The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion stating that a judge may sell personal household items through a yard sale or on an online platform, provided the judge acts as a private citizen without indicating their judicial status.
Opinion 25-154 addresses the ethical considerations for a full-time judge inquiring about the permissibility of selling items such as clothing, accessories, and appliances on platforms like eBay, Poshmark, Craigslist, and Facebook Marketplace.
The committee emphasized that such sales should be “one-off or very occasional, rather than ongoing.” The opinion references several relevant rules and prior opinions, including 22 NYCRR 100.2, 100.2(A), 100.4(A)(1)-(3), 100.4(D)(1)(a)-(c), 100.4(D)(3), and Opinions 21-22(B), 15-17, 03-02, and 95-74.
The committee underscored the importance of judges avoiding even the appearance of impropriety and acting to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality, as outlined in 22 NYCRR 100.2 and 100.2[A]. Extra-judicial activities must not cast doubt on a judge’s capacity to act impartially, detract from the dignity of judicial office, or interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties, according to 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3].
The opinion also cites the rule that a judge must not engage in financial or business dealings that could be perceived as exploiting their judicial position, involve the judge with any business that ordinarily comes before the court, or involve the judge in frequent transactions with lawyers or others likely to come before the court (22 NYCRR 100.4[D][1]). A full-time judge must not be an active participant in any business entity unless an exception applies (22 NYCRR 100.4[D][3]).
The committee distinguished the scenario from previous opinions, such as one advising that a full-time judge may not engage in a “continuing activity of buying and selling carpets,” even if considered a hobby, as it constitutes a business (Opinion 95-74). They contrasted this with Opinion 03-02, where a judge sought guidance on disposing of a large sports memorabilia collection acquired 30 years prior, which the committee deemed permissible through methods like direct sale, consignment, or auction.
The committee concluded that the inquiring judge’s proposal to sell personal household items to declutter their home did not constitute an ongoing business activity. However, the judge should not direct any advertising of such sales to attorneys or exploit their judicial position.
