Disanto v. Disanto, 2005-04299.
| Decision Date | 30 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | 2005-04299. |
| Citation | 29 A.D.3d 936,2006 NY Slip Op 04234,815 N.Y.S.2d 468 |
| Parties | DOROTHY M. DISANTO, Respondent, v. FRANK J. DISANTO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a trial judge is the sole arbiter of his or her recusal. Since the husband failed to demonstrate that any of the Supreme Court's determinations in the case were the result of bias, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion for recusal (see York v York, 250 AD2d 837, 838 [1998]; Skripek v Skripek, 239 AD2d 488 [1997]; Anjam v Anjam, 191 AD2d 531, 532-533 [1993]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
York v. York
...of bias, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to recuse itself from the case ( DiSanto v. DiSanto, 29 A.D.3d 936, 815 N.Y.S.2d 468;see York v. York, 250 A.D.2d 837, 690 N.Y.S.2d 458).RIVERA, J.P., DICKERSON, and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.AUSTIN, J., disse......
-
Hayes v. Barroga-Hayes
...( see York v. York, 98 A.D.3d 1038, 1038, 950 N.Y.S.2d 911,affd.22 N.Y.3d 1051, 981 N.Y.S.2d 358;DiSanto v. DiSanto, 29 A.D.3d 936, 936, 815 N.Y.S.2d 468). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the money judgment dated June 15, 2012, was properly issued pursuant to the Supreme Court's ord......
- Elrington v. Staub
- Disanto v. Disanto