Gutnik v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gutnik v. New York City Transit Authority

169 A.D.2d 587, 564 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 538

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D.2d 587 (Gutnik v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Gutnik v. New York City Transit Authority, 169 A.D.2d 587, 564 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about May 16, 1990, denying an application by plaintiff for an order of recusal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s negligence action is presently pending before Judge Lehner. During pretrial proceedings, it was disclosed that Judge Lehner’s friend was suing the wife of plaintiff’s trial counsel in Small Claims Court. The Small Claims matter had been pending for quite some time, having been on approximately 12 times. The Judge had reviewed his friend’s file and was apprised of the results.

New York State Judiciary Law § 14 provides the only statu[588]*588tory authority for disqualification of a Judge, none of which requires recusal on the facts presented. Where, as here, there is no statutory authority to legally disqualify a Judge, a claim of "bias or prejudice or unworthy motive on the part of a Judge, unconnected with an interest in the controversy, will not be a cause for disqualification, unless shown to affect the result.” (Matter of Johnson v Hornblass, 93 AD2d 732, 733.) Until the case is tried, it cannot be said plaintiff is aggrieved. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about May 16, 1990, denying an application by plaintiff for an order of recusal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s negligence action is presently pending before Judge Lehner. During pretrial proceedings, it was disclosed that Judge Lehner’s friend was suing the wife of plaintiff’s trial counsel in Small Claims Court. The Small Claims matter had been pending for quite some time, having been on approximately 12 times. The Judge had reviewed his friend’s file and was apprised of the results.

New York State Judiciary Law § 14 provides the only statu[588]*588tory authority for disqualification of a Judge, none of which requires recusal on the facts presented. Where, as here, there is no statutory authority to legally disqualify a Judge, a claim of "bias or prejudice or unworthy motive on the part of a Judge, unconnected with an interest in the controversy, will not be a cause for disqualification, unless shown to affect the result.” (Matter of Johnson v Hornblass, 93 AD2d 732, 733.) Until the case is tried, it cannot be said plaintiff is aggrieved. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 587, 564 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gutnik-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack