Mehulic v. New York Downtown Hosp., 140 A.D.3d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · Go Syfert
Search
Mehulic v. New York Downtown Hosp., 140 A.D.3d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …as may be just and upon a showing of a reasonable excuse for delay or default ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, ⚠ not in text
33 citation events (33 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: 371-381 PAS Assoc., LLC v. Moss & Moss LLP (nyappdiv, 2025-04-22)
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2016 2021 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) 371-381 PAS Assoc., LLC v. Moss & Moss LLP (3×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
Moreover, given "the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits" ( Artcorp, 140 AD3d at 418), we direct Harman to serve his answer as provided above ( see LaValle v Astoria Constr. & Paving Corp., 266 AD2d 28, 28 [1st Dept 1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Emigrant Bank v. Rosabianca (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Most notably, the motion court failed to consider “the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits,” which we have held normally weighs in favor of granting such motions (Artcorp Inc. v Citirich Realty Corp., 140 AD3d 417, 418 [1st Dept 2016]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Suarna Mehulic, Appellant,
v.
New York Downtown Hospital, Respondent
1362N 103297/08.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 2, 2016.
140 A.D.3d 417
Acosta, Saxe, Gische, Webber, Kahn.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered June 9, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for recusal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s denial of recusal was an appropriate exercise of discretion (see generally People v Grasso, 49 AD3d 303, 306-307 [1st Dept 2008]). Pro se plaintiff has not shown that the Justice is “interested” in the action (Judiciary Law § 14), or that the Justice’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (Rules of Chief Admin of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 100.3 [E] [1]). Nor has she shown that the trial court, as sole arbiter of the issue, abused its discretion.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Gische, Webber and Kahn, JJ.