Mehulic v New York Downtown Hosp., 140 AD3d 417

140 AD3d 417

N.Y. App. Div. 1st

2016

Mehulic v New York Downtown Hosp.

Appellate Division, First Department

June 2, 2016

2016 NY Slip Op 04314 | 140 AD3d 417

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Suarna Mehulic, Appellant, v New York Downtown Hospital, Respondent.

Suarna Mehulic, appellant pro se.

Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., New York (Victoria Sloan Lin of counsel), for respondent.

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.