In Matter of Kelvin D. (40 NY2d 895, 357 NE2d 1005, 389 NYS2d 350 [1976]), the Court of Appeals did not directly address the recusal question. It made no analysis under Section 14 of the Judiciary Law. It simply concluded, in a juvenile delinquency hearing, that there were a series of "acrimonious exchanges" between the court and counsel respecting the conduct of the trial and credibility of witnesses, and the trial court erred in failing to disclose important documents (id. at 897). Because a new hearing was required, the Court stated that "prudent policy" dictated that the case be assigned to a new judge (id.).