Dime Sav. Bank v. Melohn, 79 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1980). · Go Syfert
Dime Sav. Bank v. Melohn, 79 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dime Savings Bank of New York, Formerly Known as Dime Savings Bank of Brooklyn
v.
Joseph Melohn, and Max Britvan
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 15, 1980.
Published opinion
79 A.D.2d 647
1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14013
Published

In a mortgage foreclosure action wherein the receiver moved to settle his account and defendants filed objections and sought to surcharge the receiver, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 1, 198Q, which held the receiver’s motion in abeyance pending the report of a Referee, appointed by it pursuant to CPLR 4317 (subd [b]), to “hear and determine”. Order modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the word “determine” and substituting therefor the word “report”. As so modified, order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements payable by the appellants to respondent. On the argument of this appeal the parties agreed that given Special Term’s evident desire to retain jurisdiction over this matter, the proper reference would have been one “to hear and report” (see CPLR 4311), since a reference to “hear and determine” divests the court of jurisdiction over an action (see CPLR 4301). Titone, J. P., Lazer, Cohalan and Weinstein, JJ., concur.