| Irizarry v State of New York |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09034 [56 AD3d 613] |
| November 18, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Carlos Irizarry et al., Appellants, v State of New York,Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Peter H. Schiff and Kathleen M.Treasure of counsel), for respondent.
In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from an orderof the Court of Claims (Lack, J.), dated September 25, 2007, which denied their motion forrecusal.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The record does not support a finding that any of the statutory disqualifications set forth inJudiciary Law § 14 are applicable (see Matter of New York State Assn. of CriminalDefense Lawyers v Kaye, 95 NY2d 556, 561 [2000]; Schreiber-Cross v State of NewYork, 31 AD3d 425 [2006]). Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14,a court is the sole arbiter of its recusal (see 22 NYCRR 100.3; People v Moreno,70 NY2d 403, 405 [1987]; EECP Ctrs. of Am. v Vasomedical, Inc., 277 AD2d 349[2000]), and its determination that recusal is not warranted will not be disturbed unless itconstitutes an improvident exercise of discretion (see Matter of Imre v Johnson, 54 AD3d427, 427-428 [2008]). The claimants failed to set forth any proof of bias or prejudice (seeModica v Modica 15 AD3d 635, 636 [2005]; Matter of Firestone v Siems, 272 AD2d544, 545 [2000]; Anjam v Anjam, 191 AD2d 531, 532-533 [1993]). The appellatereversal of a prior related determination by the Judge to whom this claim is assigned does notalone constitute a showing of bias (see Robert Marini Bldr. v Rao, 263 AD2d 846, 848[1999]). Accordingly, the Judge's refusal to recuse himself was not an improvident exercise ofdiscretion. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Carni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.