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.
IN RE: John McGrath, appellant, v. Cheryl D'Angio, respondent.
Submitted—May 20, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kelly, J.), dated August 19, 2010, as denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Buse, S.M.), dated March 16, 2010, as denied his motion to recuse the Support Magistrate from hearing and determining the parties' support petition and cross petition.
ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the father's notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated August 19, 2010, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Where no legal basis for disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14 is alleged, “a court is the sole arbiter of the need for recusal, and its decision is a matter of discretion and personal conscience” (Matter of O'Donnell v. Goldenberg, 68 AD3d 1000, 1000; see People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 405–406; Matter of Alyssa A. [Michelle N.-Sandra N.], 79 AD3d 740, 741; Gihon, LLC v. 501 Second St., LLC, 77 AD3d 709). In this case, the father failed to establish that any alleged bias by the Support Magistrate affected her ultimate determination to his detriment. Thus, there is no basis for finding that the Support Magistrate improvidently exercised her discretion in denying the father's motion to recuse herself (see Schwartzberg v Kingsbridge Hgts. Care Ctr., Inc., 28 AD3d 465, 466; Pourooshasb v. Pourooshasb, 4 AD3d 404, 405; Matter of Malinda V., 221 A.D.2d 549, 549–550; Matter of Johnson v. Hornblass, 93 A.D.2d 732, 733; Matter of Katz v. Denzer, 70 A.D.2d 548, 549; State Div. of Human Rights v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 59 A.D.2d 1054, 1056). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father's objections to that part of the Support Magistrate's order.
RIVERA, J.P., SKELOS, HALL and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2010–09154 (Docket Nos. F–16488–09, F–2506–10)
Decided: June 07, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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.
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.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)