Opinion 25-199

February 5, 2026

Digest: A part-time judge may permit his/her law partners and associates to practice law in the county’s centralized arraignment part before other judges.  If it becomes necessary to revisit any aspect of the criminal proceedings which took place in the centralized arraignment part, the judge and his/her co-judge are disqualified from presiding.

Rules:   Judiciary Law § 471; 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(E)(1); 100.6(B)(3); Opinions 24-83; 09-48; 08-87.

Opinion:

          The inquiring part-time judge does not participate in the centralized arraignment part, but his/her non-lawyer co-judge does.  The judge asks if he/she may permit his/her law partners or associates to practice in the centralized arraignment part.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]).  Thus a judge must disqualify in proceedings in which his/her impartiality might reasonably be questioned (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]).  A part-time attorney judge may practice law but “shall not permit his or her partners or associates to practice law in the court in which he or she is a judge” (22 NYCRR 100.6[B][3]; see also Judiciary Law § 471).

          The narrow issue presented here is whether the centralized arraignment part is the equivalent of the town court for purposes of the inquiring judge’s obligations under Section 100.6(B)(3).

          In Opinion 24-83, we acknowledged that “the centralized arraignment part is intended to facilitate the availability of public defenders or assigned counsel for defendants in light of the exigencies of off-hours arraignments” (Opinion 24-83 [citation and quotation omitted]).  As we explained (id.):

[W]hen a defendant’s arraignment was handled by another local judge in the centralized arraignment part and has been transferred to the town court for post-arraignment proceedings, the judge’s impartiality cannot “reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]) merely because the defendant was previously represented at arraignment by a different attorney.  Absent other grounds for disqualification, and assuming the current parties and counsel do not create a conflict for the judge, we conclude that a judge may preside in a matter transferred from the centralized arraignment part, notwithstanding that defendant’s counsel at arraignment would have created a conflict for the judge, unless it is necessary to revisit some aspect of the arraignment.

          In our view, for purposes of application of Section 100.6(B)(3), the centralized arraignment part should be considered another court in the county where the judge’s court is located, where his/her partners may practice law before other judges subject to applicable rules and statutes (see Opinion 09-48, citing Opinion 08-87 [noting that “an attorney associated with a part-time lawyer judge is not restricted from practicing law in any other court in the county where the judge’s court is located”]).

          We therefore conclude that the inquiring judge may permit his/her partners or associates to practice law in the centralized arraignment part.  However, if it becomes necessary to revisit any aspect of the proceedings which took place in the centralized arraignment part, the judge and his/her co-judge must disqualify themselves without the possibility of remittal.

Editorial Note 3/11/2026: Typo corrected (changed "othirr" to "other").