You are here: / / COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY...
,

COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the court attorney referee was not authorized to determine a contested family offense petition or custody and visitation issues:

A referee derives authority from an order of reference by the court (see CPLR 4311, 4317…). Here, as correctly asserted by the mother, the order of reference did not authorize the Court Attorney Referee to hear and report or to hear and determine a contested family offense petition. The Court Attorney Referee therefore lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the mother’s family offense petition in this instance… . Accordingly, the family offense matter must be remitted to a judge of the Family Court for a new determination.

With respect to the determination of custody, the order of reference recited that, upon the parties’ stipulation, a court attorney referee is authorized to hear and determine the parties’ rights to custody of and visitation with the child, including the determination of motions and temporary orders of custody. Upon our review of the record, however, we find no indication that the parties stipulated to the reference in the manner prescribed by CPLR 2104, and, absent such stipulation, the Court Attorney Referee had the power only to hear and report her findings … . We further find that the mother did not consent to the reference merely by participating in the proceeding without expressing her desire to have the matter tried before a judge … . The order of reference must therefore be deemed an order to hear and report. Thus, the Court Attorney Referee had no jurisdiction to determine, but only to hear and report, with respect to the parties’ respective rights of custody and visitation … . Matter of Rose v Simon, 2018 NY Slip Op 04736, Second Dept 6-27-18

​FAMILY LAW (COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAMILY LAW, COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4311, 4317, 2104 (FAMILY LAW, COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE (FAMILY LAW, COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/REFEREES  (FAMILY LAW, COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
WHERE A DEFENDANT IS AN “ELIGIBLE YOUTH,” THE SENTENCING COURT MUST CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TREATMENT; IF THE RECORD IS SILENT ON THE ISSUE, THE SENTENCE WILL BE VACATED AND THE MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
INFANT PLAINTFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT DRIVER WHILE IN A CROSS-WALK WITH THE WALK SIGNAL ON; SUN-GLARE IS NOT AN “EMERGENCY” WHICH WILL RAISE A QUESTON OF FACT; PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION, MADE BY PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL, TO VACATE A STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY PRIOR COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PRIOR COUNSEL HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ENTER THE STIPULATION AND PLAINTIFF CAN NOT LATER ARGUE PRIOR COUNSEL LACKED AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).
THE ORDER ISSUED AFTER A TRAVERSE HEARING FINDING DEFENDANTS WERE NOT PROPERLY SERVED IS APPEALABLE PURSUANT TO CPLR 5501 (C); THE ORDER BRINGS UP FOR APPEAL WHETHER THE TRAVERSE HEARING WAS NECESSARY; THE MAJORITY C0NCLUDED THE HEARING WAS NOT NECESSARY; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEBTOR’S LAWSUIT WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT LISTED AS AN ASSET IN THE BANKRUPTCY FILINGS, BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE WAS ENTITLED TO RECOMMENCE THE SUIT PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a) WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE PAINT BY SPRAYING LACQUER WHICH APPARENTLY LED TO AN EXPLOSION; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS SUFFICIENTLY CONTROLLED OR SUPERVISED PLAINTIFF’S WORK SUCH THAT THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT APPLY, AND WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS WERE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE THEORIES (SECOND DEPT).
Warrantless Search of Parolee’s Car by Detective Was Valid–Detective Was Effectively Functioning As a Parole Officer, Was Aware of an Arrest Warrant Based Upon Defendant’s Alleged Parole Violations, and Was Aware the Defendant, as a Parolee, Had Consented In Writing to the Search of His Person and Property
Where Attorney Is a Party to a Lawsuit, Attorney’s Submission of an Affirmation as Opposed to an Affidavit in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Is Not a Sufficient Ground for Dismissal of the Complaint

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 WALKED INTO THE REAR OF A TRACTOR TRAILER WHICH WAS MAKING A RIGHT... FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY NOTES AND FAILURE...