KELLEY v. ZAVALIDROGA (2008)

 We conclude with respect to the order in appeal No. 1 that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to recuse itself based on its alleged bias resulting from the court's former status as a partner in the law firm where defendant previously was employed as well as the court's friendship with a partner in the law firm representing plaintiffs.   Defendant's “allegation of possible bias is too speculative to warrant the conclusion that the court abused its discretion in refusing to recuse itself here” (Matter of Rumsey v. Niebel, 286 A.D.2d 564, 565, 730 N.Y.S.2d 591).

 We conclude with respect to the order in appeal No. 2 that the court properly denied defendant's motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness.   The motion was not made within the requisite 20 days after service of the note of issue and certificate of readiness and, because defendant failed to show good cause for the untimely motion, “no such motion shall be allowed” (22 NYCRR 202.21[e];  see Marks v. Morrison, 275 A.D.2d 1027, 714 N.Y.S.2d 167).   Finally, we conclude with respect to the order in appeal No. 3 that the court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in this declaratory judgment action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) and (7) (see generally Hallock v. State of New York, 39 A.D.2d 172, 174, 332 N.Y.S.2d 762, affd. 32 N.Y.2d 599, 347 N.Y.S.2d 60, 300 N.E.2d 430).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: