Motion for Recusal Judge in New Jersey

What Is a Motion for Recusal?

Background

“Any party, on motion made before trial or argument and stating the reasons therefor, may apply to a judge for his disqualification.” (See Homann v. Torchinsky (1997) 296 N.J. Super. 326, 339.)

“[J]udges must avoid acting in a biased way or in a manner that may be perceived as partial.” (See DeNike v. Cupo (2008) 196 N.J. 502, 514; Borough of Lindenwold v. Jackson, No. A-1308-20, at *13 (App. Div. Apr. 6, 2022).)

“A movant need not show actual prejudice; 'potential bias' will suffice.” (See Borough of Lindenwold v. Jackson, No. A-1308-20, at *13 (App. Div. Apr. 6, 2022).)

“The motion must be made to the judge whose disqualification is sought.” (See Waldbaum v. Waldbaum, No. A-1838-15T3, at *41 (App. Div. Dec. 26, 2017).)

“A trial judge not only has the right but, moreover, has the obligation to recuse himself on his own motion if he is satisfied that there is good cause for believing that his not doing so might preclude a fair and unbiased hearing and judgment, or . . . might reasonably lead counsel or the parties to believe so.” (See Waldbaum v. Waldbaum, No. A-1838-15T3, at *42 (App. Div. Dec. 26, 2017).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Motions for recusal ordinarily require a case-by-case analysis of the particular facts presented (disqualifying part-time judge in the absence of any evidence of bias or unfairness because the defendant's attorney is also the judge's adversary in another pending matter).” (See Kelly v. Bollwage, No. A-2083-19, at *30 (App. Div. Aug. 2, 2021).)

R. 1:12-1, which sets forth the standards for disqualification of a judge, provides:

“The judge of any court shall be disqualified on the court's own motion and shall not sit in any matter, if the judge:

is by blood or marriage the second cousin of or is more closely related to any party to the action;
is by blood or marriage the first cousin of or is more closely related to any attorney in the action. This proscription shall extend to the partners, employers, employees or office associates of any such attorney except where the Chief Justice for good cause otherwise permits;
has been attorney of record or counsel in the action; or
has given an opinion upon a matter in question in the action; or
is interested in the event of the action; or
when there is any other reason which might preclude a fair and unbiased hearing and judgment, or which might reasonably lead counsel or the parties to believe so.”

(See Homann v. Torchinsky (1997) 296 N.J. Super. 326, 339.)

“Nonetheless, judges may not err on the side of caution . . . . It is improper for a judge to withdraw from a case upon a mere suggestion that he is disqualified unless the alleged cause of recusal is known by him to exist or is shown to be true in fact.” (See Panitch v. Panitch (2001) 339 N.J. Super. 63, 66.)

“[T]he belief that the proceedings were unfair must be objectively reasonable. Reasonable questions about the fairness and impartiality of the judge cannot be established based on an amorphous suspicion.” (See Kelly v. Bollwage, No. A-2083-19, at *31-32 (App. Div. Aug. 2, 2021).)

“However, a judge is not required to recuse on a mere suggestion that he or she is disqualified to sit.” (See Clawans v. Schakat (1958) 49 N.J. Super. 415, 420.) “Indeed, it is improper for the judge to recuse himself unless the alleged ground for recusal is known by him to exist or is shown by proof to be true in fact.” (See Waldbaum v. Waldbaum, No. A-1838-15T3, at *42 (App. Div. Dec. 26, 2017).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The standard to assess plaintiffs' request for recusal is: ‘Would a reasonable, fully informed person have doubts about the judge's impartiality?’” (See DeNike v. Cupo (2008) 196 N.J. 502, 517; Kelly v. Bollwage, No. A-2083-19, at *31 (App. Div. Aug. 2, 2021).)

“Whether a judge should disqualify himself or herself is a matter within the sound discretion of the judge. We review de novo whether the judge applied the proper legal standard.” (See Borough of Lindenwold v. Jackson, No. A-1308-20, at *14 (App. Div. Apr. 6, 2022).)

“The motion must be made directly before the judge who is to be disqualified. The motions are entrusted to the sound discretion of the judge and are subject to review for abuse of discretion.” (See Mitchell v. Miller, No. A-3756-12T1, at *9-10 (App. Div. June 11, 2015).)

“Alternatively, a judge shall be disqualified on the court's own motion and shall not sit in any matter, if the judge has any other reason which might preclude a fair and unbiased hearing and judgment, or which might reasonably lead counsel or the parties to believe so.” (See R. 1:12-1; Mitchell v. Miller, No. A-3756-12T1, at *10 (App. Div. June 11, 2015).)

“However, a judge need not withdraw from a case upon a mere suggestion that he [or she] is disqualified unless the alleged cause of recusal is known by him [or her] to exist or is shown to be true in fact.” (See Chandok v. Chandok, 406 N.J. Super. 595, 603 (App. Div.) [quoting Panitch v. Panitch (2001) 339 N.J. Super. 63, 66-67].) “Actual prejudice on the part of the court need not be proved; any "objectively reasonable" appearance of bias requires disqualification.” (See id.)

“The standard calls for an individualized consideration of the facts in a given case.” (See Pinckney v. Dery, No. A-6003-17T3, at *9 (App. Div. May 28, 2020).)

Meet and Confer

“The rule requires attorneys to confer and exchange pretrial information including, [a]ny in limine or trial motions intended to be made at the commencement of trial, with supporting memoranda.” (See Lauckhardt v. Jeges, No. A-1970-13T4, at *11-12 (App. Div. Oct. 20, 2015).)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that pursuant to Canon 3(C)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct “[a] judge should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” (See Kelly v. Bollwage, No. A-2083-19, at *31 (App. Div. Aug. 2, 2021).)

It is also well settled that pursuant to Rule 1:12-1(g) “judges shall not sit in any matter when there is any . . . reason which might preclude a fair and unbiased hearing and judgment, or which might reasonably lead counsel or the parties to believe so. The rules, thus, address actual conflicts and bias as well as the appearance of impropriety.” (See id.)

Documents for Motion for Recusal in New Jersey

Sort By

Freedman Robert Vs Blickman Industries, Llc document preview

MOTION TO RECONSIDER submitted by RICHARDS, R N, TENDAI of WINNE BANTA ET …

204 pages

BER-L-003342-22 11/15/2023 4:56:01 PM Pg 1 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20233390663 R. N. Tendai Richards, Esq. Attorney ID: 01794-1995 WINNE, BANTA, BASRALIAN & KAHN, P.C. Court Plaza South-East Wing 21 Main Street, Suite 101 Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 (201) 487-3800 Attorneys for Defendants ROBERT FREEDMAN, PAUL FREEDMAN, and PF & RF ENTERPRISES, INC., f/k/a/ BLICKMAN, INC., SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY …