People v. Grubel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Grubel

19 A.D.2d 604, 240 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3619

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

DecidedJune 18, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 A.D.2d 604 (People v. Grubel) 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

People v. Grubel, 19 A.D.2d 604, 240 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on October 22, 1962, appointing a private Referee to examine the account, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by striking therefrom the third decretal paragraph and providing in lieu thereof for the appointment of a court employed Special Referee to take and state the account, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant payable out of the estate. In commenting upon the propriety of appointing a Referee, we have heretofore said it is the general policy of the courts in this Department not to extend the scope or occasion of references in the absence of request or consent of the parties or of special circumstances meriting such action (Matter of Wilder v. Straus-Duparquet, 5 A D 2d 1, 3; Wolf son v. MeGraw é Co., 18 A D 2d 905; Sheean v. Allen, 19 A D 2d 595). In a ease such as this if the court felt a Referee necessary, in the interest of protecting the assets of this estate, it should have complied with appellant’s request and designated a court-employed Special Referee rather than a private Referee. (See, also, Matter of Vogue Pleating é Embroidery Co., 11 A D 2d 358, 360; Zakkai v. David, 285 App. Div. 1121.) Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and 'Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on October 22, 1962, appointing a private Referee to examine the account, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by striking therefrom the third decretal paragraph and providing in lieu thereof for the appointment of a court employed Special Referee to take and state the account, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant payable out of the estate. In commenting upon the propriety of appointing a Referee, we have heretofore said it is the general policy of the courts in this Department not to extend the scope or occasion of references in the absence of request or consent of the parties or of special circumstances meriting such action (Matter of Wilder v. Straus-Duparquet, 5 A D 2d 1, 3; Wolf son v. MeGraw é Co., 18 A D 2d 905; Sheean v. Allen, 19 A D 2d 595). In a ease such as this if the court felt a Referee necessary, in the interest of protecting the assets of this estate, it should have complied with appellant’s request and designated a court-employed Special Referee rather than a private Referee. (See, also, Matter of Vogue Pleating é Embroidery Co., 11 A D 2d 358, 360; Zakkai v. David, 285 App. Div. 1121.) Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and 'Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 604, 240 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-grubel-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack