Judicial Ethics Opinion 19-162
A judge whose spouse is a forest ranger with law enforcement responsibilities is disqualified from cases based on work done by the judge's spouse.
July 15, 2020 at 09:56 AM
7 minute read
The Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics responds to written inquiries from New York state's approximately 3,600 judges and justices, as well as hundreds of judicial hearing officers, support magistrates, court attorney-referees, and judicial candidates (both judges and non-judges seeking election to judicial office). The committee interprets the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 100) and, to the extent applicable, the Code of Judicial Conduct. The committee consists of 27 current and retired judges, and is co-chaired by former associate justice George D. Marlow of the Appellate Division and the Honorable Margaret Walsh, a justice of the Supreme Court.
Digest: A judge whose spouse is a forest ranger with law enforcement responsibilities: (1) is disqualified from cases involving tickets issued by his/her spouse or based on work done by the judge's spouse; (2) may attend his/her spouse's professional awards ceremony.
Rules: CPL 1.20(v); 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(B); 100.3(B)(6); 100.3(E)(1); 100.3(E)(1)(e); 100.3(E)(1)(e)(I)-(ii); 100.3(F); 100.4(D)(5); 100.4(D)(5)(b); Opinions 19-89; 19-59; 19-51;17-150; 13-65; 11-67; 09-97; 08-50; 02-81.
Opinion: A new part-time judge asks two questions about his/her spouse's employment as a forest ranger with law enforcement responsibilities. We will discuss each separately.
We first note a judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2), must act to promote public confidence in the judiciary's integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]), and must not allow family, social, political, or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[B]).
1. Tickets Involving the Judge's Spouse
As a forest ranger, the judge's spouse regularly issues tickets for violations to be heard in the judge's court. [1] The spouse also works with other law enforcement officers who may issue tickets based on his/her work. For example, the judge's spouse may "be running radar in a particular area and an officer makes a stop down the road" and the officer then issues a ticket to a defendant motorist for an alleged Vehicle and Traffic Law violation. The judge asks if he/she may preside in these matters.
A judge must disqualify him/herself when his/her impartiality "might reasonably be questioned" (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1]), including when a fourth-degree relative by blood or marriage is likely to be a material witness in the proceeding (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][e]). For a relative within the second degree, remittal is not available unless strict conditions are met (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][e][I]-[ii]; 100.3[F]).
Applying these rules, we said a judge "is disqualified from Vehicle and Traffic Law matters in which the judge's first-degree relative is the issuing police officer of a traffic infraction, and remittal is unavailable" (Opinion 19-51). Also, where a judge's spouse is a sergeant with the sheriff's road patrol division, we said the judge is disqualified from "all cases or proceedings in which [the] spouse is involved or appears, and in any cases or proceedings where officers who are subject to [the] spouse's supervision appear" (Opinion 13-65). Thus, the judge must "refrain from handling any cases involving pleas defendants enter by mail for tickets [the judge's] spouse, or any officer [his/her] spouse supervises, issued" (id.).
As described in Opinion 19-51 (citations omitted):
Inasmuch as the officer who issued the ticket is likely to be a witness in a proceeding involving a traffic infraction, the inquiring judge must recuse when the judge knows that the relative has issued the ticket. The judge need not, however, separately scrutinize all pleadings to determine whether his/her relative is the issuing officer but must disqualify if the relative's role is actually known or readily available, such as when the officer's name appears on the ticket.
We note the judge may, if he/she wishes, consider adopting procedures to minimize the disruption of learning partway through a case that his/her spouse is personally involved. For example, the court clerk could review new case filings to see if the judge's spouse's name is mentioned, or the judge's spouse could voluntarily advise the court clerk if he/she is likely to be personally involved in a matter, even if he/she was not the issuing officer. The judge must not, of course, discuss cases with his/her spouse (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][6] [prohibiting ex parte communications unless an exception applies]).
Although we expect remittal of disqualification will be extremely rare, if not impossible, when the judge's spouse personally issued a defendant's ticket or participated in a defendant's arrest, we nonetheless set forth the remittal process for completeness. When the judge's spouse is personally involved in a matter, the judge's disqualification is not subject to remittal unless all the following conditions are strictly met. First, the judge's spouse must not have personally appeared in the court proceeding and must be unlikely to do so (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][e][I]). Indeed, the spouse must remain "permanently absent" from the courtroom in order to offer remittal (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][e][ii]). Second, the proceeding cannot be ex parte, such as a search warrant application (see Opinions 17-150; 09-97; 08-50). Third, all parties must be represented by counsel (see id.). Fourth, the judge must fully disclose the basis for his/her disqualification on the record, including the nature of the relationship (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[F]). Fifth, the parties who have appeared and not defaulted and their attorneys, without the judge's participation, all must agree the judge may preside (see id.). And, finally, the judge must independently conclude he/she can be impartial and is willing to preside (see id.). At that point, and not before, the judge may accept remittal of disqualification; to do so, he/she must incorporate the parties' and their attorneys' agreement into the record (see id.; Opinions 19-89; 19-59).
2. Awards Ceremony Involving the Judge's Spouse
The judge's spouse has previously received professional awards from the state or the forest ranger division for his/her work. The judge thus asks if he/she may attend similar awards ceremonies or other functions honoring his/her spouse's professional accomplishments.
A judge must not accept, and must urge family members residing in his/her household not to accept, any "gift, bequest, favor or loan" unless an exception applies (22 NYCRR 100.4[D][5]). One exception is for an award "incident to the business, profession or other separate activity of a spouse," provided the award "could not reasonably be perceived as intended to influence the judge in the performance of judicial duties" (22 NYCRR 100.4[D][5][b]).
We have said a judge may attend a Police Benevolent Association's fund-raising dinner (see Opinion 02-81) or its annual awards dinner and tribute to fallen officers (see Opinion 11-67). Neither situation could be reasonably perceived as intending to influence the judge in the performance of the judge's judicial duties. Thus, we conclude the judge may attend an awards function/ceremony given in honor of the judge's spouse incident to the spouse's business or professional performance, and may accept free admission if offered (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[D][5][b]).
[1] Forest rangers "are sworn Police Officers authorized to enforce all state laws, with special emphasis on Environmental Conservation Law and the protection of state lands and the public using state lands" (see Forest Rangers, https://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/41086.html [accessed Feb. 26, 2020]; CPL 1.20[v]). In addition to parking and traffic infractions, they have issued tickets for "Fire Prevention Law Violations," "ATV Violation," "State Land Offense," and "Fish and Wildlife Offense" (Forest Ranger Division Fact Sheet for 2018, https://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/2369.html [accessed Feb. 26, 2020]).
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRapper 50 Cent Sues NYC Jeweler for $5 Million Over Imitation Necklace, Use of Image
'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readAttorneys Ordered to Apologize to South Philadelphia Residents Following 'Scream Test' Experiment
5 minute readNew York's Court System Says More Work Is Needed To Clear Up Case Delays
13 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250