The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued Opinion 26-22(A), addressing the obligations of a Family Court judge in situations where the judge’s condominium building is contesting its property taxes with the city’s Tax Commission.
The opinion states that a Family Court judge is not obligated to disclose or disqualify themselves in matters involving the city’s Administration for Children’s Services or the Corporation Counsel’s Family Law Division simply because an “Application for Correction” has been filed on behalf of the judge’s condominium building.
The judge in question presides over cases involving staff attorneys from the Administration for Children’s Services and the Corporation Counsel’s Family Law Division, which handles juvenile and interstate/international matters. The judge inquired whether they could continue to preside over Family Court matters involving these city agencies and attorneys, considering the condominium building had commenced an administrative proceeding before the city’s Tax Commission to contest property taxes.
The Committee referenced several rules and laws in its opinion, including Judiciary Law § 14 and 22 NYCRR 100.2, 100.2(A), and 100.3(E)(1), as well as the case People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403 (1987). The Committee noted that while a judge must avoid any appearance of impropriety and act impartially (22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]) and must disqualify themselves in any proceeding where their impartiality might be questioned (22 NYCRR 100.3[E]; Judiciary Law § 14), disqualification is not mandatory in this case.
The opinion emphasizes that it addresses the narrow issue of the judge’s obligations during the administrative proceeding stage, before any court case has been filed.
The Committee concluded that a judge’s impartiality cannot be reasonably questioned in all matters involving a city’s agencies and attorneys simply because the judge owns a unit in a building that has filed an administrative challenge to its property tax assessment with an independent city agency.
