Opinion
5425N Index 100164/15
01-09-2018
In re Nelson SUERO, Petitioner–Appellant, v. TOURO COLLEGE, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Stewart Lee Karlin Law Group, P.C., New York (Stewart L. Karlin of counsel), for appellant. Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., Garden City (Paul F. Millus of counsel), for respondents.
Stewart Lee Karlin Law Group, P.C., New York (Stewart L. Karlin of counsel), for appellant.
Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., Garden City (Paul F. Millus of counsel), for respondents.
Renwick, J.P., Tom, Kapnick, Oing, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered August 22, 2016, inter alia, compelling arbitration of the parties' dispute, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The special referee properly exercised his discretion in declining to recuse himself on the ground of a conflict of interest (see Orr v. Yun, 95 A.D.3d 661, 945 N.Y.S.2d 237 [1st Dept. 2012] ). We find that his impartiality may not "reasonably" be questioned (see 22 NYCRR 100.3 [E][1] ) on the basis of his having been an adjunct professor at respondent Touro College's law school for "a couple of semesters," more than 15 years before the hearing in this proceeding against respondent Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine.
Petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing that his share of the cost of arbitration was prohibitively high (see Matter of Brady v. Williams Capital Group, L.P., 14 N.Y.3d 459, 462, 902 N.Y.S.2d 1, 928 N.E.2d 383 [2010] ). He did not sufficiently establish the likely cost of arbitration or the differential between arbitration and litigation costs. Even accepting counsel's conclusory estimate of those costs, petitioner did not show that he would be unable to afford them.
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.