Dime Savings Bank v. Melohn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dime Savings Bank v. Melohn

79 A.D.2d 647, 436 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14013

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.2d 647 (Dime Savings Bank v. Melohn) 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

Dime Savings Bank v. Melohn, 79 A.D.2d 647, 436 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14013 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a mortgage foreclosure action wherein the receiver moved to settle his account and defendants filed objections and sought to surcharge the receiver, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 1, 198Q, which held the receiver’s motion in abeyance pending the report of a Referee, appointed by it pursuant to CPLR 4317 (subd [b]), to “hear and determine”. Order modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the word “determine” and substituting therefor the word “report”. As so modified, order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements payable by the appellants to respondent. On the argument of this appeal the parties agreed that given Special Term’s evident desire to retain jurisdiction over this matter, the proper reference would have been one “to hear and report” (see CPLR 4311), since a reference to “hear and determine” divests the court of jurisdiction over an action (see CPLR 4301). Titone, J. P., Lazer, Cohalan and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a mortgage foreclosure action wherein the receiver moved to settle his account and defendants filed objections and sought to surcharge the receiver, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 1, 198Q, which held the receiver’s motion in abeyance pending the report of a Referee, appointed by it pursuant to CPLR 4317 (subd [b]), to “hear and determine”. Order modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the word “determine” and substituting therefor the word “report”. As so modified, order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements payable by the appellants to respondent. On the argument of this appeal the parties agreed that given Special Term’s evident desire to retain jurisdiction over this matter, the proper reference would have been one “to hear and report” (see CPLR 4311), since a reference to “hear and determine” divests the court of jurisdiction over an action (see CPLR 4301). Titone, J. P., Lazer, Cohalan and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 647, 436 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dime-savings-bank-v-melohn-nyappdiv-1980.