| New York First Acupuncture, P.C. a/a/o Anitta Allen v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. |
| Motion No: 2008-02079 qc |
| Slip Opinion No: 2010 NY Slip Op 67353(U) |
| Decided on March 23, 2010 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department, Motion Decision |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports. |
APPELLATE TERM : 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
| NEW YORK FIRST ACUPUNCTURE, P.C. a/a/o ANITTA ALLEN, Appellant, -against- STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
DECISION
The branch of appellant's motion seeking the recusal of Justice Joseph G. Golia is denied.
The second branch of appellant's motion which seeks my recusal from "hearing matters involving any professional corporation owned by Valentina Anikeyeva" was referred to me. Consequently, I do not separately address herein the first branch of the motion seeking leave to appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department.
A decision regarding recusal, based upon allegations that a particular justice cannot be fair due to his or her harboring a certain prejudice or personal animus towards a particular person, is a matter left up to that justice's personal conscience and sound discretion to determine whether he or she can be fair and impartial. Contrary to appellant's counsel's assertions, I harbor no animus or prejudice concerning medical providers owned by Ms. Anikeyeva, and I can unequivocally state that I have always rendered fair and impartial decisions in every case that has come before me, including those cases involving an Anikeyeva-owned entity. Indeed, I have conducted a review of approximately three years of decisions rendered by the Appellate Term for the 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts which involved Anikeyeva-owned facilities. I have found that of the 15 cases in which I participated as a member of the panel, 3 decisions of the Appellate Term were in favor of the provider, in which I separately concurred with the majority, and 12 decisions of the Appellate Term were not in favor of the provider. Of those 12 decisions, I concurred in 9, separately concurred in part and dissented in part in 2, and took no part in 1. In the two cases in which I separately concurred in part and dissented in part, my difference with the majority merely involved the extent of discovery to which the defendant insurance company was entitled.
My determinations have been based solely on the record before me. They do not, as appellant's counsel has asserted, focus on a particular litigant. I note that appellant's counsel has employed inappropriate language in making such assertions.
Accordingly, the branch of the motion seeking my recusal is denied.
____________________________________
Associate Justice, Appellate Term