"Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, the determination of a motion for recusal of the Justice presiding based on alleged impropriety, bias, or prejudice is within the discretion and the personal conscience of the court" ( Matter of Lew v. Sobel, 192 A.D.3d 799, 800–801, 145 N.Y.S.3d 133 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Walsh v. Abramowitz, 78 A.D.3d 852, 853, 912 N.Y.S.2d 65 ). "A court's decision in this respect may not be overturned unless it was an improvident exercise of discretion" ( D'Andraia v. Pesce, 103 A.D.3d 770, 771, 960 N.Y.S.2d 154 ).
ORDERED that the part of defendant's motion seeking sanctions against plaintiff and its attorney is denied; and it is further ORDERED that the part of defendant's motion seeking recusal of the undersigned is denied, as the fact "[t]hat the Justice has made decisions unfavorable to [defendant] hardly manifests conduct that 'would lead a reasonable [person] knowing all the circumstances to harbor doubts about the [Judge's] impartiality'" (Goodman v Goodman, 228 A.D.2d 388, 388 [1stDept 1996], quoting Scott v Brooklyn Hosp., 93 A.D.2d 577, 580 [2nd Dept 1983]; Matter of Lew v Sobel, 192 A.D.3d 799, 801 [2nd Dept 2021]; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Balducci, 165 A.D.3d 959, 960 [2nd Dept 2018] ["Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, the determination of a motion for recusal of the Justice presiding based on alleged impropriety, bias, or prejudice is within the discretion and the personal conscience of the court"]); and it is further