Case ID: ad_260/html/1055-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Readjustment, etc., Westchester Title and Trust Company Series 38-A, 52-A, 66-A, 84-A, 89-A, 96-A, 49-B, 57-B, 58-B, 67-B, 71-B, 80-B, 81-B, 97-B, 99-B, 71-C, 72-C, 73-C, 74-C, 79-C, 80-C, 83-C, 84-C, 85-C, 86-C, 88-C, 89-C, 90-C, 92-C, 94-C, 95-C, 97-C, 98-C, 100-C, 1-E, 4-E, 5-E, 7-E, 8-E, 17-E, 20-E, 23-E, 27-E, 33-E, 34-E, 38-E, and Lawyers Westchester Mortgage and Title Company Series 2-6769-70, 5-7010, 3-7055, 5-7266 and 5-7730. Michael J. Willin, Isoline D. Ray, Arabella S. Burr, Eva J. Godfrey, Anna C. Hallocic and Other Trustees, Methodist Episcopal Church Home; Lydia G. Weld and Another, Trustees of Estate of Loretta B. Weld, Elaine F. Cross, Robert Drennan, Christian L. Krogh, Morris A. Rabinovitch, Hazel Ware Land, Rosaline L. Ware, Maude W. Ware, Margaret J. Brown, Helen C. Brockman, Dorothy Rattinger, H. Spencer Crolley and Ida Mead, Certificate Holders, Appellants; John P. Doyle and Others, Successor Trustees, and Bleakley, Platt & Walker, Respondent.
   Appeal by certain certificate holders from an order of an official referee, to whom the proceeding had been referred, on consent, to hear and determine, denying their motion to vacate fifty-one separate orders in which were contained an allowance to the attorneys for the successor trustees. The appellant certificate holders do not on the appeal contest the amount of the allowances. They assert that no allowance could be made because of a claimed adverse interest on the part of one of the members of the law firm, as a consequence of his ownership of stock in a corporation which had a servicing contract with the trustees under each series. Appeal dismissed, without costs. There is no statutory authority for an appeal to this court from an order of an official referee to whom the matter had been referred to hear and determine. (Johnson v. International Harvester Co., 236 App. Div. 618; Croveno v. Atlantic Ave. R. R. Co., 150 N. Y. 225, 228; Clens Falls Ins. Co. v. Extension D. Co. [ Nos. 1-4], 154 App. Div. 305; Matter of Pariser, 231 id. 762.) In instances where such appeals have been entertained, the question of nonappealability was not raised. We have examined the merits, however, and find that the order of the official referee was in all respects proper. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.