Daniels v. City of New York, 96 A.D.3d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Daniels v. City of New York, 96 A.D.3d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: W & H Equities, LLC v. Odums (nyappdiv, 2017-05-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) W & H Equities, LLC v. Odums
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellant’s motion which sought recusal, as the appellant failed to set forth any proof of bias or prejudice on the part of the court which would have warranted recusal (see Sassower v Gannett Co., Inc., 109 AD3d 607, 609 [2013]; Daniels v City of New York, 96 AD3d 895, 895 [2012]; see also Judiciary Law § 14).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sassower v. Gannett Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Here, Elena failed to set forth any proof of bias or prejudice on the part of the court which would have warranted recusal (see Daniels v City of New York, 96 AD3d at 895; Schreiber-Cross v State of New York, 31 AD3d at 425 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sassower v. Gannett Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Here, Elena failed to set forth any proof of bias or prejudice on the part of the court which would have warranted recusal (see Daniels v City of New York, 96 AD3d at 895; Schreiber-Cross v State of New York, 31 AD3d at 425 ).
discussed Cited "see" Pomeranz v. Shor
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
"In the context of a matrimonial action, [the Court of Appeals] has recognized that a final judgment of divorce settles the parties' rights pertaining not only to those issues that were actually litigated, but also to those that could have been litigated" ( Xiao Yang Chen v Fischer , 6 NY3d 94, 100 ; see Dayanoff v Dayanoff , 96 AD3d 895, 896 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Marilyn Daniels
v.
City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 20, 2012.
96 A.D.3d 895
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated March 8, 2011, as denied that branch of her motion which was for recusal.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The record does not reveal that any of the reasons for disqualification of a justice pursuant Judiciary Law § 14 are present here. Given the absence of any basis for disqualification predicated upon those express statutory provisions, the determination concerning a motion seeking recusal based on alleged impropriety, bias, or prejudice is within the discretion and “the personal conscience of the court” (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405 [1987]; see Ashmore v Ashmore, 92 AD3d 817, 820 [2012]; Vogelgesang v Vogelgesang, 71 AD3d 1131, 1131 [2010]).

Here, the plaintiff failed to set forth any proof of bias or prejudice on the part of the court which would have warranted recusal (see Matter of Greenfield, 53 AD3d 488, 488 [2008]; Vest v Vest, 50 AD3d 776, 777 [2008]; Schreiber-Cross v State of New York, 31 AD3d 425, 425 [2006]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are either without merit or improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for recusal (see Ashmore v Ashmore, 92 AD3d at 820; Irizarry v State of New York, 56 AD3d 613, 614 [2008]; Matter of Khan v Dolly, 39 AD3d 649, 650 [2007]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.