The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued an opinion addressing whether a judge must disqualify themself from a matrimonial action due to a past connection between a party in the case and the judge’s child.
The opinion, designated as 25-94, clarifies that a judge is not automatically required to recuse themself simply because a party to a matrimonial action allegedly dated the judge’s child over a decade ago while in high school. Furthermore, recent social media contact initiated by the party towards the judge’s child regarding the case does not necessitate disqualification.
The inquiry arose after a judge ordered supervised visitation for the defendant in a matrimonial action and subsequently learned of social connections between the judge’s adult child and the defendant. The judge’s child informed the judge that the defendant had reached out on social media, claiming the judge should have recused themself due to a purported prior closeness between the defendant and the judge’s child. The judge’s child denied any romantic or dating relationship with the defendant. Prior to the judge disclosing this information in court, the defendant’s counsel requested recusal based on an alleged romantic relationship between the defendant and the judge’s child in high school, submitting old photographs as evidence. The judge stated they had no recollection of the defendant as a friend of their child and affirmed their ability to remain impartial.
The Committee referenced several rules and prior opinions in its analysis, including Judiciary Law § 14 and 22 NYCRR 100.2, 100.2(A), (B); 100.3(E)(1); 100.3(E)(1)(d)(iii); 100.3(E)(1)(e). The Committee emphasized that judges must avoid the appearance of impropriety and maintain public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality. While judges must disqualify themselves in situations where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned or where a family member is a material witness or has a substantial interest in the case, the Committee found that those objective standards for disqualification were not present in this case.
The opinion states that the judge can continue to preside over the case if they believe they can be fair and impartial. The Committee noted that the relationship between the judge’s child and the defendant, if any, is sufficiently remote and doesn’t provide a basis to question the judge’s impartiality. The Committee also stated that unsubstantiated claims of bias ordinarily do not require a judge’s disqualification.
