Delburt Alfred v. Sargine Brutus
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Family law (child custody/relocation), judicial recusal, and attorney sanctions
Denied the mother's second recusal motion and her request to order the child returned to New York; later, on its own motion, imposed sanctions on the mother's attorney.
The sanctions award against the mother's attorney was vacated; all other aspects of the orders were affirmed.
The record on appeal was insufficient to support the sanctions (missing the November 12, 2024 sanctions hearing transcript and the first recusal motion). Recusal was properly denied because no showing was made that alleged bias affected rulings, and the mother's ethics complaint and media participation did not mandate recusal. An abrupt return of the child would be disruptive given the child’s established residence and schooling in the United Kingdom and stated preference to remain with the father; while a hearing should have been held before granting temporary relocation, the mother did not perfect her appeal from that 2023 order.
Background
In an ongoing custody dispute, the father obtained permission to temporarily relocate with the parties' child to the United Kingdom. The child has lived and attended school there since 2022 and expressed a desire to remain in the father's custody. The mother filed a second motion seeking the trial judge's recusal and an order directing the child's return to New York. She also filed an ethics complaint and participated in a news report about the judge. The trial court denied recusal and the return request, and later sua sponte sanctioned the mother's attorney.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court (New York County) denied the mother's second recusal motion and her application to direct the child’s return to New York. The court also imposed sanctions on the mother’s attorney on its own motion.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified and otherwise affirmed: the Appellate Division vacated the sanctions award due to an insufficient record for review, but affirmed the denial of recusal and the refusal to order the child’s return. The Court noted a hearing should have preceded the temporary relocation order, but the mother failed to perfect her appeal from that December 2023 order, and returning the child now would be distressing and disruptive given the child’s established life in the United Kingdom.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that recusal requires a showing that alleged bias influenced judicial rulings; judicial criticism of counsel does not alone establish bias (Liteky v United States). Filing an ethics complaint or speaking to the media about a judge does not compel recusal. In relocation matters, trial courts should hold a hearing before permitting out-of-state relocation, but appellate relief may be constrained where an appeal is not perfected and where the child’s best interests and stability counsel against disruption. Sanctions must be supported by an adequate record; appellate review is limited to the record on appeal (Nelson v Block).
Absent proof of bias affecting rulings, recusal will be denied; children’s stability weighs heavily against abrupt relocation changes; and sanctions cannot stand without an adequate appellate record—here resulting in vacatur.