AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

IN RE APPLICATION OF DAVID GILMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, FOR A JUDGMENT, ETC., v. GEORGE GOLFINOPOULOUS, ETC., ET AL., Respondents-Respondents.

The motion court correctly ruled that it had no authority to review Judge Rand's order reducing petitioner's fee. Trial court orders granting or denying increases in the statutorily recommended fees under County Law § 722-b are "essentially administrative in nature and, accordingly, are not amenable to judicial review on the merits by an appellate panel" (Matter of Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York [Bodek], 87 N.Y.2d 191, 194).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN RE APPLN. OF GILMAN v. GOLFINOPOULOUS
(Jun 21, 2001)