95 N.Y.2d 556 (2000)
When a court is challenged regarding an administrative action and no other judicial body can hear the matter, the Rule of Necessity compels the challenged judges to participate in the decision, absent a showing of personal bias or pecuniary interest.
Summary
The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers challenged an administrative order by the New York Court of Appeals reducing fees for assigned counsel in capital cases. They sought to disqualify Chief Judge Kaye and other judges who approved the fee reduction from hearing the motion for leave to appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Rule of Necessity required the judges to participate because the Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, the judges were named in their administrative capacity, and no personal bias or financial interest was shown. This decision underscores the balance between impartiality and the court’s essential function.
Facts
In 1995, New York reinstated the death penalty and enacted Judiciary Law § 35-b, establishing a Capital Defender Office. The Court of Appeals approved fee schedules for capital counsel. In 1998, the Court approved a reduced fee schedule.
In 1999, the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers sued, arguing the reduced fees were inadequate. The suit named the judges who approved the fee reduction in their administrative capacity.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court found the petitioners had standing but ruled against them on the merits, upholding the fee reduction. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding the petitioners lacked standing. The Appellate Division denied leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. The petitioners then moved the Court of Appeals for leave to appeal and sought to disqualify the respondent judges.
Issue(s)
- Whether Chief Judge Kaye and the other respondent judges should be disqualified from participating in the decision of the motion for leave to appeal, given they were named as parties in the lawsuit challenging an administrative order of the Court.
Holding
- No, because the Rule of Necessity requires participation by the respondent judges in this case.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over motions for leave to appeal on questions of New York law. The Court also has primary responsibility for administering the judicial branch. Disqualifying judges whenever their administrative powers are challenged would undermine the rule-making process. The Court stated, “If disqualification were required whenever the Judges were sued as individuals upon a challenge to an act of the Court, the result could be substitution of the entire constitutionally appointed court, leaving ‘the most fundamental questions about the Court and its powers to persons whose selection and retention are not tested by constitutional processes’.”
The Court emphasized that adopting a rule does not mean the Court has already determined its constitutionality. The judges were named as parties only in their administrative capacity. They had no pecuniary or personal interest in the matter, and there was no allegation of personal bias. The Court reasoned that its “dual responsibilities of diligent administration and impartial adjudication do not create a conflict requiring disqualification.”
The Court also noted, “A judge cannot be disqualified merely because a litigant sues or threatens to sue him or her. We cannot encourage such an easy method of disqualification.”
The Court found that the constitutional provision for substitute judges cannot be used to force the removal of the Court’s members by naming them as parties when challenging administrative actions of the Court. The decision aligns with those of other state high courts.