In Gaffney-Romanello v. Romanello, a Supreme Court Justice in Suffolk County determined that a husband had retained a new attorney merely to cause the presiding judge to recuse himself from a matrimonial action. Instead of recusing himself, the judge ordered the husband to hire a new attorney.
In Gaffney-Romanello, the wife commenced the divorce action in 2007. Approximately two years later, the parties represented to the Court that they were on the verge of reaching a settlement. However, in April 2009, the husband fired the firm that had been representing himself and retained new counsel, a Mr. H.
The presiding justice for the parties’ divorce action had previously forwarded a disciplinary matter to the grievance committed pertaining to Mr. H. As a result, the judge had recused himself from all cases handled by that attorney.
The prior disciplinary matter had been limited to Mr. H. personally and not his firm. Thus, the judge questioned Mr. H. if he intended to represent the husband in the pending matrimonial action, or if one of his three partners would be handling the matter. Each of those partners was well versed in matrimonial law.
Mr. H. informed the Court that only he would be representing the husband and thereafter sought the judge’s recusal. The judge denied the husband’s request for recusal, given the previous representation to the Court that the parties had settled the matter. The judge also determined that the husband was forum shopping, stating, “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.” “Clearly the Defendant, who had previous counsel…hired Mr. H. solely to forum shop,”
