Brooklyn V. Macellaio v. Jean–Paul B. Lewis et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO DISQUALIFY

The plaintiff has filed a motion to disqualify Judge James W. Abrams “from having judicial authority” over this matter ¹ and to void all previous orders entered by Judge Abrams.   His motion claims that the judge is biased toward the plaintiff “due to [the plaintiff's] disability.”

Pursuant to Practice Book § 1–22(b), Judge Abrams referred the disqualification issue to this court for hearing and decision.   A hearing was held on April 17, 2013.   At his request, the plaintiff was excused from attendance, and he was present via a telephone hookup from the courtroom to his home in Brooklyn, New York. The defendant, an attorney who is representing himself in this action, was present and had an opportunity to be heard in opposition to the motion.

The defendant correctly points out that the plaintiff's motion is improper in that it is not “accompanied by an affidavit setting forth the facts relied upon to show the grounds for disqualification,” as required by Practice Book § 1–23.   Because the plaintiff is representing himself, however, and “because an accusation of judicial bias or prejudice strikes at the very core of judicial integrity and tends to undermine public confidence in the established judiciary”;  Peatie v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 112 Conn.App. 8, 25 (2012);  the court will address the merits of the motion.

Since the plaintiff filed no affidavit in support of his motion, did not request to present evidence on the motion ² and did not testify under oath at the hearing, the court has only his argument to consider in ruling on the motion to disqualify.   Such unsworn claims are necessarily entitled to less weight than sworn testimony.

At the April 17 hearing the plaintiff argued that Judge Abrams had a “personal vendetta” against him, rather than claiming, as he had in his motion, that the judge was biased because of any disability from which the plaintiff suffers.   When his claims are examined, however, they amount to nothing more than a belief that the court's rulings were improper because they were not in his favor.  “Adverse rulings do not themselves constitute evidence of bias.”   State v. Fullwood, 194 Conn. 573, 582 (1984).

For example, the plaintiff complained in his motion and at the hearing of the judge's denial of an application for waiver of fees and costs in another case as evidence of judicial bias toward him.   He failed to note, however, that the judge stated in his order denying the application that he would be willing to reconsider his ruling should the plaintiff request a hearing on the application and submit credible sworn testimony supporting his claim of indigence.   The plaintiff did not request a hearing on his application, as he could have pursuant to General Statutes § 52–259b(c).

More to the point, it was Judge Abrams who granted the plaintiff's application for waiver of fees and payment of costs to commence this action.

Likewise, the plaintiff complained of the court's grant of the defendant's motion for reconsideration of an earlier ruling in this case, defaulting the defendant for claimed discovery noncompliance.   Once again, the plaintiff told only part of the story at the hearing on April 17.   While the court did grant the defendant's motion, it denied all of the sanctions that the defendant requested be imposed on the plaintiff, even though the plaintiff's conduct, as described by the defendant,³ would have merited severe sanctions if substantiated.

Finally, the plaintiff pointed out in his motion to disqualify and at the April 17 hearing that he has filed both civil actions and ethics complaints against the judge.  “A judicial authority is not automatically disqualified from sitting on a proceeding merely because an attorney or party to the proceeding has filed a lawsuit against the judicial authority or filed a complaint against the judicial authority with the judicial review council.”   Practice Book § 1–22(b).

This court finds nothing in the plaintiff's motion or in his unsworn claims at the hearing on April 17, 2013 that would warrant the court's grant of his motion to disqualify.   Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

BY THE COURT

Joseph M. Shortall

Judge Trial Referee

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Plaintiff's motion also requests disqualification of Judge Abrams in “previous, future or current matters,” but the court's order will be limited to this matter..  FN1. Plaintiff's motion also requests disqualification of Judge Abrams in “previous, future or current matters,” but the court's order will be limited to this matter.

FN2. When he filed his motion to disqualify, the plaintiff noted on the motion, “Testimony Not Required.”.  FN2. When he filed his motion to disqualify, the plaintiff noted on the motion, “Testimony Not Required.”

FN3. The defendant claimed that plaintiff had made false representations to the court in the plaintiff's motion for default for the defendant's alleged non-compliance with discovery requests..  FN3. The defendant claimed that plaintiff had made false representations to the court in the plaintiff's motion for default for the defendant's alleged non-compliance with discovery requests.

Shortall, Joseph M., J.T.R.