| Aebly v Lally |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 04160 [140 AD3d 677] |
| June 1, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1](June 1, 2016)
| Richard E. Aebly, Respondent, v Regan Lally,Appellant. |
Regan Lally, Locust Valley, NY, appellant pro se.
Howard B. Leff, P.C., Garden City, NY (Alexander S. Leff of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeals from an amended order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Leonard D.Steinman, J.), dated May 1, 2014, and orders of that court dated April 25, 2014, May 22,2014, May 23, 2014, May 29, 2014 (two orders), June 10, 2014, June 23, 2014 andAugust 20, 2014. The order dated April 25, 2014, sua sponte, directed the parties toappear for a conference on May 1, 2014. The amended order dated May 1, 2014,appointed a real estate appraiser pursuant to a decision and order of this Court datedDecember 4, 2013 (see Aebly vLally, 112 AD3d 561, 563 [2013]). The order dated May 22, 2014, sua sponte,directed the parties to be available for a telephone conference on May 23, 2014. Theorder dated May 23, 2014, sua sponte, directed the defendant to show cause whysanctions should not be imposed for her failure to be available for the May 23, 2014,telephone conference. The first order dated May 29, 2014, and the order dated June 23,2014, denied the defendant's motion for the court to recuse itself. The second order datedMay 29, 2014, sua sponte, directed the defendant to appear and show cause whysanctions should not be imposed for her failure to appear on May 23, 2014, and May 29,2014. The order dated June 10, 2014, insofar as appealed from, denied the defendant'smotion to subpoena the plaintiff's employment records. The order dated August 20, 2014,inter alia, sua sponte, directed the receiver to withhold all sums due and payable to thedefendant resulting from the sales of the parties' properties until further order of thecourt.
Ordered that the appeals from the orders dated April 25, 2014, May 22, 2014, May23, 2014, the second order dated May 29, 2014, and the order dated August 20, 2014,respectively, are dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order which does not decide amotion made on notice (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]), and we decline to grant leave toappeal (see CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,
[*2] Ordered that the appeal from the amended order datedMay 1, 2014, is dismissed as abandoned (see 22 NYCRR 670.8); and it isfurther,
Ordered that the order dated June 10, 2014, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; andit is further,
Ordered that the first order dated May 29, 2014, and the order dated June 23, 2014,are affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
"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, 406 [1987]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercisedits discretion in denying the defendant's motion for recusal, since the defendant did notestablish a basis for recusal pursuant to Judiciary Law § 14, and failed to setforth any proof of bias or prejudice on the part of the court (see Petkewicz v Dutchess CountyDept. of Community & Family Servs., 137 AD3d 990 [2016]; Prince v Prince, 134 AD3d1008, 1008 [2015]; Kerleyv Kerley, 131 AD3d 1124, 1127 [2015]; Tornheim v Tornheim, 28 AD3d 534, 535 [2006]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Austin,Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.