Rosner v. Rosner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosner v. Rosner

73 A.D.3d 1152, 900 N.Y.S.2d 917

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

DecidedMay 25, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.3d 1152 (Rosner v. Rosner) 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

Rosner v. Rosner, 73 A.D.3d 1152, 900 N.Y.S.2d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), dated December 18, 2008, which denied his motion to vacate an order of the same court dated April 24, 2008, appointing Cary David Kessler, Esq., as referee, to supervise discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to vacate an order appointing Cary David Kessler, a private attorney, to serve as referee to supervise discovery pursuant to CFLR 3104 (b). The parties consented to Kessler’s appointment on the record (see CFLR 3104 [b]; cf. Csanko v County of West-chester, 273 AD2d 434 [2000]; Ploski v Riverwood Owners Corp., 255 AD2d 24, 28 [1999]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is not properly before this Court. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), dated December 18, 2008, which denied his motion to vacate an order of the same court dated April 24, 2008, appointing Cary David Kessler, Esq., as referee, to supervise discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to vacate an order appointing Cary David Kessler, a private attorney, to serve as referee to supervise discovery pursuant to CFLR 3104 (b). The parties consented to Kessler’s appointment on the record (see CFLR 3104 [b]; cf. Csanko v County of West-chester, 273 AD2d 434 [2000]; Ploski v Riverwood Owners Corp., 255 AD2d 24, 28 [1999]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is not properly before this Court. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 1152, 900 N.Y.S.2d 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosner-v-rosner-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack