Mehulic v. New York Downtown Hospital

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

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.