Did the New York Courts use the wrong standard for judicial disqualification?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . On 27 May 2022, the Rockland County Legislature enacted Local Law 6-2022 which extended Covid era measures allowing legislators to attend meetings remotely via videoconferencing, and restricting public input to written and email comments, if any legislator made notification in advance that they intended to attend remotely, even if they did not. Petitioner attended public hearings on the Legislatures reapportionment plan, physically in person, on 19 Oct and 1 Nov 2022, but was prohibited from giving spoken verbal comments about the reapportionment. No legislators attended remotely. On, 8 Dec 2022, Petitioner challenged the reapportionment and the public hearings on First Amendment grounds. Petitioner filed a Motion for Recusal stating the judge was likely biased, but it was denied from the bench. The Court dismissed Petitioners entire lawsuit Petitioner appealed. The Appellate Division upheld the lower court decisions including recusal stating Petitioner had not shown ; “proof of bias”. Court of Appeals denied Motion Seeking : Leave to appeal. 1. Did the New York Courts use the wrong standard for judicial disqualification when they found that Petitioner failed to show “proof of bias”, rather than the standard laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Rippo v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 905 (2017) which is “probability of bias”? 2. Were the 19 October 2022 and 1 November 2022 public hearings on the ten year redistricting : plans for the Rockland County Legislature unconstitu: tional because they violated Petitioners First Amendment right to speech when he was prohibited from i giving in person spoken comments about the redistricting plans at the public hearings? iii ;