Court Denies Motion For Recusal

On September 24, 2024, Justice Andrew Borrok denied a defendant’s motion for recusal. In Freedman et al. v. Rakosi et al., Index No. 655608/2023, one of the defendant’s moved to recuse Justice Borrok on the alleged grounds that an attorney for one of the other defendants had a relationship with the Court. The Court denied the motion, explaining:

At bottom, the motion seeking recusal is predicated on the assertion that because it was alleged that Frank Seddio in a case brought against him (John Geraci, John Grifonetti and Douglas Sanzone v. Frank R. Seddio, Esq. and Seddio & Associates, P.C., Index No. 152922/2024) was hired in a different case in which I was the presiding judge based on an alleged promise by Mr. Seddio that he could deliver a result based on some purported influence over me but failed to deliver on any such promise (because he did not have the influence that he allegedly promised) and that I in fact acted properly (because I denied the relief Mr. Seddio sought which the complaint indicates that I was right to deny), the retention of Mr. Seddio in this case creates the appearance of impropriety warranting my recusal. The argument is as convoluted as it is without merit.

Litigants and their lawyers cannot fabricate circumstances warranting a court's recusal. It is the court, the court's conduct and any purported bias the court has which is at issue in a recusal motion. As the opposition papers make clear, I am not related to Mr. Seddio. According to the opposition papers, the Geraci case was voluntarily dismissed. Most importantly, the allegations in the Gerraci case undermine the argument that recusal is appropriate based on Mr. Seddio' s representation of a party in this case because the Geraci plaintiffs allege that my conduct was beyond reproach.

In addition, the Geraci case itself was discussed with the parties when I was asked by the parties to try to assist the parties in settling this case. When presented with the Geraci case and an article from the newspaper which make clear that I was not subject to any purported improper influence and in fact decided the case appropriately, all parties in this matter indicated on the record that they were comfortable with the Court proceeding with settlement discussions, including having the Court shuttle between the parties to have ex parte communications to facilitate the settlement (NYSCEF Doc. No. 299).

The attorneys at Schlam Stone & Dolan litigate motions for recusal. Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning such motions.