From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Colburn v. Blum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 8, 1996
233 A.D.2d 890 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

November 8, 1996.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

Before: Present — Denman, P.J., Pine, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.


Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion ( see, e.g., People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 406). Where, as here, there are no grounds for disqualification under the Judiciary Law ( see, Judiciary Law § 14), it is within the trial court's discretion to determine whether recusal is necessary ( see, People v Moreno, supra, at 405). We note, however, that the court should not have disqualified all potential jurors having prior experience with the hospital where defendant treated plaintiff. The disqualification of an entire pool of potential jurors on the ground of possible or implied bias is neither necessary nor proper ( see, People v Gladstone, 132 AD2d 567, 568, lv denied 70 NY2d 799). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J. — Recusal.)


Summaries of

Colburn v. Blum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 8, 1996
233 A.D.2d 890 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Colburn v. Blum

Case Details

Full title:NATALIE COLBURN, Appellant, v. JOSEPH BLUM, Respondent. (Appeal No. 2)

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Nov 8, 1996

Citations

233 A.D.2d 890 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Citing Cases

Saferstein v. Klein

Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law — 14, a trial judge is the sole arbiter on the issue of…

Matthews v. State

The Court denies Claimant's request for recusal. When recusal is not mandatory by statute (Judiciary Law §…