Opinion
December 7, 2000.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered July 1 5, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, permanently enjoined defendant establishment from permitting prostitution, drug sales, or the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors, closed defendant establishment for one year and fined it $500 per day for the period from September 10, 1988 through and including January 29, 19 99, with related relief, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Tahirih M. Sadrieh, for plaintiffs-respondents.
Steven L. Kessler, for defendant-appellant.
Before: Rosenberger, J.P., Williams, Andrias, Buckley, Friedman, JJ.
Severance of the counterclaims asserted by defendant and its co-defendant owner was a proper exercise of discretion (see, 17 Vista Fee Assocs. v. Teachers Ins. Annuity Assn., 226 A.D.2d 298). The order on appeal does not violate any constitutional precepts (see, City of New York v. New St. Mark's Baths, 168 A.D.2d 311,appeal dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 939, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 854; 31 W. 21st St. Assoc. v. Evening of Unusual, Inc., 125 Misc.2d 661, 679-680). The record supports the trial court's conclusions, and no required element of plaintiffs' case was omitted. The denial of recusal was an appropriate exercise of discretion (see, Yannitelli v. D. Yannitelli Sons Constr. Corp., 247 A.D.2d 271, lv dismissed in part and denied in part, 92 N.Y.2d 875). We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.