In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, by permission, from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Genchi, J.), dated June 10, 2009, which denied his motion for recusal.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, ARIEL E. BELEN and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.
(Docket Nos. V-951-09, V-952-09, V-953-09, V-954-09)
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a court is the sole arbiter of the need for recusal, and its decision is a matter of discretion and personal conscience (see People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405-406; Irizarry v State of New York, 56 AD3d 613, 614; Matter of Imre v Johnson, 54 AD3d 427, 427-428). Here, the father failed to set forth any demonstrable proof of bias to warrant the conclusion that the court's refusal to recuse itself was an improvident exercise of discretion (see Matter of Imre v Johnson, 54 AD3d at 428; Schwartzberg v Kingsbridge Hgts. Care Ctr., Inc., 28 AD3d 465, 466; Anjam v Anjam, 191 AD2d 531).
MASTRO, J.P., SANTUCCI, BELEN and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...