Opinion 25-44
March 27, 2025
Digest: A Family Court judge whose non-attorney relative, and close personal friend, works for a local not-for-profit agency that assists with family offense petitions:
(1) may preside without the need for disclosure or inquiry in family offense petitions and other matters in which the relative/friend was not involved; but
(2) is disqualified,
subject to remittal, from all matters in which the judge knows, or becomes
aware, that his/her relative/friend was involved as an advocate.
Where the judge has no reason to believe that his/her relative/friend was
personally involved in the proceedings, the judge has no obligation to
disclose, disqualify, or make any special inquiry.
Rules: Judiciary Law § 14; 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A)-(C); 100.3(E)(1); 100.3(E)(1)(a)-(f); 100.3(F); Opinions 22-39; 21-92; 21-22(A); 21-04; 20-19; 16-28; 11-125.
Opinion:
The inquiring Family Court judge’s first cousin, who is also the judge’s close personal friend, has joined a local agency that advocates for victims of domestic and sexual violence. The agency’s non-attorney advocates assist Family Court petitioners in preparing family offense petitions. They sometimes accompany the petitioner to court and may enter the courtroom with the petitioner and sit in the back. The judge asks whether he/she must disclose the relationship or disqualify in all matters where the agency has assisted the petitioner; and what, if any, involvement by the cousin would require the judge to disqualify. The judge also asks if he/she must inquire whether the cousin assisted the petitioner.
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act in a matter that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]). A judge must not allow family or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[B]) and must not allow the appearance that others are in a special position to influence the judge (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]). A judge must disqualify him/herself as required by the law and the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (see Judiciary Law § 14; 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][a]-[f]), and in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]).
1. The Relative/Friend is Personally Involved
We said a judge must disqualify in matters where the judge’s first-degree relative was personally involved in a non-attorney support capacity (see Opinions 20-19; 16-28). Here, the judge’s cousin is a fourth-degree relative, but is also a “close friend.”
We have advised that a judge’s impartiality may reasonably be questioned in matters where an attorney appearing before him/her is a person with whom the judge maintains a “close personal relationship” (Opinion 11-125). Thus, the judge is disqualified in such matters, subject to remittal where appropriate (id.). Moreover, we “have applied [the same analysis] to other social relationships” between a judge and non-attorneys who may appear before the judge (Opinion 21-04 [citation omitted])
Here, we conclude that where the judge knows, or becomes aware, that the judge’s fourth-degree relative and close personal friend, a non-attorney, personally assisted in preparing papers presented to the judge, accompanied a petitioner to court, or appears in the courtroom with the petitioner, disqualification is warranted.
Disqualification on this basis is subject to remittal after full disclosure on the record and voluntary, affirmative consent from the parties and, if represented, their counsel (see generally Opinion 21-22[A]; 22 NYCRR 100.3[F]).
2. The Agency Assisted, But the Relative/Friend is Not Personally Involved
We have previously addressed a similar issue, where a judge’s first-degree relative, a non-attorney, was employed by a social services agency that provided services to litigants appearing before the judge (see Opinion 20-19). We advised that although the judge must disqualify from matters in which the first-degree relative was personally involved, the judge has no obligation to disclose or disqualify with respect to matters in which the relative was not personally involved (id.; see also Opinion 16-28). Similar principles apply where a judge’s non-attorney relative is employed by a not-for-profit agency.
We note that the judge’s close personal friendship with his/her relative does not change the analysis, because we have advised that a judge’s obligations due to a social relationship with a particular individual “do[] not automatically extend” to that individual’s colleagues (Opinions 22-39; 21-92).
Accordingly, the judge need not disclose or disqualify in a matter merely because other employees of the same not-for-profit agency have assisted and/or are accompanying a litigant in a matter before the judge, provided the judge has no reason to believe his/her relative/friend has had any personal involvement.
Obligation to Inquire
Where the judge has no reason to believe that his/her non-attorney relative/friend was personally involved in the proceedings, the judge has no obligation to disclose, disqualify, or make any special inquiry.