In re Ford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ford

14 A.D.2d 653, 217 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9440

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

DecidedAugust 1, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.2d 653 (In re Ford) 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

In re Ford, 14 A.D.2d 653, 217 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9440 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The record discloses that there were three contested cases which required a total of 55 days of hearings in which many witnesses testified and, additionally, the reading of the transcript of the testimony of approximately 6,000 pages. There were other days consumed in viewing, executive sessions, and other details, the result being that one of the Commissioners had 116 days, another 119 days, and the New York City representative 170 days, the differential being his charge for traveling time. The allowances were respectively $9,659.74; $10,054.18 and $15,287.85. The affidavit of each Commissioner sets forth in justification for a day’s allowance such words as “ hearings ”, “ viewing ”, “executive sessions” and in the case of the New York City representative “traveling time”, the reasonableness and the necessity of the latter being one of the questions raised on this appeal.

From the record before us we are unable to determine the issues raised and consequently feel that in justice to all parties, the matter should be remitted to Special Term, there to determine either by detailed affidavits or by a hearing — whichever Special Term deems necessary — the reasonableness and the necessity of the time actually spent as well as the disbursements incurred.

The fact that heretofore the method here adopted of detailing time spent and disbursements incurred is of no import now that the adequacy and the sufficiency of that procedure are being questioned and contested on this appeal.

Order should be reversed and matter remitted to the Special Term for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Order reversed and matter remitted to the Special Term for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion, without costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The record discloses that there were three contested cases which required a total of 55 days of hearings in which many witnesses testified and, additionally, the reading of the transcript of the testimony of approximately 6,000 pages. There were other days consumed in viewing, executive sessions, and other details, the result being that one of the Commissioners had 116 days, another 119 days, and the New York City representative 170 days, the differential being his charge for traveling time. The allowances were respectively $9,659.74; $10,054.18 and $15,287.85. The affidavit of each Commissioner sets forth in justification for a day’s allowance such words as “ hearings ”, “ viewing ”, “executive sessions” and in the case of the New York City representative “traveling time”, the reasonableness and the necessity of the latter being one of the questions raised on this appeal.

From the record before us we are unable to determine the issues raised and consequently feel that in justice to all parties, the matter should be remitted to Special Term, there to determine either by detailed affidavits or by a hearing — whichever Special Term deems necessary — the reasonableness and the necessity of the time actually spent as well as the disbursements incurred.

The fact that heretofore the method here adopted of detailing time spent and disbursements incurred is of no import now that the adequacy and the sufficiency of that procedure are being questioned and contested on this appeal.

Order should be reversed and matter remitted to the Special Term for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Order reversed and matter remitted to the Special Term for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.2d 653, 217 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ford-nyappdiv-1961.