Surgical Design Corp. v. Correa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Surgical Design Corp. v. Correa

309 A.D.2d 800, 765 N.Y.S.2d 521

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 800 (Surgical Design Corp. v. Correa) 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

Surgical Design Corp. v. Correa, 309 A.D.2d 800, 765 N.Y.S.2d 521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In related actions, inter alia, to recover corporate property and funds, the defendants in Action No. 1 appeal, by permission, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated August 26, 2002, which, among other things, sua sponte appointed a private attorney to be compensated by the parties to serve as a referee to oversee discovery.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof which sua sponte appointed a private attorney to be compensated by the parties to serve as a referee to oversee discovery; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the appointment of a Judicial Hearing Officer to serve as a referee.

The Supreme Court lacked the authority to appoint a private attorney to serve as a referee to oversee discovery, and to be compensated by the parties, without their consent (see CPLR 3104; Csanko v County of Westchester, 273 AD2d 434 [2000]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Smith, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In related actions, inter alia, to recover corporate property and funds, the defendants in Action No. 1 appeal, by permission, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated August 26, 2002, which, among other things, sua sponte appointed a private attorney to be compensated by the parties to serve as a referee to oversee discovery.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof which sua sponte appointed a private attorney to be compensated by the parties to serve as a referee to oversee discovery; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the appointment of a Judicial Hearing Officer to serve as a referee.

The Supreme Court lacked the authority to appoint a private attorney to serve as a referee to oversee discovery, and to be compensated by the parties, without their consent (see CPLR 3104; Csanko v County of Westchester, 273 AD2d 434 [2000]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Smith, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 800, 765 N.Y.S.2d 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/surgical-design-corp-v-correa-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack