Opinion 25-94
June 26, 2025
Digest: A judge need not disqualify merely because a party to a matrimonial action allegedly dated the judge’s child over a decade ago in high school and recently reached out to the judge’s child on social media about the case. The judge may continue to preside in the matter provided the judge believes he/she can be fair and impartial.
Rules: Judiciary Law § 14; 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A), (B); 100.3(E)(1); 100.3(E)(1)(d)(iii); 100.3(E)(1)(e); Opinions 23-70; 23-54; 21-06; 14-81; 11-125; People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403 (1987).
Opinion:
After ordering supervised visitation for the defendant in a matrimonial action, the inquiring judge learned about certain social connections between the judge’s adult child and the defendant. First, the judge’s child advised the judge that the defendant contacted him/her on social media about the matrimonial matter. The judge’s child said they were classmates in high school (over a decade ago), and have maintained “casual” contact on social media, consisting of “occasional interactions.” According to the judge’s child, the defendant accused the judge of preventing the defendant from seeing his/her children, and claimed the judge should have recused due to “an alleged prior closeness” between the judge’s child and the defendant. The judge’s child denies any prior romantic or dating relationship. The judge instructed his/her child “not to respond and to block” the defendant. Before the judge had an opportunity to disclose all of this at the next scheduled court appearance, defendant’s counsel circulated a letter formally asking the judge to recuse based on an alleged romantic relationship between the defendant and the judge’s child in high school. Counsel attached copies of old photographs that include both the judge’s child and the defendant. The judge does not have any recollection of the defendant as one of the judge’s child’s high school friends or otherwise meeting the defendant and is confident that he/she can be fair and impartial. The judge asks if he/she may continue to preside.
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]). Therefore, a judge must “not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment” (22 NYCRR 100.2[B]), and must disqualify in a proceeding where “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]), or as required by rule or law (see generally id.; Judiciary Law § 14). For example, a judge must disqualify where his/her child “is likely to be a material witness in the proceeding” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][e]) or “has an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][d][iii]). Where disqualification is not required under objective standards, however, the judge “is the sole arbiter of recusal” (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405 [1987]).
Nothing in the inquiry suggests that the judge’s child is likely to be a material witness in the matrimonial proceeding or has any interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding either directly or indirectly (see e.g. Opinion 23-54; 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][d][iii]; 100.3[E][1][e]). Accordingly, the sole issue before us is whether the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” under the circumstances presented (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1] [emphasis added]).
In determining whether a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned based on purely social relationships, we have said the judge should consider factors such as the nature of the relationship, the inter-relationships between immediate family and the individual in question, and the frequency of their contacts or other ties between them (see Opinion 11-125). For example, where a party before a judge is the spouse of another judge in the same court, we advised “the judge should consider his/her own relationship, if any, with the particular individual who is appearing before him/her as a party, using the general categories of social relationships set forth in Opinion 11-125 as a guide to the analysis” (Opinion 14-81). Similarly, “even where [a] judge determines that their friendship with one individual requires disclosure or disqualification,” we said the obligation “does not automatically extend to the friend’s colleagues or relatives” (Opinion 21-06).
Here, the judge does not recall meeting the defendant or having any extra-judicial interactions with him/her. Indeed, regardless of the conflicting accounts offered by the judge’s child and the defendant concerning their high school relationship, it appears the judge had no knowledge of any connection between them until the child advised the judge about the defendant’s social media communication. Such relationship, if any, is sufficiently remote and provides no basis to raise reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality (see generally Opinions 14-81; 11-125).
Further, unsubstantiated claims of bias on the part of a judge ordinarily do not raise reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality or otherwise objectively require the judge’s disqualification (see e.g. Opinion 23-70). While the defendant and his/her counsel may be unhappy about the supervised visitation order, we note that the order was already in effect before the defendant set things into motion by contacting the judge’s child on social media.[1]
On the facts presented, we conclude this judge need not disqualify in the matrimonial action merely because the defendant allegedly dated the judge’s child over a decade ago in high school and recently reached out to the judge’s child on social media about the case. As disqualification is not mandated under objective standards, the inquiring judge may continue to preside in the matter, provided the judge believes he/she can be fair and impartial. That determination is left to the judge’s sole discretion after considering all relevant factors.
[1] Since the judge did not recall the defendant as part of the judge’s child’s social circle—and indeed still does not, after review of the old photographs and an opportunity for reflection—this fact could not possibly have influenced the judge’s decision.