1997-14
View/download document
Cite as N.Y. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 1997-14
UNIFORM JUSTICE COURT ACT §§ 1802, 2019-a; 22 NYCRR § 214.2(b).
The village court clerk may not also serve as a probation
officer.
March 10, 1997
David Rabin, Esq.
Informal Opinion
Village Attorney
No. 97-14
Village of Tannersville
120 Lafayette Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10013-3129
Dear Mr. Rabin:
You have asked whether the village court clerk may accept
employment with the New York State Probation Department as a
probation officer when her duties will require her to work with
probationers in the vicinity of the village. You have also
inquired whether the village court clerk must have daily regular
office hours during which he or she is available for inquiries
regarding court matters.
With regard to your first inquiry, we are aware of no
constitutional or statutory provision that bars one person from
serving as village court clerk and a probation officer. In the
absence of a constitutional or statutory prohibition against
dual-officeholding, one person may hold two offices
simultaneously unless they are incompatible. The leading case on
compatibility of office is People ex rel. Ryan v Green, 58 NY 295
(1874). In that case the Court held that two offices are
incompatible if one is subordinate to the other or if there is an
inherent inconsistency between the two offices. The former can
be characterized as "you cannot be your own boss", a status
readily identifiable. The latter is not easily characterized,
for one must analyze the duties of the two offices to ascertain
whether there is an inconsistency. An obvious example is the
inconsistency of holding both the office of auditor and the
office of director of finance.
There are two subsidiary aspects of compatibility. One is
that the principle equally covers an office and a position of
employment or two positions of employment. Also, where positions
are compatible, a conflict of interests may arise out of the
simultaneous holding of the positions. The conflict can be
avoided by declining to participate in the disposition of the
particular matter.
In several prior opinions, we concluded that the office of
probation officer is not compatible with positions where the
potential for conflict creates an appearance of impropriety. In
2
Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 91-61, we concluded that the offices of
probation officer and police officer are incompatible. We noted
that the probation officer has a duty to make impartial reports
to assist the sentencing court and that this function could be
compromised if the officer also served as a police officer. In
Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 89-27, we concluded that a probation
officer may not be employed by the district attorney to perform
the duties of coroner. Again, we noted that a probation officer
should serve as a disinterested third party in preparing
objective reports for the court. A link between the probation
officer and the district attorney raised a potential conflict
that, in our view, created the appearance of impropriety.
Accordingly, we found the positions incompatible.
Similarly, in a prior opinion we concluded that one person
could not simultaneously serve as a secretary in a county
probation department and as a town justice because the positions
are incompatible. There we noted that the duties of the two
positions could conflict because the probation department
regularly reports to the court on the progress of probationers
and has regular contact with the judicial branch. We reasoned
that the potential for such reports to include criticism of
particular justices, or for particular justices to be critical of
probation officials made the positions incompatible.
While none of these prior opinions covers the precise
question you ask, in our view the same rationale applies to the
situation you present. The objectivity required of a probation
officer could be adversely affected by the officer's employment
as village court clerk. The village court clerk is employed and
supervised by the village justice. This link could adversely
affect the objectivity of reports submitted by the probation
officer to the village court or other courts. In any event, the
potential for conflict creates an appearance of impropriety which
undermines public confidence in the integrity of government.
As to your second inquiry regarding the office hours of the
village court clerk, the Uniform Justice Court Act does not
prescribe specific hours of operation for the court clerks'
offices. It does provide, however, that in criminal matters the
records and dockets of the court must be open to public
inspection at reasonable times. Uniform Justice Court Act
§ 2019-a. The Act also requires the small claims part of the
court to be open at least one evening per month unless the Chief
Administrator of the Courts grants an exemption. Id., § 1802.
The Uniform Civil Rules for the justice courts regulate the
places and hours for holding court. The Rules state that each
court shall establish the days and times when it shall be in
session, subject to modification by the Chief Administrator, and
provide for publication of the schedule. 22 NYCRR § 214.2(b).
The same rule provides that the clerk's office "shall be open at
3
hours established by each court, subject to the further order of
the Chief Administrator".
We conclude that the village court clerk may not also serve
as a probation officer.
The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to
officers and departments of State government. This perforce is
an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this
office.
Very truly yours,
SIOBHAN S. CRARY
Assistant Attorney General