Summary
This Appellate Division order addresses the plaintiffs' appeal from a Supreme Court order denying their motion for leave to reargue a prior motion to vacate a summary judgment order and for judicial recusal. The court dismisses the appeal regarding the denial of reargument, noting that no appeal lies from such an order under New York law. It further affirms the denial of the recusal motion, finding the plaintiffs failed to provide proof of bias or prejudice. The remaining contentions are deemed without merit.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether an appeal lies from an order denying a motion to reargue (vacate) under CPLR 5015(a).
- Whether the trial court’s denial of a recusal motion is proper absent proof of bias under Judiciary Law § 14.
Holdings
- An appeal does not lie from an order denying a motion to reargue; such orders are not appealable.
- Absent a legal disqualification, a court’s decision on recusal is discretionary and not appealable when no proof of bias is shown.
Key quotations
“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.” (at 1)
Factual background
Plaintiffs Gounder filed a breach‑of‑contract action against Melrose Credit Union and Communicar, Inc. The trial court entered summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Communicar. The plaintiffs later moved to vacate that judgment and to seek recusal of the presiding Justice, motions that were denied.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Queens County granted summary judgment to Communicar, Inc. on March 5, 2020. The plaintiffs sought to vacate that order under CPLR 5015(a); the trial court denied the motion on April 4, 2022, and again denied a motion to reargue and a recusal motion on September 8, 2022. The plaintiffs appealed the denial of the reargument motion and the recusal denial.