Opinion 25-78

May 15, 2025

Digest:  (1) A judge may read a colloquy approved by the district administrative office at a tenant’s initial appearance in an eviction case, where this colloquy will neutrally inform the tenant of court procedures and his/her legal options, without suggesting the court favors any option. 
(2) Where there is only one legal services provider that represents tenants in eviction proceedings in the jurisdiction, a judge may routinely provide a copy of all newly filed eviction petitions and return dates to that legal services provider.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A), (C); 100.3(B)(6)(a); 100.3(B)(12); Opinions 23-18; 22-147; 20-99; 15-197(B); 13-33; 10-196; 02-49.

Opinion:

          The inquiring judge, who is designated by an administrative judge to advise and support other town and village justices, has been asked to find ways to improve the administration of justice in eviction proceedings in the town and village courts.  In particular, local legal aid providers report difficulty in obtaining court documents in justice court eviction matters.  The tenant respondents, in turn, “are often unaware of the services available as well as the right to request an adjournment at the initial appearance.”  Accordingly, the judge asks if it is ethically permissible for town and village justices to adopt two procedures proposed by the district administrative office.

          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 not lend judicial prestige to advance any private interests (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]).  Ex parte communications “that are made for scheduling or administrative purposes and that do not affect a substantial right of any party” are expressly authorized, “provided the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication” (22 NYCRR 100.3[B][6][a] [requiring notice and opportunity to respond “insofar as practical and appropriate”]). 

1. Sample Colloquy

          The judge first asks if town and village justices may read a sample colloquy prepared and approved by the district administrative office at a tenant’s initial appearance on an eviction case.  The colloquy requests the tenant’s preferred contact information; explains the nature of the proceeding, burden of proof, and consequences of default; advises the tenant of “the right to an adjournment of these proceedings of no less than fourteen days” and “the right to raise defenses, to have a trial, and to submit evidence to support your defenses”; and explains the options to “seek advice of an attorney” or “try to settle the case with your landlord.” 

          As we have explained, “our prior opinions have permitted judges to make available certain kinds of information to litigants, where doing so does not create an appearance of impropriety” (Opinion 22-147).  For example, “we have advised that judges may inform litigants of all their legal options, as long as they do not suggest or recommend any specific action” (id.).  In the context of defendant motorists charged with Vehicle and Traffic Law violations, we have emphasized that permissible, court-prepared forms must “neutrally inform” defendants “of all their options” (Opinion 23-18; see also e.g. Opinions 20-99; 13-33). 

          As described here, the proposed colloquy similarly appears to neutrally inform a tenant respondent of all of his/her options at the first appearance in an eviction proceeding, as well as explaining the nature of the proceeding and court procedures.

          We further understand the proposed colloquy was developed and approved by judges or court administrators, rather than by an outside agency or advocate (see Opinions 13-33; 10-196). 

          Accordingly, we conclude a town or village justice may read a colloquy approved by the district administrative office at a tenant’s initial appearance in an eviction case, where this colloquy will neutrally inform the tenant of court procedures and his/her legal options, without suggesting the court favors any option.

2. Sending Petitions to Legal Services Providers

          The judge next asks if the justice court, in jurisdictions where there is only one legal services provider that handles evictions, may send copies of all newly filed eviction petitions, along with their return dates, to that legal services provider.

          We have advised that a judge may send a letter to both a defendant and the defense attorney “for the sole purpose of notifying both the attorney and the defendant of an upcoming appearance date” (Opinion 02-49).  Indeed, we have assumed “a court will typically provide notice to litigants through their counsel where feasible, but other permutations are possible” (Opinion 15-197[B]).

          Here, the proposed communication with the jurisdiction’s sole legal services provider would serve only to inform them, as “presumptive” counsel for the tenant respondent, of the newly filed eviction petition and the upcoming return date.

          It is therefore permissible to provide copies of eviction petitions, with return dates, to the sole legal services provider that represents tenants in eviction proceedings in that jurisdiction.  Should the tenant respondent retain counsel or opt to proceed pro se, any communication between the court and the legal services provider must cease.