Summary
This uncorrected slip opinion from the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, addresses a child's appeal from a Family Court order denying motions to recuse the presiding judge and disqualify the petitioner's counsel in a child abuse and neglect proceeding. The appellate court dismissed the portion of the appeal challenging the denial of reargument as non-appealable and affirmed the lower court's rulings on the recusal and disqualification motions. The court held that the movant failed to demonstrate judicial bias or present new facts sufficient to warrant renewal under applicable procedural rules.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Family Court erred in denying the child's motion for leave to renew the motion to disqualify petitioner‑respondent's counsel.
- Whether the Family Court erred in denying the child's motion for recusal of the presiding judge.
Holdings
- The denial was proper because the child offered no new facts that would have changed the prior determination, and the family court's discretionary denial was not an improvident exercise of discretion.
- The denial was proper because the child failed to show any bias, prejudice, or familial relationship that would warrant recusal; such determinations are within the court's discretion and not subject to reversal absent an improvident exercise.
Key quotations
“A motion for leave to renew 'shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination' (CPLR 2221[e][2]) and 'shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion' (CPLR 2221[e][3]).” (at 1)
“Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14 or Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3(E)(1)(d)(i), the determination of a motion for recusal of the Justice presiding based on alleged impropriety, bias, or prejudice is within the discretion and the personal conscience of the court.” (at 1)
Factual background
In May 2022 the petitioner commenced proceedings under Family Court Act article 10 alleging abuse by the father and neglect by the mother. The child later moved to disqualify the petitioner‑respondent's counsel, and subsequently moved for recusal of the presiding judge and to renew the disqualification motion. The family court denied both the recusal motion and the motion to renew the disqualification motion.
Procedural history
The Family Court, Orange County, denied the child's motion to disqualify counsel (Feb. 16, 2024) and later denied the child's motions for recusal and for leave to renew the disqualification motion (Apr. 11, 2024). The child appealed those denials to the Appellate Division.