A state judge has rejected a Long Island man’s attempt to hire a new attorney as “impermissible judge shopping” because the judge had previously reported the attorney to the grievance committee for an alleged disciplinary violation.
In a strongly worded ruling in response to the attorney’s request for the judge’s recusal in the matrimonial action, Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Donald R. Blydenburgh (See Profile) said, “The appearance of impermissible and inappropriate Judge shopping is present and the prejudice to the Plaintiff far outweighs Defendant’s right to this specific counsel.”
