DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant contends that the Supreme Court did not have the power to commence the criminal contempt proceeding against him sua sponte. However, having unsuccessfully litigated this issue in a prior proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 ( see Matter of Abrahams v. DiBlasi, 293 A.D.2d 530), the appellant is collaterally estopped from making this argument ( see Goldman Plumbing Heating Corp. v. Nesbit, 244 A.D. 311), which, in any event, is without merit ( cf. Judiciary Law § 2-b; De Lancey v. Piepgras, 141 N.Y. 88; Wehringer v. Brannigan, 232 A.D.2d 206).
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to recuse itself after commencing the criminal contempt proceeding ( see Skripek v. Skripek, 239 A.D.2d 488).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.