Opinion 26-22(A)

February 5, 2026

Digest:  A Family Court judge has no obligation to disclose or disqualify in matters involving the city’s Administration for Children’s Services or corporation counsel’s Family Law Division, merely because an “Application for Correction” has been filed on behalf of the judge’s condominium building with the city’s Tax Commission.

Rules:   Judiciary Law § 14; 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(E)(1); People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403 (1987).

Opinion:

          The inquiring Family Court judge owns a unit in a condominium building, which plans to challenge its local property tax assessment by filing an “Application for Correction” with the city’s Tax Commission.  According to the city’s website, the Tax Commission is an independent agency established to provide an “independent review of the assessed value of [the building’s] property, tax class, and exemption status determined by the Department of Finance.”  The judge currently presides in matters where staff attorneys for the city’s Administration for Children’s Services (“ACS”) appear.  In addition, Corporation Counsel’s Family Law Division handles juvenile and interstate/international matters before the judge.  The judge asks if he/she may continue to preside in Family Court matters involving these city agencies and attorneys, once the judge’s condominium building commences an administrative proceeding before the city’s Tax Commission to contest the property taxes by filing an “Application for Correction.”

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]).  A judge must disqualify in any proceeding where the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned,” including where required by rule or law (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]; Judiciary Law § 14).  Where disqualification is not mandatory, however, the judge is the sole arbiter of recusal, a discretionary decision within the personal conscience of the court (cf. People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405 [1987]).

          The present inquiry appears to be a matter of first impression for us.  In our view, a judge’s impartiality cannot “reasonably be questioned” in all matters involving a city’s agencies and attorneys, simply because the judge owns a unit in a building that has filed an administrative challenge to its property tax assessment with an independent city agency (cf. 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]).  Thus, we conclude the inquiring Family Court judge has no obligation to disclose or disqualify in matters involving the city’s Administration for Children’s Services or Corporation Counsel’s Family Law Division, merely because an “Application for Correction” has been filed on behalf of the judge’s condominium building with the city’s Tax Commission.

          We emphasize that the present opinion addresses only the narrow issue of the judge’s obligations at the administrative proceeding stage, when no court case has been filed.