Opinion
March 13, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.).
Although a defendant who withdraws a guilty plea may request that he be tried before a different Judge, such person is not automatically entitled to have the Judge who accepted his guilty plea recuse himself from further proceedings absent one of the statutory bases for disqualification set forth in section 14 Jud. of the Judiciary Law. The trial court is, in the exercise of its "personal conscience", the "sole arbiter" of a claim that recusal is warranted (People v Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 405; Matter of Johnson v Hornblass, 93 A.D.2d 732, 733). In the instant matter, the record reveals that the court acted within its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for recusal. Nor did the court, after deciding that it would allow inquiry into the underlying facts of the defendant's 1985 youthful offender adjudication for attempted robbery in the third degree, improperly refuse to issue a Sandoval ruling further setting forth the extent of permissible cross-examination as to that adjudication. Pursuant to People v Sandoval ( 34 N.Y.2d 371), the court is required only to delineate the crimes which may be used for impeachment purposes (People v Wilson, 100 A.D.2d 690).
Equally lacking in merit is defendant's contention that the trial court committed reversible error by summarily holding the defendant in criminal contempt for verbally assaulting one of the court clerks. Contrary to defendant's assertions, the "[d]isorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior" did occur in the "immediate view and presence" of the court (Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [1]; § 755). Moreover, defendant was afforded a "reasonable opportunity to make a statement in his defense or in extenuation of his conduct", and he failed to offer a defense or justification prior to his being held in contempt ( 22 NYCRR 604.2 [a] [3]; Matter of Rodriguez v Feinberg, 40 N.Y.2d 994; Janousek v Janousek, 108 A.D.2d 782). In any event, the appropriate method of reviewing a summary adjudication of criminal contempt where the record is inadequate to permit review is by means of a CPLR article 78 proceeding (Judiciary Law § 752; People v Epps, 21 A.D.2d 650; People v Sanders, 58 A.D.2d 525). Defendant's remaining arguments were not preserved as a matter of law, and we therefore decline to reach them (CPL 470.05). However, even were we to consider these claims in the interest of justice, we would nonetheless affirm, finding them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.