Gilman v. Golfinopoulous

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gilman v. Golfinopoulous

284 A.D.2d 224, 726 N.Y.S.2d 271, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6549

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

DecidedJune 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 224 (Gilman v. Golfinopoulous) 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

Gilman v. Golfinopoulous, 284 A.D.2d 224, 726 N.Y.S.2d 271, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered October 16, 2000, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel payment by respondents 18-B Program Administrator and Comptroller of a compensation voucher issued by Family Court Judge Sheldon Rand pursuant to Family Court Act § 262 and Comity Law article 18-B, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly ruled that it had no authority to review Judge Rand’s order reducing petitioner’s fee. Trial court orders granting or denying increases in the statutorily recommended fees under County Law § 722-b are “essentially administrative in nature and, accordingly, are not amenable to judicial review on the merits by an appellate panel” (Matter of Director of Assigned Counsel Plan of City of N. Y. [Bodek], 87 NY2d 191, 194). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered October 16, 2000, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel payment by respondents 18-B Program Administrator and Comptroller of a compensation voucher issued by Family Court Judge Sheldon Rand pursuant to Family Court Act § 262 and Comity Law article 18-B, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly ruled that it had no authority to review Judge Rand’s order reducing petitioner’s fee. Trial court orders granting or denying increases in the statutorily recommended fees under County Law § 722-b are “essentially administrative in nature and, accordingly, are not amenable to judicial review on the merits by an appellate panel” (Matter of Director of Assigned Counsel Plan of City of N. Y. [Bodek], 87 NY2d 191, 194). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 224, 726 N.Y.S.2d 271, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilman-v-golfinopoulous-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack