Lipton v. Lipton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lipton v. Lipton

119 A.D.2d 809, 501 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55751

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

DecidedApril 28, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 119 A.D.2d 809 (Lipton v. Lipton) 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

Lipton v. Lipton, 119 A.D.2d 809, 501 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55751 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff husband appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Gitelman, Judicial Hearing Officer), entered July 8, 1985, which, after a hearing, set aside the parties’ stipulation of settlement and directed them to proceed to trial, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court (Spatt, J.), dated May 28, 1985, as denied his motion for an order declaring that the Judicial Hearing Officer had exceeded his authority.

Order entered July 8, 1985, affirmed, and order dated May 28, 1985, affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

We agree with Special Term that the Judicial Hearing Officer did not exceed his authority in conducting a hearing, since, at the time of the hearing, the action had not yet been terminated by entry of a judgment (see, Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51). The Judicial Hearing Officer’s authority [810]*810was also not limited by a broad order of reference which directed a hearing and determination of "all the issues in this case, other than divorce”.

Finally, there was sufficient evidence in the record adduced before the Judicial Hearing Officer to warrant his determination (see, Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63; Donnarumma v Donnarumma, 72 AD2d 545). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ., concur. [128 Misc 2d 528.]

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

—In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff husband appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Gitelman, Judicial Hearing Officer), entered July 8, 1985, which, after a hearing, set aside the parties’ stipulation of settlement and directed them to proceed to trial, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court (Spatt, J.), dated May 28, 1985, as denied his motion for an order declaring that the Judicial Hearing Officer had exceeded his authority.

Order entered July 8, 1985, affirmed, and order dated May 28, 1985, affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

We agree with Special Term that the Judicial Hearing Officer did not exceed his authority in conducting a hearing, since, at the time of the hearing, the action had not yet been terminated by entry of a judgment (see, Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51). The Judicial Hearing Officer’s authority [810]*810was also not limited by a broad order of reference which directed a hearing and determination of "all the issues in this case, other than divorce”.

Finally, there was sufficient evidence in the record adduced before the Judicial Hearing Officer to warrant his determination (see, Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63; Donnarumma v Donnarumma, 72 AD2d 545). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ., concur. [128 Misc 2d 528.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 809, 501 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lipton-v-lipton-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack