People v. Ranieri

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ranieri

149 Misc. 2d 948, 574 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1991 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 537

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 23, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 149 Misc. 2d 948 (People v. Ranieri) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Ranieri, 149 Misc. 2d 948, 574 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1991 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment unanimously reversed as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and a new trial ordered.

In our opinion, under the circumstances herein, a new trial should be had in order to avoid any possibility of an appearance of impropriety. It is uncontradicted that the Judge in this nonjury case was a member of the Corporation Counsel’s office for the City of Yonkers prior to the trial and that she rejoined that office shortly after trial. It is also not denied that [949]*949prior to trial defendant had served a notice of claim upon the city for injuries he had sustained arising out of this incident. The test is not whether there exists actual bias, but whether the circumstances would give the appearance of bias or whether one could reasonably imply the existence of bias (Matter of Johnson v Hornblass, 93 AD2d 732; De Camp v Good Samaritan Hosp., 66 AD2d 766). The purpose of the rule is to insure not only that a biased Judge will not sit on a judicial proceeding, but also that no reasonable person, whether or not a party to the proceeding, will suspect the existence of partiality (Scott v Brooklyn Hosp., 93 AD2d 577).

We have reviewed the other issues raised by defendant on appeal and found them to be without merit.

DiPaola, P. J., Stark and Ingrassia, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment unanimously reversed as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and a new trial ordered.

In our opinion, under the circumstances herein, a new trial should be had in order to avoid any possibility of an appearance of impropriety. It is uncontradicted that the Judge in this nonjury case was a member of the Corporation Counsel’s office for the City of Yonkers prior to the trial and that she rejoined that office shortly after trial. It is also not denied that [949]*949prior to trial defendant had served a notice of claim upon the city for injuries he had sustained arising out of this incident. The test is not whether there exists actual bias, but whether the circumstances would give the appearance of bias or whether one could reasonably imply the existence of bias (Matter of Johnson v Hornblass, 93 AD2d 732; De Camp v Good Samaritan Hosp., 66 AD2d 766). The purpose of the rule is to insure not only that a biased Judge will not sit on a judicial proceeding, but also that no reasonable person, whether or not a party to the proceeding, will suspect the existence of partiality (Scott v Brooklyn Hosp., 93 AD2d 577).

We have reviewed the other issues raised by defendant on appeal and found them to be without merit.

DiPaola, P. J., Stark and Ingrassia, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 Misc. 2d 948, 574 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1991 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ranieri-nyappterm-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack