WHEN A JUDGE RECUSES

Signed into law in December 2020 was new Judiciary Law Section 9:

"§ 9. Recusal; reason.

Any judge who recuses himself or herself from sitting in or taking any part in the decision of an action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding shall provide the reason for such recusal in writing or on the record; provided, however, that no judge shall be required to provide a reason for such recusal when the reason may result in embarrassment, or is of a personal nature, affecting the judge or a person related to the judge within the sixth degree by consanguinity or affinity."

According to the Senate:

"Judicial recusal is an important mechanism to safeguard the perception
of judicial integrity. A judge must currently disqualify themselves from
presiding over a matter when they doubt their ability to preside impar-
tially. Currently, judges also have total discretion to recuse them-
selves without giving a reason. Yet without written order specifically
justifying the recusal, it is difficult to tell whether the disquali-
fication was really necessary. Such is the instance on Long Island where
three judges recused themselves, in a short period of time, from presid-
ing over litigation between the Town of Hempstead and Double Eagle Golf.
None have cited specific reasons for recusal.  Due to this, concerns
have been raised as to whether the justification for their recusal was
legitimate.

This legislation would require a judge to give a written reason or one
on the record when he or she decides to recuse himself or herself.  This
new requirement will help improve the transparency of the judicial deci-
sion-making process. However, the legislation recognizes also recognizes
there are times when a judge must recuse themselves due to a personal
nature that would be either embarrassing to reveal or would be a breach
of privacy, in which an exemption is included in certain circumstances."