On March 27, 2023, Justice Crane of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in G & Y Maintenance Corp. v. 540 W. 48th St. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op. 30965(U), denying a recusal motion based on an adverse decision, explaining:
Upon learning that this motion was referred to this judge, as it rightly was as this case is currently assigned to this Part, plaintiff’s counsel bizarrely interposed an affirmation in support of cross motion seeking contradicting relief of both: (1) a stay and (2) that the motion be made returnable before a different judge.
Also in motion sequence 7, defendant has cross-moved for sanctions against plaintiff and for an award of defendant’s costs and attorney’s fees associated with opposing this order to show cause. In opposition to the cross motion, plaintiff responds that a constellation of rulings create a reasonable apprehension of bias. At oral argument, plaintiff explained further that the court’s
rulings on the prior motions to dismiss were so erroneous that the mounting errors give the appearance of impropriety.Plaintiff’s motion (MS 07) is denied and defendant’s cross motion (MS 07) is denied.
If a judge had to recuse every time there was a disagreement with a decision and an appeal, the court system would cease to function. The logic leap from disagreeing with the court’s decision to bias is, frankly, bizarre.
The decision on underlying motion that plaintiff’s counsel finds so offensive was rendered after a confusing oral argument where plaintiff’s counsel referred to expert testimony that did not yet exist and plaintiff’s deposition which was not in the record. Indeed, oral argument was so unclear, the court had to take the motion on submission to consider it more closely. The court eventually held that plaintiff’s allegations that defendant Core Continental Constr., LLC was undercapitalized, such that the corporate veil should be pierced, were speculative and conclusory. It was also this court’s view that account stated was time
(Internal citations omitted).
barred. If plaintiff believes this court is wrong, plaintiff can appeal, which apparently has happened. But, to leap to the conclusion that this court is biased, because it made these decisions, has no basis whatsoever. Therefore, the court denies plaintiff’s motion seeking recusal.