by blood or marriage “is an officer, director or trustee of a party” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][d][ii]) or when a relative within the fourth degree “is likely to be a material witness in the proceeding” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][e]), although disqualification on this basis is subject to remittal (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[F]).  Disqualification is also required when the judge knows a relative within the sixth degree by blood or marriage “is a party to the proceeding” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][d][i]; see also Judiciary Law § 14), and remittal is not permitted (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[F]).

 

Remittable Disqualification Where Town is a Party or Judge’s First Cousin is a Witness

 

          Here, because the judge’s first cousin is a town board member, the judge is disqualified, subject to remittal, in any proceeding where the town is a party (see Opinions 21-101; 19-92; 17-118; 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][d][ii]; 100.3[F]). 

 

          The judge must also disqualify in a proceeding when the judge’s first cousin is likely to be a material witness (see Opinions 21-101; 19-92; 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][e]).  Because the relationship is beyond the second degree, this disqualification is subject to remittal (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][e]; 100.3[F]).

 

          As a reminder, remittal is a three-step process.  First, the judge must fully disclose the basis for disqualification on the record.  Second, without the judge’s participation, the parties who have appeared and not defaulted and (if represented) their lawyers must all agree the judge may preside.  Third, the judge must independently conclude he/she can be impartial and be willing to preside in the case.  If all three steps are satisfied, the judge may accept remittal of disqualification and must incorporate the parties’ and their attorneys’ agreement in the record of the proceeding (see Opinion 21-22[A]; 22 NYCRR 100.3[F]).

 

Non-Remittable Disqualification Where First Cousin is a Party

 

          As always, the judge is disqualified, without the possibility of remittal, in any proceeding where a relative within the sixth degree of relationship is a party (see Opinion 19-92; 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][d][i]; 100.3[F]; Judiciary Law § 14).  This includes a fourth-degree relative by blood or marriage, such as a first cousin. 

 

Obligations of a Non-Judge

 

          We can only provide guidance to judges about the propriety of their own conduct and therefore cannot comment on any ethical obligations the relative/town board member may have (see generally Judiciary Law § 212[2][l]; 22 NYCRR 101.1).