Summary
In Matter of Gilman v Golfinopoulos (284 AD2d 224 [1st Dept 2001]) Supreme Court held that the nonjusticiability of extraordinary circumstances excess fee awards meant that petitioner could not bring an article 78 proceeding to compel the county to pay such a fee, awarded by Family Court.
Summary of this case from People v. TomsOpinion
June 21, 2001.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered October 16, 2000, which denied petitioner's application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel payment by respondents 18-b program Administrator and Comptroller of a compensation voucher issued by Family Court Judge Sheldon Rand pursuant to Family Court Act § 262 and County Law § 18-b, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Helene Brezinsky, for petitioner-appellant.
Julian L. Kalkstein, for respondents-respondents
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Saxe, Buckley, JJ.
The motion court correctly ruled that it had no authority to review Judge Rand's order reducing petitioner's fee. Trial court orders granting or denying increases in the statutorily recommended fees under County Law § 722-b are "essentially administrative in nature and, accordingly, are not amenable to judicial review on the merits by an appellate panel" (Matter of Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York [Bodek], 87 N.Y.2d 191, 194).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.