Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PAUL RYAN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. SUSAN CUNNINGHAM, ALAN LINCOLN, NANCY KERRIGAN, CHARLIE BERNET, KRISTA TASKEY, DIANA MARLEY, DAVID SMART, HUNTWOOD HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ALLIANCE LLC, MURRAY LANDSCAPING DBA AND TOWN OF MANLIUS, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order that, inter alia, denied that part of his motion seeking disqualification of the Supreme Court Justice assigned to this case. We affirm. We conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion insofar as it sought recusal. “Absent a legal disqualification ․, a Judge is generally the sole arbiter of recusal” (Matter of Murphy, 82 NY2d 491, 495 [1993]; see Judiciary Law § 14), and “the decision whether to recuse is committed to [the Judge's] discretion” (Matter of Trinity E. [Robert E.], 144 AD3d 1680, 1681 [4th Dept 2016]; see Murphy, 82 NY2d at 495; Matter of Cellino Law, LLP v Looney Injury Law PLLC, 219 AD3d 1669, 1669 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 902 [2024]). On this record, there is no legal disqualification and no showing of any bias on the court's part (see Matter of Nathan N. [Christopher R.N.], 203 AD3d 1667, 1669 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 909 [2022]).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and conclude that they do not warrant modification or reversal of the order.
Entered: October 2, 2026
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 587
Decided: October 02, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)