From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gutnik v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 24, 1991
169 A.D.2d 587 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

January 24, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.).


Plaintiff's negligence action is presently pending before Judge Lehner. During pretrial proceedings, it was disclosed that Judge Lehner's friend was suing the wife of plaintiff's trial counsel in Small Claims Court. The Small Claims matter had been pending for quite some time, having been on approximately 12 times. The Judge had reviewed his friend's file and was apprised of the results.

New York State Judiciary Law § 14 provides the only statutory authority for disqualification of a Judge, none of which requires recusal on the facts presented. Where, as here, there is no statutory authority to legally disqualify a Judge, a claim of "bias or prejudice or unworthy motive on the part of a Judge, unconnected with an interest in the controversy, will not be a cause for disqualification, unless shown to affect the result." (Matter of Johnson v Hornblass, 93 A.D.2d 732, 733.) Until the case is tried, it cannot be said plaintiff is aggrieved.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Gutnik v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 24, 1991
169 A.D.2d 587 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Gutnik v. New York City Transit Authority

Case Details

Full title:VERONICA GUTNIK, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 24, 1991

Citations

169 A.D.2d 587 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
564 N.Y.S.2d 742