Sheriff v. Heyman

• Decision Date: 18 February 1965
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: Leonard S. SHERIFF, suing in behalf of Titus Blatter & Co., as a director thereof, and in behalf of Carole Draperies, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Titus Blatter & Co., Plaintiff, v. Jack HEYMAN, Milton H. Stern, Hannah Stern, Jack Sekulsky, Alfred. J. Frati, Catalan-Schwab, Inc., Catalan Fabrics, Inc., Carole Draperies, Inc, and Titus Blatter & Co., Defendants. TITUS BLATTER & CO., Defendant, Appellant-Respondent, v. HAYS, AL. GASE, FEUER, PORTER & SPANIER, Attorneys for Plaintiff, Eric J. Klinger, Certified Public Accountant, Respondents-Appellants, and Gustave G. Rosenberg, Referee, Respondent.

Page 641

256 N.Y.S.2d 641

23 A.D.2d 555

Leonard S. SHERIFF, suing in behalf of Titus Blatter & Co.,

as a director thereof, and in behalf of Carole

Draperies, Inc., a wholly owned

subsidiary of Titus Blatter &

Co., Plaintiff, v. Jack HEYMAN, Milton H. Stern, Hannah Stern, Jack Sekulsky,

Alfred. J. Frati, Catalan-Schwab, Inc., Catalan

Fabrics, Inc., Carole Draperies, Inc,

and Titus Blatter & Co., Defendants.

TITUS BLATTER & CO., Defendant, Appellant-Respondent, v. HAYS, AL. GASE, FEUER, PORTER & SPANIER, Attorneys for

Plaintiff, Eric J. Klinger, Certified Public

Accountant, Respondents-Appellants, and

Gustave G. Rosenberg, Referee,

Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Feb. 18, 1965.

L. G. Bisco, New York City, for appellant-respondent.

M. L. Spanier, New York City, E. J. Klinger, pro se, for respondents-appellants.

G. G. Rosenberg, New York City, pro se.

Before RABIN, J. P., and VALENTE, McNALLY, STEUER and STALEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Order, entered February 13, 1964, awarding counsel and accountant's fees, and the sum of $15,000 to the referee for his services in a derivative action, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of reducing the award to the referee to the sum of $2,500, and, as so modified, affirmed without costs or disbursements. The hearings to ascertain whether the offer of settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate were five in number. No exact time was noted by the reporter for the first two hearings. The transcript of the hearing of April 30, 1963 consists of eight pages and that of May 9, 1963 is 34 pages. The actual time noted by the reporter for the next three hearings is: June 4, 1963, two hours; June 11, 1963 one hour and 50 minutes; and the final hearing of June 26, 1963, two and one-half hours. The report consisting of 52 pages rendered on October 23, 1963 is almost a copy of the memorandum submitted by petitioners. We are not informed as to the time devoted to this matter by the referee. In the circumstances we consider the allowance by Special Term to the referee to be grossly excessive.