New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Judiciary Law § 21 (2026)

Judge other than of court of appeals or appellate division not to decide question argued during his absence

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 21. Judge other than of court of appeals or appellate division not
to decide question argued during his absence. A judge other than a judge
of the court of appeals, or of the appellate division of the supreme
court, shall not decide or take part in the decision of a question,
which was argued orally in the court, when he was not present and
sitting therein as a judge.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 54 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: People v. Hampton, 992 N.E.2d 1059 (NY 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

People v. Hampton, 992 N.E.2d 1059 (NY 2013). · cites it 13× “He also *283 requested a mistrial “[s]hould the Judge actually recuse [himself] from deciding [this motion], which is [his] stated intent,” citing Judiciary Law § 21. This provision says that “[a] judge other than a judge of the court of appeals, or of the appellate division of…”

Gayle v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 6 A.D.3d 183 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). · cites it 4× “), entered May 2, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion for a new trial premised on Judiciary Law § 21, and order, same court and Justice, entered June 17, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict as…”

People v. Morris, 2020 NY Slip Op 07399 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). · cites it 2× “On appeal, the defendant contends that Judiciary Law § 21 was violated because a justice other than the one who presided at the suppression hearing rendered a decision with respect to that hearing.”

Bonasera v. Town of Islip, 19 A.D.3d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). · cites it 4× “), dated May 17, 2004, which, upon the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside a jury verdict on the issue of liability in its favor and for judgment as *526 a matter of law, sua sponte, declared a mistrial pursuant to Judiciary Law § 21, and directed…”

Human Dev. Servs. of Port Chester, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vill. of Port Chester, 110 A.D.2d 135 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). “Accordingly, the judgment of Special Term dismissing the petition should be reversed, the petition granted and the determination annulled, and the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Port Chester directed to grant the petitioner’s application for an area…”

Moody v. Sorokina, 40 A.D.3d 14 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). “Because the order before us followed a full trial of the divorce action in Supreme Court, defendant has received due process (see generally Matter of Hamer v County of Tioga, 5 NY3d 136, 140 [2005]), and there was no violation of Judiciary Law § 21 (cf. Matter of Connelly-Logal…”

People v. Harris, 15 Misc. 3d 994 (2007). · cites it 4× “In any event, the successor Judge, who was not present for oral argument, was precluded from deciding the motion (see, Judiciary Law § 21; People v Cameron, 194 AD2d 438 ; People v Hooper, 22 AD2d 1006 )” (emphasis added).”

People v. Ott, 83 A.D.3d 1495 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the trial judge did not violate Judiciary Law § 21 by allegedly issuing a decision on defendant’s suppression motion without hearing the evidence in support of the motion.”

People v. Thompson, 687 N.E.2d 1304 (NY 1997). · cites it 2× “4 Defendant contends that the rights guaranteed under the State Constitution and the procedural proscriptions of Judiciary Law § 21 prohibit the *621 adoption of procedures similar to those outlined in rule 25 (a) in New York.”

People v. Banks, 2017 NY Slip Op 5474 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 3× “As is relevant here, Judiciary Law § 21 provides that a trial judge “shall not decide or take part in the decision of a question, which was argued orally in the court, when he [or she] was not present and sitting therein as a judge.” This statute has been interpreted to allow a…”

People v. Perez, 89 A.D.3d 1393 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “) did not violate Judiciary Law § 21 by allegedly issuing a decision on defendant’s suppression motion at trial without hearing the evidence in support of the motion.”

Plunkett v. Emergency Med. Serv., 234 A.D.2d 162 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · cites it 2× “Since purely legal questions were involved, all discussion was recorded in the minutes, and the successor Judge was not called upon to weigh conflicting testimony or assess credibility, Judiciary Law § 21 * would not preclude its reconsideration.”

Show all 54 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.