NEWELL v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2023)

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alicia Gerez, J.), entered on or about June 21, 2022, which denied plaintiff's motion for recusal pursuant to 22 NYCRR 100 and Judiciary Law Section 14, and, upon recusal, for vacatur of a prior order dated January 24, 2022, same court and Justice, and transfer of this matter to a different Justice, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

Courts are precluded from “considering questions which, although once live, have become moot by passage of time or change in circumstances” (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980]).  Here, in Newell v. City of New York, 204 A.D.3d 574, 574, 167 N.Y.S.3d 485 [1st Dept. 2022], this Court affirmed summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff's complaint, rejecting plaintiff's argument that the medical record produced by defendants was materially incomplete (id. at 575, 167 N.Y.S.3d 485), the same allegation that formed the basis of plaintiff's undecided motion seeking spoliation sanctions against defendants.  To the extent plaintiff still seeks determination of his spoliation motion, the issue has been rendered moot (see Kenney v. City of New York, 74 A.D.3d 630, 630–631, 903 N.Y.S.2d 53 [1st Dept. 2010]).  Nothing in the record supports plaintiff's allegation that the court displayed bias to warrant recusal or vacatur of the court's prior order denying plaintiff's motion for reargument and renewal with respect to the order awarding defendants summary judgment affirmed by this Court (see Newell at 574–575, 167 N.Y.S.3d 485).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.