Mehulic v. New York Downtown Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mehulic v. New York Downtown Hospital

140 A.D.3d 417, 30 N.Y.S.3d 872

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

DecidedJune 2, 2016

Docket1362N 103297/08

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 417 (Mehulic v. New York Downtown Hospital) 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

Mehulic v. New York Downtown Hospital, 140 A.D.3d 417, 30 N.Y.S.3d 872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered June 9, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for recusal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s denial of recusal was an appropriate exercise of discretion (see generally People v Grasso, 49 AD3d 303, 306-307 [1st Dept 2008]). Pro se plaintiff has not shown that the Justice is “interested” in the action (Judiciary Law § 14), or that the Justice’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (Rules of Chief Admin of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 100.3 [E] [1]). Nor has she shown that the trial court, as sole arbiter of the issue, abused its discretion.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Gische, Webber and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered June 9, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for recusal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s denial of recusal was an appropriate exercise of discretion (see generally People v Grasso, 49 AD3d 303, 306-307 [1st Dept 2008]). Pro se plaintiff has not shown that the Justice is “interested” in the action (Judiciary Law § 14), or that the Justice’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (Rules of Chief Admin of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 100.3 [E] [1]). Nor has she shown that the trial court, as sole arbiter of the issue, abused its discretion.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Gische, Webber and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 417, 30 N.Y.S.3d 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mehulic-v-new-york-downtown-hospital-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack