N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Judiciary / ARTICLE General Provisions Relating to Courts and Judges
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Judiciary Law § 17 (2026)

Judge prohibited from practicing in cause which has been before him

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 17. Judge prohibited from practicing in cause which has been before
him. A judge or surrogate or former judge or surrogate shall not act as
attorney or counsellor in any action, claim, matter, motion or
proceeding, which has been before him in his official character.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2012–2025 · leading case: Matter of Corey O. v. Angela P., 2022 NY Slip Op 02044 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Matter of Corey O. v. Angela P., 2022 NY Slip Op 02044 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). · cites it 16× “A former judge is automatically prohibited, as a matter of law, from acting as an attorney "in any action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding, which has been before him [or her] in his [or her] official character" (Judiciary Law § 17; see Matter of Czajka v Koweek , 100 AD3d…”
Matter of Gordon, 2021 NY Slip Op 01294 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). · cites it 9× “3 [E] [1] [b] [i]), an attorney may not appear for a client in a case that he or she previously presided over as a judge ( see Judiciary Law § 17; Matter of Czajka v Koweek , 100 AD3d 1136 , 1139 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 857 [2013]; see also Rules of Professional Conduct [22…”
Czajka v. Koweek, 100 A.D.3d 1136 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · cites it 5× “Judiciary Law § 17 bars such a practice and petitioner’s application should be dismissed.”
People v. Van Alphen, 2021 NY Slip Op 04056 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). · cites it 3× “Judiciary Law § 17, the governing authority for disqualifications, provides that "[a] judge .”
People v. Simmons, 103 A.D.3d 1027 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). “Initially, defendant is correct that the trial judge who presided over his criminal trial, who was thereafter elected District Attorney of Columbia County in November 2011, is precluded from acting in that prosecutorial capacity as the respondent on this appeal (see Judiciary…”
People v. Gryner, 116 A.D.3d 1247 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). “Defendant’s reliance upon Judiciary Law § 17 is misplaced (compare Matter of Czajka v Koweek, 100 AD3d 1136 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 857 [2013]), and we decline his invitation to impose a per se rule requiring disqualification of a District Attorney’s office in the…”
Matter of Czajka v. Koweek, 2020 NY Slip Op 07009 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). · cites it 2× “Respondent found that the prohibition in Judiciary Law § 17 had been triggered and, by order entered in November 2019, granted the motion to the extent of disqualifying petitioner and his staff from prosecuting the 11 charges pertaining to the victim and appointing a special…”
Matter of John II. v. Kristen JJ., 2022 NY Slip Op 05132 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). “"This prohibition is absolute and establishes a bright-line disqualification rule" ( Matter of Gordon , 192 AD3d 1206, 1207 [3d Dept 2021] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] [addressing the mirror directive codified in Judiciary Law § 17 prohibiting judges who…”
In re Columbia Cnty. Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 20, 2013, 118 A.D.3d 1081 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). · cites it 2× “The Commissioner first contends that, as the subpoena identifies the documents sought in part by reference to services provided to certain named children, Judiciary Law § 17 precludes the DA—who was formerly a Columbia County Judge—from issuing it.”
Czajka v. Koweek, 100 A.D.3d 1136 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · cites it 5× “Judiciary Law § 17 bars such a practice and petitioner’s application should be dismissed.”
Van Alphen v. Lamanna (N.D.N.Y. 2025). · cites it 2× “83 (1963), by withholding exculpatory evidence in the form of medical records from her children’s pediatrician; and (3) a claim that the prosecutor should have been automatically disqualified under N.Y. Jud. Law § 17 because, before the prosecution, he had served as the assigned…”
In re Columbia Cnty. Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 20, 2013, 118 A.D.3d 1081 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). · cites it 2× “The Commissioner first contends that, as the subpoena identifies the documents sought in part by reference to services provided to certain named children, Judiciary Law § 17 precludes the DA—who was formerly a Columbia County Judge—from issuing it.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.