| Prince v Prince |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 09417 [134 AD3d 1008] |
| December 23, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Matthew Prince, Respondent, v MeredithPrince, Now Known as Meredith Schechter, Appellant. |
Gassman Baiamonte Betts, PC, Garden City, NY (Stephen Gassman, RosaliaBaiamonte, and Karen Bodner of counsel), for appellant.
Campagna Johnson, P.C., Hauppauge, NY (Thomas K. Campagna, Bryan R.Johnson, and Nicholas E. Arazoza of counsel), for respondent.
Jan Murphy, Huntington, NY, attorney for the children.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Edward A. Maron, J.),dated August 18, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of thedefendant's motion which was for recusal.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a court is thesole arbiter of the need for recusal, and its decision is a matter of discretion and personalconscience" (Matter ofO'Donnell v Goldenberg, 68 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009]; see People vMoreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405-406 [1987]; Hayes v Barroga-Hayes, 117 AD3d 794 [2014]; Vigo v 501 Second St. HoldingCorp., 100 AD3d 870, 870 [2012]; Matter of Imre v Johnson, 54 AD3d 427, 427-428 [2008]).Here, the defendant failed to set forth any proof of bias or prejudice in support of hermotion for recusal (see Vigo v 501 Second St. Holding Corp., 100 AD3d at 870).Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining torecuse itself from the case. Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Leventhal and Duffy, JJ., concur.