From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saferstein v. Klein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 5, 2001
288 A.D.2d 206 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted September 21, 2001.

November 5, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered January 24, 2000, which denied their motion for the court to recuse itself.

Norman I. Saferstein, Boca Raton, FL., and Sebastian Schiavone, Eastchester, N.Y., appellants pro se (one brief filed).

Jeffrey I. Klein, White Plains, N.Y., respondent pro se.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law — 14, a trial judge is the sole arbiter on the issue of recusal. This discretionary decision is within the personal conscience of the court, and is not overturned easily (see, People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 405-406; Ficalora v. Town Bd. Gov. of E. Hampton, 276 A.D.2d 666; Fisk v. Slye, 234 A.D.2d 983; Colburn v. Blum, 233 A.D.2d 890). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in refusing to recuse itself from the case (see, Chodos v. Barresi, 174 A.D.2d 359).

KRAUSMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, SCHMIDT and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Saferstein v. Klein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 5, 2001
288 A.D.2d 206 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Saferstein v. Klein

Case Details

Full title:NORMAN I. SAFERSTEIN, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. JEFFREY I. KLEIN, RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Nov 5, 2001

Citations

288 A.D.2d 206 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
732 N.Y.S.2d 380

Citing Cases

Walter v. Walter

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The plaintiff…

Walter v. Castrataro

Likewise, the Supreme Court's denial of that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for poor person…