You are here: / / THE JUDGE PRESIDING OVER THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED...
,

THE JUDGE PRESIDING OVER THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFFS’ RECUSAL MOTION; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS ACTIVE IN THE JUDGE’S ELECTION CAMPAIGN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judge in a traffic accident case should have granted plaintiffs’ recusal motion. Plaintiffs had learned defense counsel was active in the judge’s election campaign and had failed to disclose that information to the parties:

…Justice Muller did not disclose to the parties that defense counsel and his law firm were providing assistance to his judicial campaign. Plaintiffs independently learned of the fundraiser, prompting them to raise the issue and seek the judge’s recusal. The record establishes that the law firm hosted a fundraising event for Justice Muller, that the names of defense counsel and five other attorneys from his firm appeared as supporters on Justice Muller’s campaign website and that defense counsel wrote a favorable opinion letter endorsing Justice Muller’s candidacy which appeared in several news publications throughout the Fourth Judicial District. Furthermore, the JCEC’s [Judicial Campaign Ethics Center’s] … letter clearly states that Justice Muller was “disqualified, subject to remittal, from presiding over matters involving defense counsel and his law firm, including partners and associates, during the course of [his] judicial campaign” … . Although we have no way of knowing Justice Muller’s reasons or intentions, it is undisputed that he did not disclose the JCEC letter to the parties until a month after receiving it, when his campaign results became official, and he was elected to a new term of office. As judges need to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, Justice Muller should have disclosed the JCEC letter upon receipt and recused from the matter as soon as possible (see Rules Governing Jud Conduct [22 NYCRR] §100.3 [E] [1]; Advisory Comm on Jud Ethics Op 03-64 [2003]). Therefore, Justice Muller abused his discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion for recusal. Minckler v D’Ella, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00017, Third Dept 1-4-24

Practice Point: Here the judge’s failure to disclose to the parties defense counsel’s involvement in the judge’s election campaign required recusal.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A FOOTING FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE WHICH HAD BEEN REMOVED; ALTHOUGH THE CITY APPROVED THE REMOVAL OF THE POLE IT PLAYED NO ROLE IN ITS REMOVAL; THEREFORE THE CITY DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION AND THE LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE RELIEVED THE CITY OF LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT).
Sole Officer of Dissolved Corporation Personally Liable for Post-Dissolution Debts Attributed to “New Business”
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO VACATE HER CONVICTION BASED UPON AN APPELLATE DECISION WHICH CAME OUT AFTER HER APPEAL BUT BEFORE SHE APPLIED FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS; THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION WHICH HELD THE EXECUTIVE LAW ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO BE PROSECUTED BY THE “JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS” UNCONSTITUTIONAL SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT FIREFIGHTER DEMONSTRATED HIS PTSD IS RELATED TO THE HORRIFIC INJURIES AND DEATHS HE WITNESSED DOING HIS JOB; WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE 3RD DEPARTMENT, JOINING THE 2ND, HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING, DESPITE ITS CIVIL NATURE; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).
ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO BOOKMAKERS FOR REPAYMENT OF A $170,000 LOAN ENFORCEABLE, DESPITE THE MONEY-LAUNDERING PURPOSE (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Contest Referral of Support-Arrearages to Tax Department Precluded Further Court Action
CLAIMANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SUFFICIENT ATTEMPTS TO RETURN TO WORK TO WARRANT BENEFITS; TOTAL INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY CLAIM SENT BACK, JUDGE AND BOARD FAILED TO DISCUSS THE RELEVANT FACTORS IN THE DENIAL OF THAT CLAIM.

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

THE GUARANTOR OF RENT DUE UNDER A LEASE FOR A BARBERSHOP FORCED TO CLOSE BY... IF A PATIENT DOES NOT REQUEST A COMBINED HEARING UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW...