Update: Special Referee Sunshine, Allegedly Fabricates Facts In Open Court Saying She Couldn’t Sanction William Hamel For Violating Subpoena–Oh Yeah!
March 16, 2014 § Leave a comment
During the 2/19/14 Court date that was actually scheduled to be heard due to corruption, in front of 2 Court Officers, i.e., Kurtz, And Sp. Ref. Sunshine, at 2:15 PM in different rooms and was finally heard in front of the latter after, according to the latter, Sunshine, the Litigant alerted her, Sunshine announced that she couldn’t sanction Hamel for violating the subpoena demanding his appearance and testimony in court.
Well, Ms. Sunshine, (for whom both parties signed an agreement for her to be a Referee to Determine), we beg to differ as do the laws. (and below laws that reinforce our assertion) :
2012 New York Consolidated Laws
CVP – Civil Practice Law & Rules
Article 43 – (4301 – R4321) TRIAL BY A REFEREE
4301 – Powers of referee to determine.
Universal Citation: NY CPLR § 4301 (2012)
§ 4301. Powers of referee to determine. A referee to determine an issue or to perform an act shall have all the powers of a court in performing a like function; but he shall have no power to relieve himself of his duties, to appoint a successor or to adjudge any person except a witness before him guilty of contempt.
For the purposes of this article, the term referee shall be deemed to include judicial hearing officer.
So Sunshine< what's your excuse for not sanctioning Hamel for violating the law, the subpoena, and your court order confirming it now? You must conjure up another false excuse for not following ht e law in favor of criminals. The more you conjure up the more we will be thrilled to post. It just expands our Audience for which we highly appreciate!
The fact that Hamel wasn't going to show up once, and didn't show up THREE times, absolutely at the least opens the door for the Litigant to win the case with all the trimmings that go with the win by Default, pursuant to the Default laws:
N.Y. CVP. LAW § 3215 : NY Code – Section 3215: Default Judgment (a) Default and entry. When a defendant has failed to appear, plead or proceed to trial of an action reached and called for trial, or when the court orders a dismissal for any other neglect to proceed, the plaintiff may seek a default judgment against him. If the plaintiff's claim is for a sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain, application may be made to the clerk within one year after the default. The clerk, upon submission of the requisite proof, shall enter judgment for the amount demanded in the complaint or stated in the notice served pursuant to subdivision (b) of rule 305, plus costs and interest. Upon entering a judgment against less than all defendants, the clerk shall also enter an order severing the action as to them. When a plaintiff has failed to proceed to trial of an action reached and called for trial, or when the court orders a dismissal for any other neglect to proceed, the defendant may make application to the clerk within one year after the default and the clerk, upon submission of the requisite proof, shall enter judgment for costs. Where the case is not one in which the clerk can enter judgment, the plaintiff shall apply to the court for judgment. (b) Procedure before court. The court, with or without a jury, may make an assessment or take an account or proof, or may direct a reference. When a reference is directed, the court may direct that the report be returned to it for further action or, except where otherwise prescribed by law, that judgment be entered by the clerk in accordance with the report without any further application.
Except in a matrimonial action, no finding of fact in writing shall be necessary to the entry of a judgment on default. The judgment shall not exceed in amount or differ in type from that demanded in the complaint or stated in the notice served pursuant to subdivision (b) of rule 305. (c) Default not entered within one year. If the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed. A motion by the defendant under this subdivision does not constitute an appearance in the action. (d) Multiple defendants. Whenever a defendant has answered and one or more other defendants have failed to appear, plead, or proceed to trial of an action reached and called for trial, notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (c) of this section, upon application to the court within one year after the default of any such defendant, the court may enter an ex parte order directing that proceedings for the entry of a judgment or the making of an assessment, the taking of an account or proof, or the direction of a reference be conducted at the time of or following the trial or other disposition of the action against the defendant who has answered. Such order shall be served on the defaulting defendant in such manner as shall be directed by the court. (e) Place of application to court. An application to the court under this section may be made, except where otherwise prescribed by rules of the chief administrator of the courts, by motion at any trial term in which the action is triable or at any special term in which a motion in the action could be made. Any reference shall be had in the county in which the action is triable, unless the court orders otherwise. –
22NYCRR Section 130-1.1. Costs; sanctions
(a) The court, in its discretion, may award to any party or attorney in any civil action or proceeding before the court, except where prohibited by law, costs in the form of reimbursement for actual expenses reasonably incurred and reasonable attorney's fees, resulting from frivolous conduct as defined in this Part. In addition to or in lieu of awarding costs, the court, in its discretion may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct as defined in this Part, which shall be payable as provided in section 130-1.3 of this Subpart. This Part shall not apply to town or village courts, to proceedings in a small claims part of any court, or to proceedings in the Family Court commenced under article 3, 7 or 8 of the Family Court Act.
We might add Dear Audience that feb. 19, 2014 was the last Court date. Sunshine said that she would come down with a Decision within 2 weeks. It is well past 2 weeks and to our best knowledge, she has yet to come down with a decision.
A decision of which if based on the law–which in and of itself is and thus has to be very clear cut doesn't take any time as the Law says that if someone violates the law the Special Referee has the same power as any judge. So Sunshine, what's your excuse other than illegal bias for not sanctioning Hamel and ruling in favor of the litigant?
Furthermore, in our last installment, we proved Godosky, allegedly lied to Sunshine and Sunshine took no action then,and took no action when anyone other than the litigant made a request for an emergency adjournment–which she denied!!
What’s your imaginary excuse now Sunshine?
To be continued…..
THE INTERNET IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD