Ouriel v. Ouriel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ouriel v. Ouriel

182 A.D.2d 1124, 586 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7014

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

DecidedApril 24, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 182 A.D.2d 1124 (Ouriel v. Ouriel) 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

Ouriel v. Ouriel, 182 A.D.2d 1124, 586 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7014 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant defendant’s motion for recusal. "The presence of bias or prejudice on the part of a sitting Judge is generally a matter of personal conscience (Casterella v Casterella, 65 AD2d 614, 615, app dsmd 46 NY2d 939) and is, at best, a matter of discretionary disqualification” (Matter of Smith, 84 AD2d 664, 666; see, Judiciary Law § 14). The record does not support defendant’s contention that the court acted improperly.

We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them also to be without merit. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J.— Discovery.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Fallon, JJ.

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

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant defendant’s motion for recusal. "The presence of bias or prejudice on the part of a sitting Judge is generally a matter of personal conscience (Casterella v Casterella, 65 AD2d 614, 615, app dsmd 46 NY2d 939) and is, at best, a matter of discretionary disqualification” (Matter of Smith, 84 AD2d 664, 666; see, Judiciary Law § 14). The record does not support defendant’s contention that the court acted improperly.

We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them also to be without merit. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J.— Discovery.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 1124, 586 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ouriel-v-ouriel-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack