Opinion
2015–12250 Index No. 30754/10
04-04-2018
US BANK, N.A., respondent, v. Clement MORRISON, etc., et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
Clement Morrison, Springfield Gardens, NY, and Vyanne McBean, Springfield Gardens, NY, appellants pro se (one brief filed).
Clement Morrison, Springfield Gardens, NY, and Vyanne McBean, Springfield Gardens, NY, appellants pro se (one brief filed).
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendants Clement Morrison and Vyanne McBean from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Denis J. Butler, J.), dated October 6, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of their motion which was for recusal.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In 2010, the plaintiff commenced this action against Clement Morrison and Vyanne McBean (hereinafter together the defendants), among others, to foreclose a mortgage. In May 2015, the defendants moved, inter alia, for recusal, alleging that the Supreme Court was biased against them in favor of the plaintiff and its attorney. In an order dated October 6, 2015, the Supreme Court denied that branch of the motion. The defendants appeal.
"Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a court is the sole arbiter [of its] recusal, and its decision is a matter of discretion and personal conscience" ( Aebly v. Lally, 140 A.D.3d 677, 678, 31 N.Y.S.3d 889 ; see Prince v. Prince, 134 A.D.3d 1008, 20 N.Y.S.3d 910; Vogelgesang v. Vogelgesang, 71 A.D.3d 1131, 898 N.Y.S.2d 211 ). Here, the defendants failed to set forth any proof of bias or prejudice to warrant the recusal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the subject branch of the defendants' motion (see Prince v. Prince, 134 A.D.3d at 1008, 20 N.Y.S.3d 910 ; Vogelgesang v. Vogelgesang, 71 A.D.3d at 1131, 898 N.Y.S.2d 211 ).
CHAMBERS, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.