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
Mother’s Violations of Conditions of a Suspended Judgment, Under the Facts, Justified Termination of Parental Rights (Against the Wishes of the Child)
Time Constraints, In Workers’ Compensation Law 25, for Seeking Reimbursement for Compensation Paid by Self-Insured Employer Applied to Workers’ Compensation Law 30 As Well
NO SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) BENEFITS CALCULATED BASED UPON THE LOSS OF USE OF THE KNEE AND ANKLE SEPARATELY, AS OPPOSED A CALCULATION BASED UPON THE LOSS OF USE OF THE LEG AS A WHOLE (THIRD DEPT).
THE REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S MEDICAL LICENSE WAS CONFIRMED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE REQUIRED STANDARD OF CARE, ESPECIALLY AS THE STANDARD APPLIES TO TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS WHO CONSENT TO AGGRESSIVE TREATMENT (THIRD DEPT). ​
A RECENT US SUPREME COURT RULING DOES NOT AFFECT THE NYS COURT OF APPEALS RULING THAT REGULATIONS REQUIRING HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES TO COVER “MEDICALLY NECESSARY ABORTIONS” BUT WHICH EXEMPT POLICIES PROVIDED BY “RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS” DO NOT IMPAIR THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION (THIRD DEPT).
WAIVER OF INDICTMENT AND SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WERE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, THE SCI DID NOT CONTAIN A CHARGE HELD FOR THE ACTION OF A GRAND JURY OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).
FINDING THAT PETITIONER’S BACK INJURY WAS NOT RELATED TO THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EXPERT TESTIMONY (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE VISITATION; CHILD’S ATTORNEY PROPERLY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO THE CHILD’S WISHES.

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...