From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

York v. York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 26, 1998
250 A.D.2d 837 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

May 26, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.)


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellants motion for an award of additional interim counsel and accounting fees as she failed to submit the proper documentation needed for the award of such fees ( see, Corrao v. Corrao, 209 A.D.2d 573; Dunne v. Dunne, 172 A.D.2d 482; Coppola v. Coppola, 129 A.D.2d 760).

Further, absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a Trial Judge is the sole arbiter on the issue of recusal. Since the appellant failed to demonstrate that any determinations in the case were the result of bias, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in failing to recuse itself from the case ( see, Matter of Malinda v., 221 A.D.2d 549).

The appellants remaining contentions are without merit.

Bracken, J.P., OBrien, Copertino and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

York v. York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 26, 1998
250 A.D.2d 837 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

York v. York

Case Details

Full title:ESTHER YORK, Appellant, v. JOSEPH YORK, Respondent

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

Date published: May 26, 1998

Citations

250 A.D.2d 837 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
690 N.Y.S.2d 458

Citing Cases

Robert Marini Builder, Inc. v. Rao

The mere allegation of bias is insufficient to require recusal (see, Matter of Kidder, 255 A.D.2d 852, 853,…

McKiernan v. McKiernan

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Under the…