Vigo v. 501 Second St. Holding Corp.

• Decision Date: 21 November 2012
• Parties: Norma VIGO, plaintiff-respondent, v. 501 SECOND STREET HOLDING CORP., appellant, Gihon, LLC, defendant-respondent, et al., defendants (and a third-party action).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

100 A.D.3d 870

953 N.Y.S.2d 885

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07988

Norma VIGO, plaintiff-respondent,

v.501 SECOND STREET HOLDING CORP., appellant, Gihon, LLC, defendant-respondent, et al., defendants (and a third-party action).

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Nov. 21, 2012.

Rachel Nash, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Herrick, Feinstein LLP, New York, N.Y. (Darlene Fairman of counsel), for plaintiff—respondent.

Goldman & Greenbaum, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Martin W. Goldman and Anthony Prisco of counsel), for defendant-respondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant 501 Second Street Holding Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated March 2, 2009, which denied its motion for recusal.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“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” (Matter of O'Donnell v. Goldenberg, 68 A.D.3d 1000, 1000, 890 N.Y.S.2d 331;see People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 405–406, 521 N.Y.S.2d 663, 516 N.E.2d 200;Matter of Imre v. Johnson, 54 A.D.3d 427, 863 N.Y.S.2d 473). Here, the appellant failed to set forth any proof of bias or prejudice in support of its motion for recusal ( see Gihon, LLC v. 501 Second St., LLC, 77 A.D.3d 709, 908 N.Y.S.2d 610;*886Daulat v. Helms Bros., Inc., 57 A.D.3d 938, 871 N.Y.S.2d 321;Matter of Alizia McK., 25 A.D.3d 429, 808 N.Y.S.2d 657).

The appellant's remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit.

DILLON, J.P., FLORIO, AUSTIN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.