You are here: / / Judge Who Had Represented Defendant Not Required to Recuse Himself
, ,

Judge Who Had Represented Defendant Not Required to Recuse Himself

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott (over a substantial partial dissent which dealt with defense counsel’s antagonistic behavior toward the judge and degrading comments about the defendant), the Court of Appeals determined the trial judge, who had represented the defendant in the past on an unrelated matter (about which the judge had no specific memory), properly denied defendant’s recusal request which alleged bias on the judge’s part:

Unless disqualification is required under Judiciary Law § 14, a judge’s decision on a recusal motion is one of discretion … .  “This discretionary decision is within the personal conscience of the court when the alleged appearance of impropriety arises from inappropriate awareness of nonjuridical data” … .  We have held that for any alleged bias and prejudice to be disqualifying it “must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case” … .  People v Glynn, 155, CtApp 10-17-13

 

You might also like
THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATON AND DEVELOPMENT HAD A RATIONAL BASIS FOR FINDING THAT PETITIONER DID NOT USE HIS BROTHER’S APARTMENT AS HIS PRIMARY RESIDENCE FOR ONE YEAR PRIOR TO HIS BROTHER’S DEATH; THEREFORE PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUCCESSION RIGHTS TO THE MITCHELL-LAMA APARTMENT; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).
No Constitutional Right to a Sua Sponte Inquiry Into Defendant’s Mental Health Before Allowing Defendant to Proceed Pro Se
THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS BASED UPON STATEMENTS BY AN INFORMANT; BUT THE WARRANT APPLICATION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BASIS OF THE INFORMANT’S KNOWLEDGE; THEREFORE THE EVIDENCE SEIZED PURSUANT TO THE WARRANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).
Defense Counsel Should Have Been Present During Exchange Between Judge and Juror Which Resulted in Disqualification of Juror/Judge Should Have Disclosed Reason for Disqualification
Disclaimer Notice Sent to Insureds’ Insurer, But Not to Insureds, Invalid
Lease; Services Agreement Did Not Allow Building Owner to Recover for Condition of Property
TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY REFUSED TO CHARGE THE JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN THIS ASSAULT CASE.
RELATED PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROPERLY REQUIRED TO FILE SEPARATE REPORTS WITH THE NYS AUTHORITIES BUDGET OFFICE (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

School Employee Stated Discrimination Cause of Action City Department of Ed... Nonsignatory Could Not Be Compelled to Arbitrate Under Direct Benefit Estoppel...