From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Siegfried v. Siegfried

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1998
256 A.D.2d 23 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

December 1, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.).


The IAS Justice refused to disqualify herself, explaining that she has no personal relationship with defendant's prospective witness, she immediately disclosed her membership in the same synagogue as said witness, and to step aside a year later, after having presided over several conferences, would serve only to delay the matter. We are persuaded that the IAS Justice examined her conscience, and, absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, which does not mandate recusal based upon the relationship of the Judge to a witness ( see, Ellis v. Ellis, 235 A.D.2d 1002, 1004), or an actual ruling demonstrating bias, it is not for this Court to question this "personal" decision ( see, People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 405; Yannitelli v. Yannitelli Sons Constr. Corp., 247 A.D.2d 271, lv dismissed 92 N.Y.2d 875).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Siegfried v. Siegfried

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1998
256 A.D.2d 23 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Siegfried v. Siegfried

Case Details

Full title:JUDITH R. SIEGFRIED, Appellant, v. ROBERT SIEGFRIED, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 1, 1998

Citations

256 A.D.2d 23 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
680 N.Y.S.2d 523

Citing Cases

Ahmed v. Brucha Mortg. Bankers Corp.

Neither does case law mandate recusal merely due to a judge's acquaintanceship with an attorney or a witness…