Corsini v. Corsini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Corsini v. Corsini

199 A.D.2d 103, 605 N.Y.S.2d 66

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 103 (Corsini v. Corsini) 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

Corsini v. Corsini, 199 A.D.2d 103, 605 N.Y.S.2d 66 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about June 11, 1993, which denied defendant’s motion for an order of recusal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

"Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a Trial Judge is the sole arbiter of recusal. This discretionary decision is within the personal conscience of the court when [104]*104the alleged appearance of impropriety arises from inappropriate awareness of 'nonjuridical data’ ” (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405, quoting People v Horton, 18 NY2d 355, 362), and is applicable even where the purpose of the application is to maintain the appearance of impartiality (supra, at 406). In this case, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination. The content of the ex parte communication with plaintiff was fully disclosed and placed upon the record by the trial court and did not involve either the merits of the case or the content of the settlement negotiations. Concur— Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about June 11, 1993, which denied defendant’s motion for an order of recusal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

"Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a Trial Judge is the sole arbiter of recusal. This discretionary decision is within the personal conscience of the court when [104]*104the alleged appearance of impropriety arises from inappropriate awareness of 'nonjuridical data’ ” (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405, quoting People v Horton, 18 NY2d 355, 362), and is applicable even where the purpose of the application is to maintain the appearance of impartiality (supra, at 406). In this case, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination. The content of the ex parte communication with plaintiff was fully disclosed and placed upon the record by the trial court and did not involve either the merits of the case or the content of the settlement negotiations. Concur— Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 103, 605 N.Y.S.2d 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corsini-v-corsini-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack