From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Prince v. Prince

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 23, 2015
134 A.D.3d 1008 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

2015-07703 Index No. 203190/09.

12-23-2015

Matthew PRINCE, respondent, v. Meredith PRINCE, now known as Meredith Schechter, appellant.

Gassman Baiamonte Betts, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Stephen Gassman, Rosalia Baiamonte, and Karen Bodner of counsel), for appellant. Campagna Johnson, P.C., Hauppauge, N.Y. (Thomas K. Campagna, Bryan R. Johnson, and Nicholas E. Arazoza of counsel), for respondent. Jan Murphy, Huntington, N.Y., attorney for the children.


Gassman Baiamonte Betts, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Stephen Gassman, Rosalia Baiamonte, and Karen Bodner of counsel), for appellant.

Campagna Johnson, P.C., Hauppauge, N.Y. (Thomas K. Campagna, Bryan R. Johnson, and Nicholas E. Arazoza of counsel), for respondent.

Jan Murphy, Huntington, N.Y., attorney for the children.

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Edward A. Maron, J.), dated August 18, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was for recusal.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a court is the sole arbiter of the need for recusal, and its decision is a matter of discretion and personal conscience” (Matter of O'Donnell v. Goldenberg, 68 A.D.3d 1000, 890 N.Y.S.2d 331; see People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 405–406, 521 N.Y.S.2d 663, 516 N.E.2d 200; Hayes v. Barroga–Hayes, 117 A.D.3d 794, 985 N.Y.S.2d 673; Vigo v. 501 Second St. Holding Corp., 100 A.D.3d 870, 870, 953 N.Y.S.2d 885; Matter of Imre v. Johnson, 54 A.D.3d 427, 427–428, 863 N.Y.S.2d 473). Here, the defendant failed to set forth any proof of bias or prejudice in support of her motion for recusal (see Vigo v. 501 Second St. Holding Corp., 100 A.D.3d at 870, 953 N.Y.S.2d 885). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to recuse itself from the case.

MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, LEVENTHAL and DUFFY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Prince v. Prince

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 23, 2015
134 A.D.3d 1008 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Prince v. Prince

Case Details

Full title:Matthew PRINCE, respondent, v. Meredith PRINCE, now known as Meredith…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 23, 2015

Citations

134 A.D.3d 1008 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 9417
20 N.Y.S.3d 910

Citing Cases

U.S. Bank v. Morrison

Here, the defendants failed to set forth any proof of bias or prejudice to warrant the recusal. Accordingly,…

Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Balducci

Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, the determination of a motion for recusal of the…