On 27 May 2022, the Rockland County Legislature
enacted Local Law 6-2022 which extended Covid era
measures allowing legislators to attend meetings
remotely via videoconferencing, and restricting public
input to written and email comments, if any legislator
made notification in advance that they intended to
attend remotely, even if they did not. Petitioner attend
ed public hearings on the Legislatures reapportion
ment plan, physically in person, on 19 Oct and 1 Nov
2022, but was prohibited from giving spoken verbal
comments about the reapportionment. No legislators
attended remotely. On, 8 Dec 2022, Petitioner chal
lenged the reapportionment and the public hearings
on First Amendment grounds. Petitioner filed a Motion
for Recusal stating the judge was likely biased, but it
was denied from the bench. The Court dismissed
Petitioners entire lawsuit Petitioner appealed. The
Appellate Division upheld the lower court decisions
including recusal stating Petitioner had not shown
"proof of bias". Court of Appeals denied Motion Seeking
Leave to appeal.

1. Did the New York Courts use the wrong
standard for judicial disqualification when they found
that Petitioner failed to show "proof of bias", rather
than the standard laid down by the U.S. Supreme
Court in Rippo v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 905 (2017) which
is "probability of bias "?

2. Were the 19 October 2022 and 1 November
2022 public hearings on the ten year redistricting
plans for the Rockland County Legislature unconstitu
tional because they violated Petitioners First Amend
ment right to speech when he was prohibited from
giving in person spoken comments about the redistrict
ing plans at the public hearings?

Did the New York Courts use the wrong standard for judicial disqualification?