From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fernald v. Vinci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 17, 2003
303 A.D.2d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-04571

Argued March 3, 2003.

March 17, 2003.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated October 25, 2000, the plaintiff mother appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scancarelli, J.H.O.), dated April 5, 2002, which, without a hearing, inter alia, granted the father's motion for custody of the parties' three children and denied her cross motion for the same relief.

Louann T. Fernald, Carmel, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Law Firm of Steven J. Mandel, P.C., New York, N.Y. (James F. Nemia of counsel), for respondent.

Faith G. Miller, Harrison, N.Y., Law Guardian for the children.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA L. TOWNES, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for assignment before a Justice to hear and determine the motion and cross motion.

A Judicial Hearing Officer (hereinafter JHO) derives authority from an order of reference by the court (see CPLR 4311), and an order of reference is made only upon the consent of the parties except in limited circumstances not applicable here (see CPLR 4317; McCormack v. McCormack, 174 A.D.2d 612, 613). The consent of the parties is an "essential jurisdictional predicate" (Litman, Asche, Lupkin Gioiella v. Arashi, 192 A.D.2d 403). "Leave of court and designation by it of the referee is required for references in matrimonial actions" (CPLR 4317[a]). There was no order of the Supreme Court referring the issues to a JHO for determination in this case. Moreover, the judgment of divorce did not contain a stipulation of the parties consenting to the reference of future matters to a JHO. In the absence of an order of reference from the Supreme Court and the consent of the parties, the JHO had no authority to consider the parties' motions with respect to custody. Since there was no consent to the submission of any of the issues in this case to a JHO, the order of the JHO must be reversed (see Fernald v. Vinci, 302 A.D.2d 354 [2d Dept, Feb. 3, 2003]).

SMITH, J.P., McGINITY, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fernald v. Vinci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 17, 2003
303 A.D.2d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Fernald v. Vinci

Case Details

Full title:LOUANN FERNALD, appellant, v. ROBERT K. VINCI, respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 17, 2003

Citations

303 A.D.2d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 462

Citing Cases

Ryon J.G. v. Carlton D.S.

Memorandum: The record before us contains no order of reference, nor does it indicate that the parties…

In re Sylvia Agina

Ordered that the orders are reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the father's petition for…