When the alleged impropriety arises from information derived during the performance of the court's adjudicatory function, the court's decision to deny recusal may not be overturned unless it was an abuse of discretion ( see, People v Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 405-406). In the matter before us, the IAS Court's opinion of defendant's expert was based upon his testimony conducted in a prior proceeding. It appears that defendant had another motive in selecting this expert for the instant action since defendant had knowledge of the IAS Court's assessment of the expert several months before this case was reassigned to her in March 1995, but still did not move to have the Judge recuse herself, based on her alleged preconceived, biased opinion of the expert, until after the court had made several adverse rulings against defendant. The IAS Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying defendant's recusal motion.
The extent of interference, if any, with defendant's visitation rights and a determination as to whether or not the parties' children's refusal to see defendant was justified must await the outcome of a hearing. However, until such determination is made, defendant has no right to unilaterally withhold maintenance and child support payments.
Contrary to defendant's contention, the court also properly exercised its discretion in appointing a Law Guardian selected by the children to represent them in this matter ( Matter of Elianne M., 196 A.D.2d 439).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.