State judges in New York don't currently have to provide an explanation when they decide to recuse themselves from a case, but that could change under a measure recently introduced by Democrats in the state Legislature.

State Sen. Todd Kaminsky, D-Nassau, and a former federal prosecutor, is pushing a bill that would require judges to give a written explanation for their recusal.

The measure would not require an explanation for a judge's decision to deny a recusal motion.

That way, the public, and individuals involved in a case, would know exactly why a judge would want to distance themselves from a proceeding, rather than being passed on to a different jurist without explanation.

The legislation stems from a case in Nassau County, where three judges recused themselves from a lawsuit in a matter of weeks, effectively delaying a resolution of the matter. The case had to ultimately be transferred to a judge in Westchester County.

The litigation was between the town of Hempstead in Nassau County and Double Eagle Golf, which operated a golf course in the town for two decades, according to the lawsuit.

Double Eagle Golf sued the town of Hempstead nearly three years ago, arguing that it was owed money by the town for costs it incurred as a result of Hurricane Sandy in 2012. The company paid more than $1.5 million to repair the golf course following the storm.

After allowing the company to forego licensing fees for a number of years, Double Eagle was able to reduce the debt from Sandy to approximately $776,000, which it said it was owed by the town.

The litigation had been ongoing for more than two years when the trio of judges decided to recuse themselves. Supreme Court Justices Timothy Driscoll, Vito DeStefano and Jerome Murphy all filed orders removing themselves from the case.

Kaminsky's bill would require judges, in that situation, to include a written explanation with an order of recusal, saying why they had to hand off the case to another sitting judge.

Judges would be able to avoid explaining their recusal if doing so would "result in embarrassment, or is of a compelling personal nature," according to the bill. Under those terms, a future situation like what happened in Hempstead would be unlikely, Kaminsky said.

"I think it would be highly improbable that three judges in one case would say there's a personal, embarrassing nature," Kaminsky said.

It would be up to the judges, themselves, to determine whether a reason for recusal would be too embarrassing or personally sensitive to explain in writing. Kaminsky said he's not worried about judges abusing that safeguard.

"There's also administrative judges who oversee courthouses, and I would like to think they would want to make sure that a judge wouldn't put something in writing that's false," Kaminsky said. "So, I think it's an exception that's needed but I don't expect it to swallow the rule."

The bill is sponsored in the Assembly by Assemblywoman Monica Wallace, D-Erie. The state's bill filing system hasn't shown Wallace as a sponsor of the bill just yet.

In the Senate, the legislation has been referred to the Judiciary Committee. Kaminsky said his staff has been working on the legislation with State Sen. Brad Hoylman, D-Manhattan, who chairs the committee. Kaminsky doesn't expect a problem there.

"We've been working with him from the beginning," Kaminsky said.

The bill is co-sponsored in the State Senate by Sen. Anna Kaplan, D-Nassau.

READ MORE: