Opinion 24-194

December 12, 2024

Digest:  A judge may not preside in a case pertaining to the legality of a particular statutory scheme, where the judge (1) is an adjunct faculty member at an educational institution that is involved in that statutory scheme and (2) is co-teaching a course at such institution together with a principal or officer of a litigant in the case.

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

Opinion:

          The inquiring judge asks if he/she may preside in a case pertaining to the legality of a particular statutory scheme, given that the judge (1) is an adjunct faculty member at an educational institution that is involved in that statutory scheme and (2) has a pre-existing commitment for the upcoming semester to co-teach a course at that institution together with another adjunct faculty member who is, in effect, a principal or officer of one of the litigants in the case. 

          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 him/herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]).

In our view, the inquiring judge’s described connections with this specific case are close enough that the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” in the case (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]).  Therefore, the judge must not preside.