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

FRED KAPLAN et al., Respondents, v. SEYMOUR KAPLAN et al., Appellants.

Orde entered July 31, 1974, in the Supreme Court, New York County, appointing a private referee to supervise disclosure proceedings, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, by striking therefrom the second and third decretal paragraphs and substituting therefor the appointment of a court-employed Special Referee to supervise the remaining pretrial disclosure proceedings, and, as so modified the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements to either party. There was neither stipulation nor evidence of such circumstances as would in our opinion necessitate the appointment of a private referee. If the court felt that a referee should be appointed, it should have designated a court-employed Special Referee (CPLR 3104, subd [a]; People v Grubel, 19 A.D.2d 604; Brooks, Hampton, Levy Walker v Balaban, 22 A.D.2d 679).

Concur — Stevens, P.J., Markewich, Lupiano, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

KAPLAN v. KAPLAN
(May 27, 1975)