Burke v. Carrion
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*921The appellant contends that the Supreme Court should have recused itself based on certain comments it made during a prior unrelated trial in which the appellant was a named defendant. Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a court is the sole arbiter of the need for recusal, and its decision is a matter of discretion and personal conscience (see Irizarry v State of New York, 56 AD3d 613, 614 [2008]). Here, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the comments cited do not demonstrate that the Supreme Court was biased and, thus, its refusal to recuse itself was not an…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Nicastro v. ParkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- O'Donnell v. GoldenbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Razzaque v. Krakow Taxi, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- DiGiacomo v. Cabrini Medical CenterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Stanisich v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Matter of State of New York v. David M.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Matter of Lazaroff v. AcevedoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- State v. Colvin M.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. VillnaveAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Matter of OteriAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.