New York Commission: Judge Katherine Levine Admonished Misconduct for Garbage Fines

• Kings County Supreme Court Judge Katherine A. Levine received a judicial misconduct admonishment.
• She repeatedly invoked her judicial role and trial schedule while contesting three New York City sanitation citations.
• The incidents occurred between March 2024 and November 2025, concerning garbage in front of her Brooklyn home.
• The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued its determination on October 2, announced November 3, 2026.
• Commission administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian stated that leveraging judicial office to avoid fines undermines public confidence in the judiciary.

A judge invoking their official capacity to circumvent a fine erodes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.

Kings County Supreme Court Judge Katherine A. Levine faced formal admonishment from the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct following a series of incidents where she leveraged her judicial position to dispute sanitation citations. The judge, who has served on the bench since 2008 without any prior disciplinary record, repeatedly referenced her judicial role and demanding court schedule while contesting three separate New York City sanitation citations. These citations were issued for garbage found in front of her Brooklyn residence, leading to what has been colloquially referred to as a "Brooklyn judge garbage fine" incident.

The events unfolded over an extended period, commencing in March 2024 and continuing through November 2025. During this time, Judge Levine engaged in communications regarding the hearings and associated fines, consistently highlighting her status as a judge and her professional obligations. This pattern of conduct, as detailed in the commission's determination, formed the basis for the subsequent finding of judicial misconduct, specifically that Judge Katherine Levine admonished misconduct by attempting to use her office for personal advantage.

The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct formally issued its determination on October 2, with the public announcement following on a Monday, November 3, 2026. The commission concluded that Judge Katherine Levine's actions constituted judicial misconduct, specifically by using her office to gain an advantage in a personal matter. This action, according to the regulatory body, directly contravenes the principles of judicial ethics in New York, which strictly prohibit the use of judicial office for private gain or to avoid ordinary civic duties.

Robert H. Tembeckjian, the commission administrator, underscored the gravity of such actions. He articulated that a judge invoking their official capacity to circumvent a fine erodes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. Furthermore, he noted that such behavior fosters the perception that judges are above the common rules that apply to all citizens, thereby undermining the very foundation of an impartial justice system. Tembeckjian also affirmed the appropriate conduct of the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, which rightly declined to grant any special consideration to the judge, treating her like any other citizen facing similar citations.

The admonishment of Kings County Supreme Court Judge Katherine Levine serves as a critical reminder of the stringent ethical standards expected of all members of the judiciary. The repeated invocation of her judicial status during disputes over a Brooklyn judge garbage fine highlights a fundamental breach of trust. Judges are entrusted with upholding the law impartially, and any action that suggests they can use their position for personal benefit undermines the very foundation of that trust and the public's perception of fairness within the legal system.

This case reinforces the principle that no individual, regardless of their professional standing, is exempt from civic responsibilities or the ordinary application of the law. The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct's decision to issue a judicial misconduct admonishment, even for a judge with an otherwise unblemished record since 2008, signals a firm commitment to maintaining the highest standards of conduct. It underscores the importance of judges adhering strictly to ethical guidelines, ensuring that the public perceives the judiciary as fair, impartial, and accountable to the same rules as everyone else, thereby preserving the essential integrity of the judicial system.

This case serves as a reminder to legal professionals of the strict ethical standards governing judicial conduct, particularly the prohibition against leveraging one's judicial office for personal advantage or to circumvent ordinary civic obligations. It underscores that even minor infractions, when tied to the abuse of judicial authority, can lead to formal admonishment and erode public confidence in the judiciary.

Source: Original reporting via Law360