Siegfried v. Siegfried

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Siegfried v. Siegfried

256 A.D.2d 23, 680 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12907

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 23 (Siegfried v. Siegfried) 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

Siegfried v. Siegfried, 256 A.D.2d 23, 680 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered April 9, 1998, which denied plaintiff’s motion for the IAS Justice to recuse herself, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Justice refused to disqualify herself, explaining that she has no personal relationship with defendant’s prospective witness, she immediately disclosed her membership in the same synagogue as said witness, and to step aside a year later, after having presided over several conferences, would serve only to delay the matter. We are persuaded that the IAS Justice examined her conscience, and, absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, which does not mandate recusal based upon the relationship of the Judge to a witness (see, Ellis v Ellis, 235 AD2d 1002, 1004), or an actual ruling demonstrating bias, it is not for this Court to question this “personal” decision (see, People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405; Yannitelli v Yannitelli & Sons Constr. Corp., 247 AD2d 271, lv dismissed 92 NY2d 875). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered April 9, 1998, which denied plaintiff’s motion for the IAS Justice to recuse herself, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Justice refused to disqualify herself, explaining that she has no personal relationship with defendant’s prospective witness, she immediately disclosed her membership in the same synagogue as said witness, and to step aside a year later, after having presided over several conferences, would serve only to delay the matter. We are persuaded that the IAS Justice examined her conscience, and, absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, which does not mandate recusal based upon the relationship of the Judge to a witness (see, Ellis v Ellis, 235 AD2d 1002, 1004), or an actual ruling demonstrating bias, it is not for this Court to question this “personal” decision (see, People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405; Yannitelli v Yannitelli & Sons Constr. Corp., 247 AD2d 271, lv dismissed 92 NY2d 875). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 23, 680 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegfried-v-siegfried-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack