BRANDFORD v. BRANDFORD (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Eric I. Prus, J.), dated March 23, 2023.  The order, after a hearing, denied the plaintiff's motion for recusal of the Justice presiding.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The parties were married in 2016 and have one child together.  In 2017, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant for a divorce and ancillary relief.  In 2023, the plaintiff moved for recusal of the Justice presiding, alleging that the Justice presiding was biased against him.  In an order dated March 23, 2023, the Supreme Court, after a hearing, denied the motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

“Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, the determination of a motion for recusal of the Justice presiding based on alleged impropriety, bias, or prejudice is within the discretion and the personal conscience of the court” (Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Balducci, 165 A.D.3d 959, 960, 86 N.Y.S.3d 172).  Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's recusal motion, as the plaintiff did not establish any basis warranting recusal (see Gravagna v. Gravagna, 186 A.D.3d 1333, 129 N.Y.S.3d 7;  Levi v. Levi, 46 A.D.3d 520, 848 N.Y.S.2d 225).

BARROS, J.P., FORD, LOVE and HOM, JJ., concur.