Leombruno v. Leombruno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leombruno v. Leombruno

150 A.D.2d 902, 540 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6217

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

DecidedMay 11, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 150 A.D.2d 902 (Leombruno v. Leombruno) 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

Leombruno v. Leombruno, 150 A.D.2d 902, 540 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Dier, J.), entered July 1, 1988 in Warren County, which denied defendant’s motion to disqualify the assigned Supreme Court Justice.

After issue was joined in this divorce action, defendant moved to disqualify Supreme Court Justice John G. Dier from hearing and determining the issues raised. It appears that defendant and Justice Dier live near each other and, according to defendant, have had disagreements resulting in police intervention. Plaintiff opposed the motion, which was claimed to be merely another in a long series of delaying tactics. Justice Dier refused to recuse himself, concluding that the court’s impartiality had not been reasonably questioned. From the order entered thereon, defendant appeals.

Concededly, there is no basis for statutory disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14. The Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts, however, provide that "[a] judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3 [c] [1]). Defendant’s allegations and documentary evidence raise serious questions as to the relationship between Justice Dier and defendant which could easily be interpreted by some as affecting the Justice’s impartiality. Accordingly, Justice Dier should have disqualified himself in accordance with the Chief Administrator’s rules.

Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion granted. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Dier, J.), entered July 1, 1988 in Warren County, which denied defendant’s motion to disqualify the assigned Supreme Court Justice.

After issue was joined in this divorce action, defendant moved to disqualify Supreme Court Justice John G. Dier from hearing and determining the issues raised. It appears that defendant and Justice Dier live near each other and, according to defendant, have had disagreements resulting in police intervention. Plaintiff opposed the motion, which was claimed to be merely another in a long series of delaying tactics. Justice Dier refused to recuse himself, concluding that the court’s impartiality had not been reasonably questioned. From the order entered thereon, defendant appeals.

Concededly, there is no basis for statutory disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14. The Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts, however, provide that "[a] judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3 [c] [1]). Defendant’s allegations and documentary evidence raise serious questions as to the relationship between Justice Dier and defendant which could easily be interpreted by some as affecting the Justice’s impartiality. Accordingly, Justice Dier should have disqualified himself in accordance with the Chief Administrator’s rules.

Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion granted. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.D.2d 902, 540 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leombruno-v-leombruno-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack