In re Sutter French Confections, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Sutter French Confections, Inc.

17 A.D.2d 610, 229 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8611

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 610 (In re Sutter French Confections, Inc.) 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 Sutter French Confections, Inc., 17 A.D.2d 610, 229 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8611 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on October 2, 1961, as resettled by order dated December 19, 1961 granting petitioner’s application to entertain a proceeding for dissolution of a corporation and directing a hearing before a Referee unanimously modified on the law and as a matter of discretion to eliminate the provision for a reference and directing that the matter proceed before the court and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The issue to be tried is not complex. Absent complexity or the necessity for extended hearings, the better practice is for the court to try the issue and refrain from referring the matter (Matter of 3620 Perry Ave. Realty Corp. [De Burr], 285 App. Div. 71; Matter of Pivot Punch & Die Corp., 9 A D 2d 861; Matter of Whitehall Art Co., 6 A D 2d 399). The reason for the practice is substantial because in a proceeding of this character Special Term does not have the power to review the Referee’s findings (Matter of Seamerlin Operating Co., 307 N. Y. 407). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on October 2, 1961, as resettled by order dated December 19, 1961 granting petitioner’s application to entertain a proceeding for dissolution of a corporation and directing a hearing before a Referee unanimously modified on the law and as a matter of discretion to eliminate the provision for a reference and directing that the matter proceed before the court and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The issue to be tried is not complex. Absent complexity or the necessity for extended hearings, the better practice is for the court to try the issue and refrain from referring the matter (Matter of 3620 Perry Ave. Realty Corp. [De Burr], 285 App. Div. 71; Matter of Pivot Punch & Die Corp., 9 A D 2d 861; Matter of Whitehall Art Co., 6 A D 2d 399). The reason for the practice is substantial because in a proceeding of this character Special Term does not have the power to review the Referee’s findings (Matter of Seamerlin Operating Co., 307 N. Y. 407). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 610, 229 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sutter-french-confections-inc-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack