| Daniels v City of New York |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04966 [96 AD3d 895] |
| June 20, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Marilyn Daniels, Appellant, v City of New York et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner and KristinM. Helmers of counsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals, as limited byher brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated March8, 2011, as denied that branch of her motion which was for recusal.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The record does not reveal that any of the reasons for disqualification of a justice pursuantJudiciary Law § 14 are present here. Given the absence of any basis for disqualificationpredicated upon those express statutory provisions, the determination concerning a motionseeking recusal based on alleged impropriety, bias, or prejudice is within the discretion and "thepersonal conscience of the court" (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405 [1987]; see Ashmore v Ashmore, 92 AD3d817, 820 [2012]; Vogelgesang vVogelgesang, 71 AD3d 1131, 1131 [2010]).
Here, the plaintiff failed to set forth any proof of bias or prejudice on the part of the courtwhich would have warranted recusal (see Matter of Greenfield, 53 AD3d 488, 488 [2008]; Vest v Vest, 50 AD3d 776, 777[2008]; Schreiber-Cross v State of NewYork, 31 AD3d 425, 425 [2006]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are either without merit or improperly raised for thefirst time on appeal.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branchof the plaintiff's motion which was for recusal (see Ashmore v Ashmore, 92 AD3d at820; Irizarry v State of New York,56 AD3d 613, 614 [2008]; Matterof Khan v Dolly, 39 AD3d 649, 650 [2007]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Austin,JJ., concur.