In the absence of statutory grounds, the decision upon a recusal motion is a discretionary one ( see People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405; Conti v Citrin, 239 AD2d 251), and should not be disturbed "[u]nless the moving party can point to an actual ruling which demonstrates bias" ( Solow v Wellner, 157 AD2d 459, 459; see also Scott v Brooklyn Hosp., 93 AD2d 577, 580), which plaintiffs have failed to do. Given the lack of any support from the other participants for plaintiffs' allegations of impropriety at a meeting with a possible mediator, there is no evidence that an improper ex parte communication concerning the case took place between a nonparty and the court, and the court's denial of recusal, without a hearing, was an appropriate exercise of discretion, as was its referral of such allegations to the appropriate authorities for immediate investigation.