Property · MBE-tested
In the Matter of New York State Urban Development Corporation, Doing Business as Empire State Development Corporation, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring in Fee Simple Certain Real Property Currently Owned by Fallsite, LLC, and Known as: 232 Sixth Street, 700 Rainbow Blvd., 231 Sixth Street, 626 Rainbow Blvd., and 701 Falls Street, City of Niagara Falls, Situated in the County of Niagara, State of New York and Having, Respectively, the Following Tax Sections, Blocks and Lots: 159.09-2-25.122, 159.09-2-25.112, 159.09-2-25.121, 159.09-2-25.111 and 159.09-2-25.211, Together with All Compensable Interests Therein Currently Owned by Fallsite, LLC, et al., Appellants
94 A.D.3d 1545942 N.Y.S.2d 914·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2012·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of New York State Urban Development Corporation, Doing Business as Empire State Development Corporation, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring in Fee Simple Certain Real Property Currently Owned by Fallsite, LLC, and Known as: 232 Sixth Street, 700 Rainbow Blvd., 231 Sixth Street, 626 Rainbow Blvd., and 701 Falls Street, City of Niagara Falls, Situated in the County of Niagara, State of New York and Having, Respectively, the Following Tax Sections, Blocks and Lots: 159.09-2-25.122, 159.09-2-25.112, 159.09-2-25.121, 159.09-2-25.111 and 159.09-2-25.211, Together with All Compensable Interests Therein Currently Owned by Fallsite, LLC, et al., Appellants.
[942 NYS2d 914]
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered January 24, 2011. The order, inter alia, denied respondents’ cross motion for a mistrial and recusal.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this condemnation proceeding, respondents appeal from an order that, inter alia, denied their cross motion for a mistrial and recusal based upon Supreme Court’s alleged relationship with a partner at the law firm representing petitioner and comments made by the court in other proceedings concerning the viability of development in the Niagara Falls area. We affirm. Neither of the grounds raised in support of recusal invoke the court’s mandatory duty to recuse itself (see Judiciary Law § 14). Thus, recusal was a matter for the court’s discretion, and we perceive no abuse of that discretion (see Caplash v Rochester Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery Assoc., LLC, 63 AD3d 1683, 1686 [2009]; Matter of Gutzmer v Santini, 60 AD3d 1295 [2009], lv dismissed 12 NY3d 889 [2009]). Present — Centra, J.P., Eeradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.