You are here: / / Referee’s Authority Exceeded—Authority Comes from Consent of...
,

Referee’s Authority Exceeded—Authority Comes from Consent of the Parties

The Second Department determined the referee had exceeded his authority in a custody proceeding:

“A referee derives authority from an order of reference by the court (see CPLR 4311), which can be made only upon the consent of the parties, except in limited circumstances,” which are not applicable here … . Here, the parties did not consent to the determination of any issues by a referee, and the order of reference directed the referee to hear and report (see CPLR 4317[a]). Absent the parties’ consent, the referee had the power only to hear and report his findings (see CPLR 4317[a]…). Thus, the referee exceeded his authority in signing an order to show cause pursuant to which the defendant, in effect, sought leave to submit a motion to modify a prior order of custody and to stay the enforcement of an order entered in a related custody proceeding commenced in the Family Court, pending her appeal of that order. The referee further exceeded his authority in temporarily restraining the enforcement of the Family Court’s order and all proceedings in the Family Court pending the determination of that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for a stay … .  Albert v Albert, 2015 NY Slip Op 02439, 2nd Dept 3-25-15

 

You might also like
NOTICE OF CLAIM CANNOT BE AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW INJURY AND THEORY OF LIABILITY.
THE PRE-ANSWER, PRE-DISCOVERY MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER OF TWO CORPORATIONS; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PART PERFORMANCE BY INACTION SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT).
REQUESTS FOR RECORDS OF SURGICAL PROCEDURES PERFORMED ON NON-PARTIES AND RECORDS OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST DEFENDANT SURGEON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED.
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT RECEIVED AND RETAINED THE INVOICES; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACCOUNT STATED CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED CEILING TILES WAS REPAIR, COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6), OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, WHICH IS NOT COVERED (SECOND DEPT).
Sole Proximate Cause of Plaintiffs’ Injuries Should Have Been Determined as a Matter of Law—Complaint Against Non-Negligent Driver (Whose Car Was Pushed into the Pedestrian-Plaintiffs by the Negligent-Driver’s Car) Should Have Been Dismissed
Supreme Court Should Have Proceeded to Second Step of Defendant’s “Batson” Challenge Alleging the Prosecutor’s Exclusion of Jurors on the Basis of Race
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DENTIST WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint a Temporary Administrator after Defendant’s... Escalating Intrusiveness of Police-Encounter with Defendant Justified Under...