Semons v. Semons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Semons v. Semons

213 A.D.2d 191, 623 N.Y.S.2d 234

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 191 (Semons v. Semons) 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

Semons v. Semons, 213 A.D.2d 191, 623 N.Y.S.2d 234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered on or about August 24, 1994, which referred plaintiff’s motion for a money judgment against defendant for maintenance arrears to a Special Referee to hear and report with recommendations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[192]*192Plaintiffs contention that her motion could not be referred to a Special Referee to hear and report without the parties’ consent is incorrect, consent being required only where the reference is one to hear and determine (compare, CPLR 4212, with CPLR 4317). Nor do we perceive an abuse of discretion in the reference given that defendant’s motion for a downward modification of his maintenance obligation was already pending before the same Referee. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered on or about August 24, 1994, which referred plaintiff’s motion for a money judgment against defendant for maintenance arrears to a Special Referee to hear and report with recommendations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[192]*192Plaintiffs contention that her motion could not be referred to a Special Referee to hear and report without the parties’ consent is incorrect, consent being required only where the reference is one to hear and determine (compare, CPLR 4212, with CPLR 4317). Nor do we perceive an abuse of discretion in the reference given that defendant’s motion for a downward modification of his maintenance obligation was already pending before the same Referee. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 191, 623 N.Y.S.2d 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/semons-v-semons-nyappdiv-1995.