| Matter of McGrath v D'Angio |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05070 [85 AD3d 794] |
| June 7, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of John McGrath, Appellant, v CherylD'Angio, Respondent. |
—[*1] Mark A. Peterson, Smithtown, N.Y., for respondent.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, aslimited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kelly, J.),dated August 19, 2010, as denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Buse,S.M.), dated March 16, 2010, as denied his motion to recuse the Support Magistrate from hearingand determining the parties' support petition and cross petition.
Ordered that on the Court's own motion, the father's notice of appeal is treated as anapplication for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701 [c]); and itis further,
Ordered that the order dated August 19, 2010, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, withoutcosts or disbursements.
Where no legal basis for disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14 is alleged, "a courtis the sole arbiter of the need for recusal, and its decision is a matter of discretion and personalconscience" (Matter of O'Donnell vGoldenberg, 68 AD3d 1000 [2009]; see People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403,405-406 [1987]; Matter of Alyssa A.[Michelle N.—Sandra N.], 79 AD3d 740, 741 [2010]; Gihon, LLC v 501 Second St., LLC, 77AD3d 709 [2010]). In this case, the father failed to establish that any alleged bias by theSupport Magistrate affected her ultimate determination to his detriment. Thus, there is no basisfor finding that the Support Magistrate improvidently exercised her discretion in denying thefather's motion to recuse herself (seeSchwartzberg v Kingsbridge Hgts. Care Ctr., Inc., 28 AD3d 465, 466 [2006]; Pourooshasb v Pourooshasb, 4 AD3d404, 405 [2004]; Matter of Malinda V., 221 AD2d 549, 549-550 [1995]; Matterof Johnson v Hornblass, 93 AD2d 732, 733 [1983]; Matter of Katz v Denzer, 70AD2d 548, 549 [1979]; State Div. of Human Rights v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 59 AD2d1054, 1056 [1977]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father's objections to thatpart of the Support Magistrate's order. Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.