After 16 days of testimony in a "contentious" matrimonial case, it came to light that one of the parties--Daniel Silber--had unknowingly employed a member of the judicial hearing officer's family as a babysitter.
Once the hearing officer learned of that development, he instantly disclosed the arrangement to the parties' counsel. And when Mrs. Silber insisted that the hearing officer be removed from the case, and that request was granted, Mr. Silber appealed.
Since the hearing officer made it clear he could be fair and impartial, and because the babysitter wasn't connected to the case, and wasn't likely to give any testimony, the Appellate Division, Second Department, thought recusal wasn't warranted and sent the dispute back for "further proceedings."
Will there be a Silber lining?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's opinion, please use this link: Silber v. Silber