Csanko v. County of Westchester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Csanko v. County of Westchester

273 A.D.2d 434, 711 N.Y.S.2d 746

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

DecidedJune 26, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 434 (Csanko v. County of Westchester) 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

Csanko v. County of Westchester, 273 A.D.2d 434, 711 N.Y.S.2d 746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, the County of Westchester, a defendant in Actions Nos. 1 and 2, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered March 15, 1999, which denied its motion to vacate an order of the same court dated September 16, 1998, which, sua sponte, appointed a private attorney to serve as a Referee to supervise discovery without its consent.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the order dated September 16, 1998, is vacated.

The Supreme Court lacked the authority to appoint a private attorney to serve as a Referee to oversee discovery, and to be compensated by the parties, without their consent (see, CPLR 3104; Ploski v Riverwood Owners Corp., 255 AD2d 24; Carpenter Envtl. Assocs. v Horn, 239 AD2d 379; Liu v Liu, 218 AD2d 532). Sullivan, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, the County of Westchester, a defendant in Actions Nos. 1 and 2, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered March 15, 1999, which denied its motion to vacate an order of the same court dated September 16, 1998, which, sua sponte, appointed a private attorney to serve as a Referee to supervise discovery without its consent.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the order dated September 16, 1998, is vacated.

The Supreme Court lacked the authority to appoint a private attorney to serve as a Referee to oversee discovery, and to be compensated by the parties, without their consent (see, CPLR 3104; Ploski v Riverwood Owners Corp., 255 AD2d 24; Carpenter Envtl. Assocs. v Horn, 239 AD2d 379; Liu v Liu, 218 AD2d 532). Sullivan, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 434, 711 N.Y.S.2d 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/csanko-v-county-of-westchester-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack