A New York City judge was admonished after repeatedly citing her judicial position while trying to resolve sanitation violations issued for trash outside her Brooklyn home.
Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Katherine Levine began receiving $50 sanitation summonses in March 2024, when city workers reported finding a “large accumulation” of napkins, papers and egg cartons outside her Borough Park residence, according to official records.
The judge, who has lived in the home since the 1990s, received two additional violations the following year after failing to keep the lids on her garbage containers.
During her communications with the NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, or OATH, Levine “repeatedly and gratuitously invoked her judicial title,” according to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Rather than pay the first ticket, Levine challenged it in writing. “I plead not guilty. I am a Supreme Court Justice in Kings County and went to work at 10am,” she wrote.
OATH concluded that she had not presented a valid legal defense and informed her that the $50 penalty had to be paid within 30 days. She did not make the payment.
Levine received two more $50 summonses in March and June 2025. She did not contest either one.
OATH issued default decisions in June and October after she failed to respond. As a result, the penalties rose to $300 each.
Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge Katherine Levine was admonished by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct after invoking her title while attempting to challenge trash fines
Levine was fined for leaving garbage outside her home and failing to properly secure her trash bins (stock image)
On October 14, 2025, Levine left OATH a voicemail identifying herself as Judge Katherine Levine and explaining that she had “trials every day in Supreme Court.”
That same day, she sent two emails from her official court account concerning the three violations. The messages identified the sender as Hon. Katherine A. Levine, the commission said.
“I was never notified of hearing dates on these tickets, and I cannot come down and sit in OATH for 10 hours as I am a trial judge in Supreme Court,” Levine wrote, according to the commission.
She also asked whether she could simply pay the fines without appearing at a hearing, saying she had “trials and motions every day.”
CHECK THIS OUT: Former KTLA anchor Kacey Montoya joins FOX 11 after corporate layoffs
The following day, Levine submitted an online motion regarding the summonses and again identified herself as a New York State Supreme Court justice.
“I vacate default judgments all the time in the name of equity and justice. I believe these first-time tickets for garbage disposals is 50 dollars,” she wrote, according to the commission.
OATH told her that it did not negotiate settlements and that she was required to follow the agency’s rules and procedures, just like everyone else.
Levine sent three additional emails asking to speak with a supervisor.
The judge repeatedly cited her position while seeking to avoid an OATH hearing and reduce sanitation fines stemming from three violations in 2024 and 2025
Levine had no prior disciplinary record before the commission began reviewing the matter. She has been a judge since 2008 and has served on the Kings County Supreme Court since 2017.
According to the commission, Levine “openly and repeatedly expressed her remorse and embarrassment” over allowing her frustration to influence the way she handled the Department of Sanitation summonses.
“Further, respondent recognizes that the gratuitous invocation of her judicial title was reasonably perceived at OATH as an attempt for a favorable adjudication of her summonses,” the commission said.
The commission determined that Levine’s conduct fell short of the standards expected of a judge and violated the rule barring judges from using the prestige of their office to advance their own private interests.
“By repeatedly invoking her judicial office when communicating with OATH, respondent brought reproach upon the judiciary and violated her ethical obligations,” the commission wrote.
The commission decided that a formal admonition was sufficient and imposed no further punishment.
“We trust that respondent has learned from this experience and in the future will act in strict accordance with her obligation to abide by all the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct,” it said.
Our News Outlet has contacted Levine’s lawyer for comment.
