1074372 Ontario, Inc. v. 200 Corbin Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

1074372 Ontario, Inc. v. 200 Corbin Owners Corp.

13 A.D.3d 502, 786 N.Y.S.2d 319, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15568

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 20, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 502 (1074372 Ontario, Inc. v. 200 Corbin Owners Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

1074372 Ontario, Inc. v. 200 Corbin Owners Corp., 13 A.D.3d 502, 786 N.Y.S.2d 319, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants 200 Corbin Owners Corp. and Board of Managers of 200 Corbin Place appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated November 25, 2002, which denied their motion, inter alia, in ef[503]*503feet, for leave to renew their objections to the account of the receiver insofar as it sought approval of an attorney’s fee, which objections had been referred to a special referee to hear and report in an order of the same court dated October 12, 2000.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

An order referring the issues to a referee to hear and report is not appealable as of right (see Meehan v Meehan, 276 AD2d 473 [2000]; Selinger v Selinger, 232 AD2d 471 [1996]). Similarly, a motion to renew objections that resulted in such an order of reference is likewise not appealable as of right (cf White Bay Enters. v Newsday, Inc., 258 AD2d 520 [1999]; Matter of Lynch v Board of Educ. of Mahopac Pub. Schools, 56 AD2d 932 [1977]), and we decline to grant leave to appeal. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Smith and Crane, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants 200 Corbin Owners Corp. and Board of Managers of 200 Corbin Place appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated November 25, 2002, which denied their motion, inter alia, in ef[503]*503feet, for leave to renew their objections to the account of the receiver insofar as it sought approval of an attorney’s fee, which objections had been referred to a special referee to hear and report in an order of the same court dated October 12, 2000.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

An order referring the issues to a referee to hear and report is not appealable as of right (see Meehan v Meehan, 276 AD2d 473 [2000]; Selinger v Selinger, 232 AD2d 471 [1996]). Similarly, a motion to renew objections that resulted in such an order of reference is likewise not appealable as of right (cf White Bay Enters. v Newsday, Inc., 258 AD2d 520 [1999]; Matter of Lynch v Board of Educ. of Mahopac Pub. Schools, 56 AD2d 932 [1977]), and we decline to grant leave to appeal. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Smith and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 502, 786 N.Y.S.2d 319, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/1074372-ontario-inc-v-200-corbin-owners-corp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack