Opinion 25-128
September 10, 2025
Digest: A city court judge who has commenced litigation against the city is disqualified, subject to remittal, in all cases involving the law firm that represents the city. Where that law firm also serves as corporation counsel, the judge must disqualify in matters involving corporation counsel.
Rules: Judiciary Law § 14; 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(E)(1); Opinions 23-135; 21-110; 21-41; 20-63; 19-92; 18-139; 16-88; 15-142.
Opinion:
The inquiring city court judge has a pending lawsuit against the city in federal court. Recently, the judge learned that the city retained a law firm to act as its corporation counsel. The law firm representing the city as corporation counsel is the same law firm that is defending the city in the judge’s federal lawsuit. The judge asks for guidance regarding situations where “the city’s corporation counsel [handles traffic and local code violations] via the city prosecutor who appears in court on behalf of the city.”
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and must always act to promote 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” and in other specific circumstances as required by rule or law (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]; see also Judiciary Law § 14).
Review of Prior Opinions
In general, when a judge is a party litigant in his/her individual capacity, the judge’s obligation during the litigation is to disqualify when the judge knows that a party or attorney appearing before him/her is currently the judge’s party-opponent or opposing counsel (see Opinions 20-63; 18-139). The disqualification is subject to remittal as permitted by the Rules and our prior opinions (see id.).
Thereafter, once the litigation is concluded, for two years, the judge must at least disclose the prior litigation when the judge knows that a party or attorney appearing before him/her was the judge’s party-opponent or opposing counsel within the past two years (see Opinions 21-41; 20-63).
After this two-year period, the judge ordinarily has no further obligation, provided he/she can be fair and impartial, and thus need not disclose or recuse (see Opinions 21-41; 20-63).
Finally, where “the city itself is a named litigation adversary of the judge,” we have advised that “the judge should follow the same principles when other city agencies, including city hospitals, are named parties” (Opinion 21-41 [emphasis in original]).
Application
In our view, the same principles apply here, given that the city is represented by a private law firm.[1] Accordingly, while the litigation is ongoing, the inquiring judge is disqualified, subject to remittal, in all cases where the law firm appears, either directly or via the city prosecutor, and in all cases where the city is a named party.
For clarity, we note that disqualification is not required in matters brought in the name of the People of the State of New York pursuant to authority delegated by the district attorney’s office, where the law firm is not involved in the litigation (see e.g. Opinions 21-110 at fn 1; 19-92).
[1] A more limited scope of disqualification may be available where a municipality sued by the judge is represented by public sector attorneys (see e.g. Opinions 23-135; 16-88; 15-142).