Opinion 26-93

May 7, 2026

Digest:  Subject to any appropriate administrative approvals, a town justice who presides in housing matters may:
(1) allow a local not-for-profit organization that provides non-legal assistance relevant to eviction proceedings to be present outside the courtroom to speak with and assist tenant-litigants in housing court proceedings;
(2) announce the organization’s presence and availability at the beginning of the court calendar, provided that the judge makes clear that neither the entity nor its volunteers speak for the court, that the court facilities are being furnished solely as a matter of courtesy and convenience, and that the entity’s presence does not constitute a recommendation by the court; and
(3) permit court staff to provide the not-for-profit organization with copies of the court calendar, provided they do not include any confidential or sealed information.

Rules:   Judiciary Law § 255-B; Uniform Justice Court Act § 2019-a; 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(C); 100.3(B)(12); Opinions 25-78; 22-40; 21-149; 10-120; 08-192; 07-185/08-68/08-77; 93-51.

Opinion:

A town justice presides over housing matters in a courtroom located in a shared community building.  The judge notes that the “overwhelming majority of tenants who appear in Housing Court are unrepresented,” while the landlords are “almost always represented by counsel.”  A local not-for-profit organization has expressed interest in providing non-legal assistance to tenants who are respondents in eviction proceedings, such as immediate rent assistance and referrals to other organizations or government assistance programs for which the tenant may qualify.  The organization would not provide legal representation or appear in the court proceedings.  The judge asks if he/she may: (1) allow the not-for-profit organization to be present outside the courtroom to speak with and assist tenant-litigants in housing court proceedings; (2) alert tenants to the presence of the not-for-profit organization by making an announcement during housing court proceedings; and (3) permit court staff to provide housing court calendars to the not-for-profit organization.

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 may not use the prestige of judicial office to advance any private interest (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]), but may “make reasonable efforts to facilitate the ability of unrepresented litigants to have their matters fairly heard” (22 NYCRR 100.3[B][12]; see also Opinion 25-78 [addressing two proposed initiatives to improve the administration of justice in eviction proceedings in the town and village courts]). 

1. Presence of the Not-for-Profit Organization

          We have said a judge may permit volunteer lawyers to be available in the courthouse to assist unrepresented parties, provided it is clear that the volunteer attorneys do not speak for the court, and that the court facilities are being furnished solely as a matter of courtesy (see Opinions 08-192; 93-51; see also Opinion 21-149 [extending the same principles to virtual calendar appearances]).  Of course, it “may be desirable … to consult with the administrative judge before implementing [such] program” (Opinion 93-51).  Somewhat analogously, we said an administrative judge may, “[a]s a matter of courtesy and convenience,” permit outside neutrals/mediators to use courthouse space for the free initial session of a court-sponsored alternative dispute resolution program (Opinion 22-40). 

          While the not-for-profit organization here will offer direct and indirect rent assistance and referrals to tenants in eviction proceedings, rather than legal services or mediation, our conclusion remains the same.  There is no ethical objection to allowing this organization to be present outside the courtroom to offer relevant non-legal assistance to unrepresented tenants in housing court proceedings, subject to the same limitations (see Opinions 22-40; 08-192; 93-51). 

2. Alerting Tenants

          We have said an administrative judge may permit a pro bono local action committee to implement a pro bono project in a city court, in which city court judges would “announce at the beginning of the court’s calendar that volunteer attorneys are available in the courthouse to consult with and to represent tenants involved in pending summary proceedings” (Opinion 08-192).  To avoid any appearance of impropriety, however, the judge making the announcement must “make clear that the volunteer attorneys do not speak for the court, that the judge does not recommend any particular volunteer attorney, and that the court does not, by virtue of the volunteer attorneys’ availability in the courtroom, officially recommend them or their services” (id.). 

          Similarly, we conclude here that the inquiring judge may, with appropriate administrative approval, make an announcement at the beginning of housing court proceedings, alerting unrepresented tenants of the organization’s presence outside the courtroom.  The judge must make clear that neither the entity nor its volunteers speak for the court, that the court facilities are being furnished solely as a matter of courtesy and convenience, and that the entity’s presence does not constitute a recommendation by the court.

3. Housing Court Calendars

          Court calendars are a matter of public record (see Judiciary Law § 255-B [“A docket-book, kept by a clerk of a court, must be kept open, during the business hours fixed by law, for search and examination by any person.”]; Uniform Justice Court Act § 2019-a [“The records and dockets of the court except as otherwise provided by law shall be at reasonable times open for inspection to the public….”]).  We therefore advised in Opinion 07-185/08-68/08-77 that:

town justices may share copies of a posted calendar of scheduled cases and posted or otherwise public[ly] available documents addressing case dispositions (subject to all applicable statutory provisions concerning confidential information or sealed records), as requested by the District Attorney, the Public Defender, the media, other interested persons, and members of the general public.

We similarly advised that a judge “may furnish advance copies of the court’s criminal calendar to both the District Attorney and the assigned Public Defender on a monthly basis if he/she also complies with reasonable requests by other attorneys, defendants and members of the public for copies of the calendar” (Opinion 10-120). 

          While reaffirming that “a court should not prepare, maintain and/or produce information about court cases specifically and exclusively for the benefit of any particular party, person, or entity” (Opinion 07-185/08-68/08-77), we also observed in Opinion 10-120 that a judge:

should make reasonable efforts to make the court’s calendar widely available.  For example, the judge may post the calendar in the courthouse or other public location, send it by e-mail or, ideally, publish the calendar on-line on the municipality’s and/or the court’s website, or on bar association websites.

We advised that, if possible, the production and distribution of court calendars should be handled by non-judicial personnel (see id.). 

          Accordingly, we conclude here that the inquiring judge may permit court staff to provide the not-for-profit organization with copies of the court’s calendar.  The calendars should not include any litigants’ addresses, dates of birth, or other confidential or sealed information (see Opinion 07-185/08-68/08-77).