Chodos v. Barresi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chodos v. Barresi

174 A.D.2d 359

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 6, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 174 A.D.2d 359 (Chodos v. Barresi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chodos v. Barresi, 174 A.D.2d 359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered February 26, 1990, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on the merits, after a non-jury trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff asserts that the alleged appearance of bias on the part of the trial court warrants a reversal and a remand for a new trial, based solely on the fact that almost six years prior to the trial she alleges that she had filed a complaint against the Judge with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. We find this allegation to be without support in the record. While an appearance of bias on the part of a Trial Judge may be proper grounds for reversal, plaintiff’s perception of such bias must be "made in good faith and based upon identifiable factors”. (People v Zappacosta, 77 AD2d 928, 929.) Here, plaintiff’s complaint about Judge Saks, is not a valid identifiable factor which would warrant a reversal of the instant judgment. (Cf., People v Corelli, 41 AD2d 939.) Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered February 26, 1990, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on the merits, after a non-jury trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff asserts that the alleged appearance of bias on the part of the trial court warrants a reversal and a remand for a new trial, based solely on the fact that almost six years prior to the trial she alleges that she had filed a complaint against the Judge with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. We find this allegation to be without support in the record. While an appearance of bias on the part of a Trial Judge may be proper grounds for reversal, plaintiff’s perception of such bias must be "made in good faith and based upon identifiable factors”. (People v Zappacosta, 77 AD2d 928, 929.) Here, plaintiff’s complaint about Judge Saks, is not a valid identifiable factor which would warrant a reversal of the instant judgment. (Cf., People v Corelli, 41 AD2d 939.) Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chodos-v-barresi-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack