Majority
Ordered that the order entered January 26, 2005, is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and the motion for recusal is granted; and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered April 12, 2005, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
With respect to recusal, “[a]bsent legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a Trial Judge is the sole arbiter of recusal” (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403 , 405-406 [1987]). The decision is a discretionary one and is within the personal conscience of the court (see People v Moreno, supra; Saferstein v Klein, 288 AD2d 206 [2001]). Yet, “it may be the better practice in some situations for a court to disqualify itself in a special effort to maintain the appearance of impartiality” (People v Moreno, supra at 406 ). Under the circumstances, we find that it would have been “better practice” for the trial judge to recuse herself “in a special effort to maintain the appearance of impartiality” in this case (People v Moreno, supra at 406 ).
The ultimate issue in these proceedings calls for a determination as to which organization, the Independence Party County Committee of Nassau County, with Elizabeth Peragine as its
If Justice Stack had recused herself, the motion for reassignment of these matters to Justice DeMaro would not have been decided by her. However, for purposes of judicial economy, rather than remitting the matter to the Supreme Court to decide the motion, we have reviewed the motion and find it to be without merit. S. Miller, J.P, Mastro, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Moreno 70 NY2d 403 at 405-406 p. 424