Opinion
2012-06-20
Marilyn DANIELS, appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., respondents.
Marilyn Daniels, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner and Kristin M. Helmers of counsel), for respondents.
Marilyn Daniels, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner and Kristin M. Helmers of counsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated March 8, 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 pursuant Judiciary Law § 14 are present here. Given the absence of any basis for disqualification predicated upon those express statutory provisions, the determination concerning a motion seeking recusal based on alleged impropriety, bias, or prejudice is within the discretion and “the personal conscience of the court” ( People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 405, 521 N.Y.S.2d 663, 516 N.E.2d 200;see Ashmore v. Ashmore, 92 A.D.3d 817, 820, 939 N.Y.S.2d 504;Vogelgesang v. Vogelgesang, 71 A.D.3d 1131, 1131, 898 N.Y.S.2d 211).
Here, the plaintiff failed to set forth any proof of bias or prejudice on the part of the court which would have warranted recusal ( see Matter of Greenfield, 53 A.D.3d 488, 488, 859 N.Y.S.2d 572;Vest v. Vest, 50 A.D.3d 776, 777, 855 N.Y.S.2d 597;Schreiber–Cross v. State of New York, 31 A.D.3d 425, 425, 819 N.Y.S.2d 530).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are either without merit or improperly raised for the first time on appeal.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for recusal ( see Ashmore v. Ashmore, 92 A.D.3d at 820, 939 N.Y.S.2d 504;Irizarry v. State of New York, 56 A.D.3d 613, 614, 867 N.Y.S.2d 336;*511Matter of Khan v. Dolly, 39 A.D.3d 649, 650, 833 N.Y.S.2d 608).