Opinion
06-02-2016
Suarna MEHULIC, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEW YORK DOWNTOWN HOSPITAL, Defendant–Respondent.
Suarna Mehulic, appellant pro se. Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., New York (Victoria Sloan Lin of counsel), for respondent.
Suarna Mehulic, appellant pro se.
Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., New York (Victoria Sloan Lin of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered June 9, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion for recusal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court's denial of recusal was an appropriate exercise of discretion (see generally People v. Grasso, 49 A.D.3d 303, 306–307, 853 N.Y.S.2d 64 [1st Dept.2008] ). Pro se plaintiff has not shown that the Justice is “interested” in the action (Judiciary Law § 14 ), or that the Justice's “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (Rules of Chief Admin. of Cts. [22 NYCRR] § 100.3 [E] [1] ). Nor has she shown that the trial court, as sole arbiter of the issue, abused its discretion.
ACOSTA, J.P., SAXE, GISCHE, WEBBER, KAHN, JJ., concur.