Anderson v Belke

Anderson v Belke 2011 NY Slip Op 00165 Decided on January 13, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 13, 2011
Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Freedman, Richter, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
4054N 600126/09 602210/08

[*1]Benjamin L. Anderson, etc. Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Carl P. Belke, et al., Defendants-Respondents.



Benjamin L. Anderson, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Eugene H. Blabey, II, et al., Defendants-Respondents.




Benjamin L. Andersen, New York appellant pro se.
Harter Secrest & Emery LLP, Rochester (A. Paul Britton of
counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered October 14, 2009, which denied plaintiff's motions to renew defendants' motions to change venue to Livingston County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The fact that defendants' counsel contributed to the re-election campaign of Justice Kenneth A. Fisher, the Livingston County Justice likely to preside over these actions upon their transfer, is not a fact that would have influenced the determination to change venue (see CPLR 2221[e]). As defendants note, this argument is more appropriately advanced in support of a motion for recusal.

In any event, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there is a serious risk of actual bias on Justice Fisher's part. The record shows that hundreds of lawyers and law firms that appear before him contributed to his campaign. We agree with the J.H.O. that, while the contribution of defendants' counsel may have been greater than the average contribution of other law firms, it was only a small percentage of the total contributions to the campaign and therefore not so great as to suggest a risk of bias. "Not every campaign contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge's recusal," and this is no "exceptional case" (see Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., ___ US ___, ___, 129 S Ct 2252, 2263 [2009]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 13, 2011

CLERK