Matter of O'Donnell v Goldenberg

Matter of O'Donnell v Goldenberg 2009 NY Slip Op 09472 [68 AD3d 1000] December 15, 2009 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 10, 2010

In the Matter of Stacey O'Donnell, Formerly Known as Stacy Goldenberg, Respondent,
v
Alan Goldenberg, Appellant.

—[*1] Reynolds, Caronia, Gianelli, Hagney, LaPinta & Quatela, LLP, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Dawn L. Hargraves of counsel), for appellant.

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, by permission, from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Genchi, J.), dated June 10, 2009, which denied his motion for recusal.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a court is the sole arbiter of the need for recusal, and its decision is a matter of discretion and personal conscience (see People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405-406 [1987]; Irizarry v State of New York, 56 AD3d 613, 614 [2008]; Matter of Imre v Johnson, 54 AD3d 427, 427-428 [2008]). Here, the father failed to set forth any demonstrable proof of bias to warrant the conclusion that the court's refusal to recuse itself was an improvident exercise of discretion (see Matter of Imre v Johnson, 54 AD3d at 428; Schwartzberg v Kingsbridge Hgts. Care Ctr., Inc., 28 AD3d 465, 466 [2006]; Anjam v Anjam, 191 AD2d 531 [1993]). Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.