Opinion 26-15
February 5, 2026
Digest: A judge who was elected more than two years ago and is not currently within his/her window period for election or re-election to judicial office need not disqualify from a proceeding merely because a political party’s local district leader is a litigant.
Rules: Judiciary Law § 14; 22 NYCRR 100.0(A); 100.0(Q); 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(E)(1); Opinions 19-76; 12-97; 11-64; 10-121; 97-45; People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403 (1987).
Opinion:
The inquiring Supreme Court justice, who is several years into his/her current 14-year term, has learned that one of the litigants in a matter before him/her is a political party’s district leader. The judge had previously met privately with this district leader while seeking election to Supreme Court more than two years ago, and the district leader participated in the vote that established the judge as the party’s candidate that year. The district leader may also be in a position to vote on the judge’s candidacy at some point in the future, either when the judge’s current term ends or if the judge decides to seek election to another judicial office. The judge has disclosed these facts to both sides, and one side has asked the judge to recuse. The judge asks if he/she must disqualify in the matter.
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]). Therefore, a judge must disqualify in proceedings in which his/her impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]) or in other specific circumstances as required by rule or law (see e.g. Judiciary Law § 14). Where disqualification is not mandatory, however, the judge remains “the sole arbiter of recusal” (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405 [1987]).
We have advised that neither disclosure nor disqualification is mandated solely because a political party’s county leader appears as an attorney before a judge who is currently seeking the party’s support for elective judicial office, provided the county leader is not playing an active and significant role within the judge’s campaign and the judge can be fair and impartial (see Opinion 19-76). Likewise, we have advised that a judicial candidate who has appeared before a political party’s judicial screening panel may preside when a member of the panel appears as an attorney (see Opinions 12-97; 11-64).
Conversely, we have advised that when a member of a political party’s judicial screening panel that reviewed a judge’s application for the party’s endorsement is a partner in a law firm that is a party in a proceeding, the judge is disqualified, although disqualification on this basis is subject to remittal (see Opinion 10-121). In Opinion 10-121, the inquiring judge was still a candidate in his/her window period for the election in which he/she sought the party’s endorsement, and we concluded that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under the circumstances.
The district leader here is a litigant in the proceedings, similar to the judicial screening panel member in Opinion 10-121. Unlike Opinion 10-121, however, the inquiring judge was elected over two years earlier and is not currently in his/her window period for election or re-election to any judicial office. In our view, it would be unreasonable to question an elected judge’s impartiality in perpetuity in all matters where a district leader is a party.
Nor can the judge’s impartiality be reasonably questioned at this time based on a potential need for political support in a hypothetical future election campaign. The judge has not declared an intention to run for any known judicial vacancy (cf. 22 NYCRR 100.0[A] [defining “candidate”]; 100.0[Q] [defining “window period”]; Opinion 97-45), and has several years remaining on his/her current term. It is premature, at best, to speculate about whose support the judge may need at some unspecified future date when the judge may run for the same or another judicial office.
In sum, a judge who was elected more than two years ago and is not currently within his/her window period for election or re-election to judicial office need not disqualify from a proceeding merely because a political party’s local district leader is a litigant. Accordingly, assuming the inquiring judge can be fair and impartial, he/she may preside over the present proceeding notwithstanding the litigant’s past and/or potential future participation in a political party’s vote on the judge’s candidacy for judicial office.