Ryan v. Cunningham

Oct 2, 2026
587 CA 25-02028
Reporters:
,
Before:
Whalen, Lindley, Curran, Greenwood, Skinner

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order that, inter alia, denied that part of his motion seeking disqualification of the Supreme Court Justice assigned to this case. We affirm. We conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion insofar as it sought recusal. “Absent a legal disqualification . . . , a Judge is generally the sole arbiter of recusal” (Matter of Murphy, 82 NY2d 491, 495 [1993]; see Judiciary Law § 14), and “the decision whether to recuse is committed to [the Judge‘s] discretion” (Matter of Trinity E. [Robert E.], 144 AD3d 1680, 1681 [4th Dept 2016]; see Murphy, 82 NY2d at 495; Matter of Cellino Law, LLP v Looney Injury Law PLLC, 219 AD3d 1669, 1669 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 902 [2024]). On this record, there is no legal disqualification and no showing of any bias on the court‘s part (see Matter of Nathan N. [Christopher R.N.], 203 AD3d 1667, 1669 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 909 [2022]).

We have considered plaintiff‘s remaining contentions and conclude that they do not warrant modification or reversal of the order.

Entered: October 2, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court