Kaplan v. Kaplan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaplan v. Kaplan

48 A.D.2d 644, 368 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9642

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

DecidedMay 27, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 48 A.D.2d 644 (Kaplan v. Kaplan) 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

Kaplan v. Kaplan, 48 A.D.2d 644, 368 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9642 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Orde entered July 31, 1974, in the Supreme Court, New York County, appointing a private referee to supervise disclosure proceedings, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, by striking therefrom the second and third decretal paragraphs and substituting therefor the appointment of a court-employed Special Referee to supervise the remaining pretrial disclosure proceedings, and, as so modified the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements to either party. There was neither stipulation nor evidence of such circumstances as would in our opinion necessitate the appointment of a private referee. If the court felt that a referee should be appointed, it should have designated a court-employed Special Referee (CPLR 3104, subd [a]; People v Grubel, 19 AD2d 604; Brooks, Hampton, Levy & Walker v Balaban, 22 AD2d 679). Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Lupiano, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

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

Orde entered July 31, 1974, in the Supreme Court, New York County, appointing a private referee to supervise disclosure proceedings, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, by striking therefrom the second and third decretal paragraphs and substituting therefor the appointment of a court-employed Special Referee to supervise the remaining pretrial disclosure proceedings, and, as so modified the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements to either party. There was neither stipulation nor evidence of such circumstances as would in our opinion necessitate the appointment of a private referee. If the court felt that a referee should be appointed, it should have designated a court-employed Special Referee (CPLR 3104, subd [a]; People v Grubel, 19 AD2d 604; Brooks, Hampton, Levy & Walker v Balaban, 22 AD2d 679). Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Lupiano, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 644, 368 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaplan-v-kaplan-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack