Fisk v. Slye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fisk v. Slye

234 A.D.2d 983, 651 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13744

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 983 (Fisk v. Slye) 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

Fisk v. Slye, 234 A.D.2d 983, 651 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13744 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion for recusal (see, Kern v City of Rochester, 217 AD2d 918). Absent a legal disqualification pursuant to Judiciary Law § 14, a Trial Judge is the "sole arbiter” of recusal (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405; see, People v Bibbs, 177 AD2d 1056, lv denied 79 NY2d 918). Plaintiffs cannot rely upon depositions that were taken after the order on appeal was entered. Those depositions are not part of the record on appeal (see, Skinner v City of Glen Cove, 216 AD2d 381). This Court is limited by the record on appeal (see, Block v Nelson, 71 AD2d 509, 511) and does not consider matters in the briefs that were not before the nisi prius court. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.—Recusal.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion for recusal (see, Kern v City of Rochester, 217 AD2d 918). Absent a legal disqualification pursuant to Judiciary Law § 14, a Trial Judge is the "sole arbiter” of recusal (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405; see, People v Bibbs, 177 AD2d 1056, lv denied 79 NY2d 918). Plaintiffs cannot rely upon depositions that were taken after the order on appeal was entered. Those depositions are not part of the record on appeal (see, Skinner v City of Glen Cove, 216 AD2d 381). This Court is limited by the record on appeal (see, Block v Nelson, 71 AD2d 509, 511) and does not consider matters in the briefs that were not before the nisi prius court. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.—Recusal.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 983, 651 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisk-v-slye-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack