On May 31, 2023, Defendant filed a notice of motion seeking this Court's Recusal. The notice was accompanied by a memorandum of law, the affirmation of Susan R. Necheles, Counsel for Mr. Trump and two exhibits, identified as Exhibit A and Exhibit B.^[FN1] On June 14, 2023, the People filed a memorandum of law with an accompanying affirmation and exhibits in opposition to Defendant's motion for recusal. On June 20, 2023, Susan Necheles wrote to the Court seeking leave to file a reply memorandum of law. Ms. Necheles also asked the Court to provide the defense a copy of the letter this Court had previously submitted to the Advisory [*2]Committee on Judicial Ethics "so that the defense can properly evaluate whether the Advisory Committee was fully informed about the possible conflict of interest."^[FN2] Necheles Letter at 2.

Defendant puts forth three principal arguments in support of his motion: First, he claims that "the political and financial interest" of this Court's daughter "creates an actual or perceived conflict of interest because rulings and decisions" made by this Court "may result in a financial benefit to Your Honor's daughter." Defendant's Memorandum at 1. Next, he alleges that this Court's "role in a prior case encouraging Allen Weisselberg to cooperate against President Trump and his interests shows a preconceived bias against President Trump." Defendant's Memorandum at 1. Last, it is Defendant's contention that campaign contributions made by this Court in 2020, "raise if true, at the very least, an appearance of impartiality [sic]." Defendant's Memorandum at 7.

The People oppose Defendant's motion on the grounds that "Defendant presents no arguments that fairly raise any actual or perceived conflict of interest or preconceived bias." People's Opposition at 1.

"The right to an impartial jurist is a basic requirement of due process." People v. Novak, 30 NY3d 222, 225 (2017). However, "[a] judge is as obliged not to recuse himself when it is not called for as he is obliged to when it is." In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., 861 F.2d 1307, 1312 (2d Cir. 1988). "Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14," which Defendant does not allege here, "a Trial Judge is the sole arbiter of recusal." People v. Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405 (1987). A trial judge's "decision in that regard will not be lightly overturned." Khan v. Dolly, 39 AD3d 649, 650 (2nd Dep't 2007).

I. Defendant's claim that this Court's daughter's employment creates an actual or perceived conflict of interest requiring recusal.

This Court's daughter is the President and Chief Operating Officer of Authentic Campaigns, Inc., a digital marketing agency that works with Democratic Party candidates as well as non-profit organizations. Defendant posits that because of her position with Authentic Campaigns, she "stands to financially benefit from decisions this Court makes in this case." Defendant's Memorandum at 4. Because "it is likely that many of President Trump's opponents . . . will attempt to use this case — and any rulings by the Court — to attack" Defendant and that "her work at, and financial interests in [Authentic Campaigns] . . . raises real and legitimate concerns about this Court's impartiality." Defendant's Memorandum at 8. The People argue that Defendant's claims are so "remote, speculative, 'possible or contingent,'" (Kilmer v. Moseman, 124 AD3d 1195, 1198 (3rd Dep't 2015)), that recusal would simply not be warranted here. People's Opposition at 2. And that "[r]ecusal is required 'only where there exists a direct, personal, substantial or pecuniary interest in reaching a particular conclusion.'" People's Memorandum at 2, quoting, People v. Alomar, 93 NY2d 239, 246 (1999).

Defendant endeavors to advance this claim by relying upon several opinions of the New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, despite necessarily conceding that none of [*3]the opinions is on point.^[FN3] Defendant's Memorandum at 11-12. Defendant's attempts to analogize those opinions with the facts herein, fail. However, on May 4, 2023, the Advisory Committee issued an opinion in direct response to this Court's earlier inquiry.^[FN4] On the specific issue of the employment of this Court's daughter, the Committee wrote "the matter currently before the judge does not involve either the judge's relative or the relative's business, whether directly or indirectly. They are not parties or likely witnesses in the matter, and none of the parties or counsel before the judge are clients in the business. We see nothing in the inquiry to suggest that the outcome of the case could have any effect on the judge's relative, the relative's business, or any of their interests."^[FN5]

Defendant has failed to demonstrate that there exists concrete, or even realistic reasons for recusal to be appropriate, much less required on these grounds. The speculative and hypothetical scenarios offered by Defendant fall well short of the legal standard.

Defendant's motion for recusal on these grounds is therefore Denied.

II. Defendant's claim that this Court must recuse because it allegedly engaged in inappropriate conduct in the case of the People of the State of New York v. The Trump Corporation, et al., Ind. No 1473/2021

The matter of the People v. The Trump Corporation, et al., involved two corporate entities, legally distinct from Defendant, which were tried and convicted last year on 17 felony counts of tax fraud, falsifying business records, scheme to defraud and conspiracy. This Court presided over that trial. During the pendency of that case, the corporate defendants sought this Court's recusal. In that instance, the Defendants accused this court of engaging in inappropriate conduct in the plea negotiations of a third co-defendant, Allen Weisselberg, who pled guilty prior to the trial of the corporate entities. This Court denied that motion for recusal. Defendant now moves for this Court's recusal on the very same grounds that were previously rejected in People v. The Trump Corporation. That the identical grounds are now raised on behalf of a different defendant, on an entirely different indictment, only serve to weaken the plausibility of the claim.

As indicated supra, Defendant attaches to the instant motion as Exhibit A, the same memorandum of law and affirmation of Susan Necheles, filed in support of the Trump Corporation's motion for recusal in 2022. The affirmation of Susan Hoffinger in opposition to the motion is attached as Exhibit B.

Ms. Necheles' affirmation, Exhibit A, which is signed under penalty of perjury, consists of four pages and five exhibits and claims to be based "upon personal knowledge or upon information and belief, the source of my knowledge being my review of court and other documents, statements by counsel for the People and Allen Weisselberg, and an independent investigation into the facts." Necheles Affirmation at 1. Despite this assurance, the affirmation [*4]is almost entirely devoid of direct, personal knowledge and is instead premised upon second-hand information, the source of which Ms. Necheles does not identify with any degree of specificity. For example, in Paragraph 3, Ms. Necheles represents that the nine sub-paragraphs that are to follow, are based upon her conversations with counsel for Mr. Weisselberg. However, she does not identify which statements are attributable to which of Mr. Weisselberg's attorneys. Indeed, with few exceptions, the affirmation is bereft of any actual quotes directly attributable to any specific person. Nor do any of the five exhibits consist of affirmations or affidavits from anyone who presumably provided the basis of Ms. Necheles' information and belief. This Court finds the allegations in the affirmation inaccurate and the conclusions drawn therefrom misleading.

In contrast, the affirmation of Susan Hoffinger, attached as Defense Exhibit B, is founded in large part, upon first-hand knowledge. The original ^[FN6] 14 page, 40 paragraph affirmation, contains nine exhibits, including copies of e-mails exchanged between the parties and a letter from Mary Mulligan, one of the attorneys for Mr. Weisselberg. The document, which is also signed under the penalty of perjury, refutes the Necheles affirmation with a factual, detailed and chronological account of the events leading up to Mr. Weisselberg's plea.

Defendant's motion for recusal on these grounds is denied for the same reasons it was denied the first time, a fortiori, now that the claim is brought by a different defendant in a different action.

III. Defendant's motion for an explanation to clarify on the record, campaign contributions made to a political candidate, other than Donald J. Trump and to other causes.

Defendant argues that political contributions to a candidate other than Donald J. Trump, and to other political causes, require an on-the-record explanation. Defendant's Memorandum at 14. Defendant further asserts that "[t[he Court should therefore clarify the record concerning these contributions — and give the defense a chance to further address the implication of that explanation — or otherwise recuse itself from this case." Defendant's Memorandum at 17. The People note that Defendant does not directly move for recusal on the basis of the contributions and ask the Court to "decline to recuse if it considers [the] question sua sponte." People's Memorandum at 12. The People present three distinct arguments. First, the reported political contributions are a de minimus donation, not warranting recusal. Anderson v. Belke, 80 AD3d 483, 483 (1st Dep't 2011)(even a greater than normal contribution by defense counsel to a judge's re-election campaign did not establish a risk of bias because "it was only a small percentage of the total contributions to the campaign"); Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 882-884 (2009) (recusal was warranted where a litigant contributed $3 million to a justice's campaign, the sum surpassed the total donations of all supporters by 300% and was "pivotal" in the election results.) Second, the People submit that the reported political contributions do not raise a plausible concern regarding the appearance of impartiality because "a judge's identification with a political party is not an indication that a judge is incapable of acting impartially." MacDraw, Inc. v. CIT Grp. Equip. Fin., Inc., 138 F.3d 33, 38 (2d Cir. 1998). People's Memorandum at 14. Finally, the People argue that Defendant's concern regarding this Court's compliance with the New York Rules Governing Judicial Conduct is properly raised in a [*5]different forum.

The donations at issue are self-evident and require no further clarification. Moreover, the Advisory Committee has opined that this Court "is not ethically required to disclose [the contributions]." Advisory Opinion at 2. There is therefore no need or requirement for an on-the-record explanation. Defendant's request for a clarification "so that the defense can assess whether these donations separately warrant Your Honor's recusal," is Denied. Defense Motion at 17.

Regarding the possibility of recusal, this Court declines to consider the matter sua sponte. In the alternative, had the motion for recusal been made on these grounds, it would be denied. Advisory Opinion 23-54 addressed this question: "[o]n the facts before us, it is sufficient to say that these modest political contributions made more than two years ago cannot reasonably create an impression of bias or favoritism in the case before the judge. Accordingly, we conclude the judge's impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned on this basis[.]" Advisory Opinion at 2.

"The judge presiding over a case is in the best position to appreciate the implications of those matters alleged in a recusal motion. In deciding whether to recuse himself, the trial judge must carefully weigh the policy of promoting public confidence in the judiciary against the possibility that those questioning his impartiality might be seeking to avoid the adverse consequences of his presiding over their case." In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., 861 F.2d 1307, 1312 (2d Cir. 1988). This Court has carefully weighed the competing interests outlined in Drexel Burnham Lambert and finds that recusal would not be in the public interest. Further, this Court has examined its conscience and is certain in its ability to be fair and impartial.

Defendant's motion for recusal and for an explanation is Denied on all grounds.

The above constitutes the Decision of this Court.