Opinion 26-19
February 5, 2026
Digest: A judge who serves as co-chair/co-host of an annual town-sponsored luncheon to commemorate a historical figure’s legacy must disqualify in matters involving the luncheon committee or the luncheon event, but is not otherwise disqualified on that basis in other matters involving the town.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(B)(8); 100.3(E)(1); 100.3(E)(1)(a)(ii); 100.3(E)(1)(c); 100.3(E)(1)(d)(ii) 100.3(E)(1)(e); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.4(C)(2)(a); Opinions 21-175; 20-50; 19-156; 10-190.
Opinion:
The inquiring full-time judge previously served on the local town board for several years. The judge resigned from that position on assuming the bench but has continued to serve as co-chair/co-host of an annual town-sponsored luncheon to commemorate the legacy of a historical figure.[1] The luncheon is not a fund-raiser. In preparing for the luncheon, the judge works closely with the town board and various town departments. This collaboration is highlighted at the luncheon, which is also aired on a local public service access channel. The judge has already decided to disqualify from any town cases “in which the incident or event relevant to the case occurred while [the judge] served” on the town board. In light of the judge’s ongoing involvement with the town’s annual historical luncheon, the judge now asks if he/she may preside in matters involving the town which arose after his/her tenure on the town board ended.
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). A judge’s extra-judicial activities must be compatible with judicial office and must not: (1) cast reasonable doubt on his/her capacity to act impartially as a judge; (2) detract from the dignity of judicial office; or (3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]). A judge must disqualify him/herself in any proceeding where the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]). For example, disqualification is required if the judge knows he/she is “an officer . . . of a party” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][d][ii]), “has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][a][ii]), “is likely to be a material witness” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][e]), or “has any other interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][c]).
In our view, the judge’s involvement and interaction with the town supervisor, town board, and other town departments in connection with co-chairing the town’s annual historical luncheon cannot “reasonably” cause the judge’s impartiality to be questioned in all matters involving the town (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]). Accordingly, the judge may not preside in matters involving the luncheon committee or the luncheon event (see e.g. Opinion 20-50), but is not otherwise disqualified in matters involving the town on that basis.
This result is not affected by the judge’s prior service on the town board, as prior service on a municipality’s governing body likewise does not require a judge to disqualify in all matters involving the municipality going forward (see Opinions 21-175; 19-156; 10-190).
The judge is reminded that his/her participation on the town’s luncheon committee is subject to generally applicable limitations on judicial speech and conduct, including the public comment rule (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]).
[1] 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,” but “may represent a country, state or locality on ceremonial occasions or in connection with historical, educational or cultural activities” (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][2][a]).