Opinion 25-155

November 6, 2025

Digest:  When a judge learns that his/her co-judge declined to consider an improper ex parte communication about a traffic ticket and instead simply asked the court clerks to re-assign it without attempting to influence him/her, the judge need not take any disciplinary action and need not recuse.  The judge should instead adjudicate the matter in the normal course of business.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(D)(1)-(2); 100.3(E)(1); Opinions 17-147; 15-119.

Opinion:

          The inquiring judge asks if reporting or disqualification is required in a Vehicle and Traffic Law matter, where the defendant is related to a former judge of the same court.  Although the inquiring judge has had “no discussions or communications regarding this matter with either the co-judge or with the former judge,” he/she believes that the former judge asked the inquirer’s co-judge to dispose of the traffic ticket ex parte.  However, the co-judge apparently declined to do so and directed the court clerks to re-assign the matter to the inquiring judge. 

          A judge must 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 who receives information indicating a “substantial likelihood” that a lawyer or another judge has committed a “substantial violation” of the applicable ethics rules must “take appropriate action” (22 NYCRR 100.3[D][1]-[2]).  A judge must also disqualify him/herself in a proceeding where the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]).

          As described in Opinion 15-119 (citations omitted):

A judge is not required to conduct an investigation of the alleged misconduct and, therefore, may discharge his/her disciplinary responsibilities based on facts already known to the judge without further inquiry. In general, the Committee has advised that the judge who has first-hand knowledge of all the facts and persons involved in a particular situation is in the best position to determine whether there is a “substantial likelihood” that another judge has committed a “substantial violation” of the Rules.  If the judge concludes that either of these two elements is missing, the judge need not take any action.

Thus, for example, where a judge receives a phone call from another judge concerning an unspecified case before him/her, but never learns any information sufficient to identify the case, the judge need not take any disciplinary action (see Opinion 17-147).  Likewise, where a county court judge is aware a town justice presided over an arraignment and then requested the matter be transferred due to a purported conflict, but lacks relevant details of the purported conflict, the county court judge need not take any disciplinary action (see Opinion 15-119).

          Here, the inquiring judge has no knowledge of the former judge’s words or conduct and does not describe any misconduct whatsoever by his/her co-judge.  Indeed, whatever may have been said to the co-judge, it appears that the co-judge took prompt steps to avoid any possible appearance of impropriety and has not attempted to influence the inquirer’s disposition of the ticket.  Accordingly, on these facts, we conclude the inquirer is not required to take any disciplinary action. 

          Moreover, we can see no grounds on which the inquiring judge’s impartiality might “reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1] [emphasis added]).  Accordingly, we conclude the judge need not recuse and should instead adjudicate the matter in the normal course of business.