Opinion
December 1, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.).
The IAS Court had properly determined that plaintiff had no standing as an individual shareholder to secure a personal recovery for an alleged wrong done to a corporation (Goldstein v Consolidated Edison Co., 115 A.D.2d 34, 40, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 604) and thus there were no grounds to vacate the prior determination. Nor was the alleged newly discovered evidence probative of the issue of standing. As defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment and plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of triable material issues of fact, the grant of summary judgment was appropriate (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851).
Whether the IAS Judge should have recused herself is not properly before this Court, since, absent an allegation that recusal is mandated under Judiciary Law § 14, the Judge is the sole arbiter of whether recusal is warranted (People v Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403). We note, however, that plaintiff has not alleged anything which would give the appearance of impropriety.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.