Sheean v. Allen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sheean v. Allen

19 A.D.2d 595, 240 N.Y.S.2d 446, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3662

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

DecidedJune 4, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 19 A.D.2d 595 (Sheean v. Allen) 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

Sheean v. Allen, 19 A.D.2d 595, 240 N.Y.S.2d 446, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3662 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order-entered October 30,1962 and interlocutory judgment entered December 11, 1962, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts -and in the exercise of discretion, by striking from the said judgment the last 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 defendant-appellant. Sua sponte, we direct a joint accounting with Sheean v. Allen (19 A D 2d 595). There are no other issues of law or fact to be determined. It would appear that most of the items deal with ordinary living expenses and the account is not so long or detailed as to present difficulty in resolving it and consequently is not a long account within the purview of section 466 of the Civil Practice Act. (See Brooklyn Public Lib. v. City of New York, 240 N. Y. 465.) It is the general policy of -the courts in this Department not -to extend the scope or occasion of references in the absence of consent of the parties or of special circumstances meriting such action. No special cir[596]*596cunistanccs appear here. (Matter of Wilder v. Straus-Duparquet, 5 AD 2d 1; Wolfson v. McGrow & Co., 18 A D 2d 905.) In addition, both parties object to the private reference. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order-entered October 30,1962 and interlocutory judgment entered December 11, 1962, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts -and in the exercise of discretion, by striking from the said judgment the last 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 defendant-appellant. Sua sponte, we direct a joint accounting with Sheean v. Allen (19 A D 2d 595). There are no other issues of law or fact to be determined. It would appear that most of the items deal with ordinary living expenses and the account is not so long or detailed as to present difficulty in resolving it and consequently is not a long account within the purview of section 466 of the Civil Practice Act. (See Brooklyn Public Lib. v. City of New York, 240 N. Y. 465.) It is the general policy of -the courts in this Department not -to extend the scope or occasion of references in the absence of consent of the parties or of special circumstances meriting such action. No special cir[596]*596cunistanccs appear here. (Matter of Wilder v. Straus-Duparquet, 5 AD 2d 1; Wolfson v. McGrow & Co., 18 A D 2d 905.) In addition, both parties object to the private reference. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 595, 240 N.Y.S.2d 446, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheean-v-allen-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack