AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
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

LITMAN, ASCHE, LUPKIN GIOIELLA, Respondent, v. EDWARD ARASHI, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

This is an action by a law firm to recover a balance of legal fees from defendant-appellant and his non-appealing co-defendant wife, for representing the former in a criminal proceeding. Appellant is presently incarcerated in State prison. The order referring the issue to a Referee to hear and determine recites that the reference is pursuant to stipulation. Although plaintiff and the co-defendant wife have apparently so stipulated, appellant has not, and indeed vigorously objects thereto. Since this order, purportedly issued under CPLR 4317 (a), lacks the essential jurisdictional predicate of appellant's consent, it must be vacated (McCormack v McCormack, 174 A.D.2d 612; Haibi v Haibi, 171 A.D.2d 842; Sternberg v Sternberg, 88 A.D.2d 950).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

LITMAN, ASCHE, LUPKIN GIOIELLA v. ARASHI
(Apr 15, 1993)