Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The record does not support a finding that any of the statutory disqualifications set forth in Judiciary Law § 14 are applicable ( see Matter of New York State Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers v Kaye, 95 NY2d 556, 561; Schreiber-Cross v State of New York, 31 AD3d 425). Absent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a court is the sole arbiter of its recusal ( see 22 NYCRR 100.3; People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405; EECP Ctrs. of Am. v Vasomedical, Inc., 277 AD2d 349), and its determination that recusal is not warranted will not be disturbed unless it constitutes an improvident exercise of discretion ( see Matter of Imre v Johnson, 54 AD3d 427, 427-428). The claimants failed to set forth any proof of bias or prejudice ( see Modica v Modica 15 AD3d 635, 636; Matter of Firestone v Siems, 272 AD2d 544, 545; Anjam v Anjam, 191 AD2d 531, 532-533). The appellate reversal of a prior related determination by the Judge to whom this claim is assigned does not alone constitute a showing of bias ( see Robert Marini Bldr. v Rao, 263 AD2d 846, 848). Accordingly, the Judge's refusal to recuse himself was not an improvident exercise of discretion