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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 21, 2001·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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.

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

284 A.D.2d 224 (Gilman v. Golfinopoulous) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related