Opinion ID: 2806477
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Yarcheski’s Motion for Recusal

Text: [¶7] “Because the trial court’s decision to recuse is within its sound discretion, we review the decision on a motion to recuse for abuse of discretion.” In re Michael M., 2000 ME 204, ¶ 9, 761 A.2d 865. [¶8] Yarcheski’s motion for recusal was based solely upon the Superior Court justice’s presiding over the bench trial in a prior, unrelated matter. See Town of Naples v. Yarcheski, 2004 ME 100, 854 A.2d 185. He cites no basis for recusal other than the justice’s presiding over that trial, and that there were “many other Justices who could have conveniently and effectively presided over” his appeal to the Superior Court in this matter. [¶9] That the court decided a previous, unrelated matter against Yarcheski is not evidence of partiality. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555-56 (1994); In re Estate of Lipin, 2008 ME 16, ¶ 6, 939 A.2d 107. The court acted well within its discretion in denying Yarcheski’s motion for recusal. Indeed, in light of Yarcheski’s meritless claim of partiality, it would have been an abuse of the court’s discretion had the justice recused himself. See Charette v. Charette, 2013 ME 4, ¶ 23, 60 A.3d 1264. 5 The entry is: Judgment affirmed. On the briefs: Thomas J. Yarcheski, appellant pro se Matthew T. Mehalic, Esq., Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, LLC, Portland, for appellee P&K Sand and Gravel, Inc. Cumberland County Superior Court docket number AP-13-42 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY