Opinion 25-81

May 15, 2025

Digest:  A Family Court judge may review and decide objections to orders issued by a support magistrate who presided over the judge’s own recently concluded child support matter, provided the judge concludes he/she can be fair and impartial.  The judge need not make any disclosure.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(E)(1); Opinion 22-173.

Opinion:

          A Family Court judge asks if he/she may review and decide objections from orders of a support magistrate who had previously presided in the judge’s own child support petition.  The judge’s support matter concluded less than two years ago and the judge considers it to have been “favorably adjudicated.”

          A judge must always 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]).  Thus, a judge must disqualify in any proceeding where “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]).

          We have advised that an appellate judge, who recently prevailed in litigation to vacate a vexatious lien, may preside in appeals from other decisions or orders rendered by the judge who granted the petition (see Opinion 22-173).  We noted that two lines of opinions applied because (i) “the lower court judge was involved in the matter solely in their own independent professional capacity as a sitting judge” and (ii) the now-completed lawsuit also pertained to the inquiring judge’s performance of judicial duties, as they were the sole basis for the purported lien (id.).  After considering both lines of opinions, we concluded the appellate judge may preside, “provided the judge determines he/she can be fair and impartial, a matter confined solely to the conscience of the inquiring judge” (id.). 

          Here, too, the judge has no ongoing proceedings before this support magistrate.  Although the inquiring judge was necessarily involved in his/her personal capacity in the prior support matter, we reach the same result because the support magistrate clearly “was involved … solely in their own independent professional capacity” as a quasi-judicial official in the now-concluded proceeding (Opinion 22-173).  In our view, the judge’s impartiality cannot “reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]) when reviewing objections to other, unrelated orders issued by a support magistrate, merely because that support magistrate also previously presided in the judge’s own support matter.  Accordingly, this judge need neither disclose the previous litigation nor disqualify, unless the judge determines he/she cannot be fair and impartial, a decision left entirely to the inquiring judge.