Shaw v. Goodman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shaw v. Goodman

291 A.D.2d 207, 736 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1558

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 207 (Shaw v. Goodman) 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

Shaw v. Goodman, 291 A.D.2d 207, 736 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1558 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to prohibit consideration by Justice Emily Goodman of the Shaw Estate’s motion for partial summary judgment in the underlying action, converted, pursuant to CPLR 103 (c), to an application pursuant to CPLR 5704 (a), and, thereupon, unanimously granted to the extent of directing that the Estate’s motion for partial summary judgment, made pursuant to an order to show cause of the Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Diamond, J.), signed on or about August 19, 2001, be referred to Judicial Hearing Officer Martin Evans to hear and decide pursuant to the order of reference of the same court (Emily Goodman, J.), dated June 7, 1995, and to vacate the stay of all proceedings in the underlying matter imposed by Justice Goodman, without costs.

This proceeding, commenced by petitioner pursuant to CPLR article 78, should have been brought pursuant to CPLR 5704 (a) as one to vacate or modify an ex parte order. We thus convert the proceeding accordingly (CPLR 103 [c]), and, upon such conversion, find that the parties are bound by the order dated June 7, 1995, in which the IAS court explicitly referred to the Judicial Hearing Officer, not only the contempt issue, but “all remaining issues in the [underlying] matter,” expressly vacating an earlier order of limited scope. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Sullivan, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to prohibit consideration by Justice Emily Goodman of the Shaw Estate’s motion for partial summary judgment in the underlying action, converted, pursuant to CPLR 103 (c), to an application pursuant to CPLR 5704 (a), and, thereupon, unanimously granted to the extent of directing that the Estate’s motion for partial summary judgment, made pursuant to an order to show cause of the Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Diamond, J.), signed on or about August 19, 2001, be referred to Judicial Hearing Officer Martin Evans to hear and decide pursuant to the order of reference of the same court (Emily Goodman, J.), dated June 7, 1995, and to vacate the stay of all proceedings in the underlying matter imposed by Justice Goodman, without costs.

This proceeding, commenced by petitioner pursuant to CPLR article 78, should have been brought pursuant to CPLR 5704 (a) as one to vacate or modify an ex parte order. We thus convert the proceeding accordingly (CPLR 103 [c]), and, upon such conversion, find that the parties are bound by the order dated June 7, 1995, in which the IAS court explicitly referred to the Judicial Hearing Officer, not only the contempt issue, but “all remaining issues in the [underlying] matter,” expressly vacating an earlier order of limited scope. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Sullivan, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 207, 736 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-v-goodman-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack