D'Alessio v. Gilberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Alessio v. Gilberg

208 A.D.2d 625, 618 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9621

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 625 (D'Alessio v. Gilberg) 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

D'Alessio v. Gilberg, 208 A.D.2d 625, 618 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to compel pre-action disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3102 (c), Michael Gilberg appeals, as limited by his brief and notice of appeal, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), entered January 6, 1993, as denied that branch of his motion which was to have Mr. Justice Wood recuse himself from the case.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Where, as here, there is no allegation that Justice Wood is legally disqualified from presiding over a proceeding (see, Judiciary Law § 14), disqualification is only appropriate where the court’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned (see, Matter of Johnson v Hornblass, 93 AD2d 732). On the record before us we conclude that Justice Wood did not improvi[626]*626dently exercise his discretion in concluding that recusal was not warranted (see, People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403). Lawrence, J. P., Ritter, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to compel pre-action disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3102 (c), Michael Gilberg appeals, as limited by his brief and notice of appeal, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), entered January 6, 1993, as denied that branch of his motion which was to have Mr. Justice Wood recuse himself from the case.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Where, as here, there is no allegation that Justice Wood is legally disqualified from presiding over a proceeding (see, Judiciary Law § 14), disqualification is only appropriate where the court’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned (see, Matter of Johnson v Hornblass, 93 AD2d 732). On the record before us we conclude that Justice Wood did not improvi[626]*626dently exercise his discretion in concluding that recusal was not warranted (see, People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403). Lawrence, J. P., Ritter, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 625, 618 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dalessio-v-gilberg-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack