Justice James Pagones
Objectant Albert moved to vacate the various decisions of the court which confirmed a referee’s report. She also sought recusal of the court on subsequent motions regarding confirmation of the report arguing the referee was the judge’s former principal court attorney and worked on the subject matter. Albert claimed confirmation of the report without permitting her an opportunity to be heard violated principles of due process, requiring vacatur. The court ruled such argument was unsupported by the referenced statute, Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act §506(4). It stated the statute stated that on its own initiative, the court may confirm or reject the report of a referee, but did not provide the parties an opportunity to move to confirm or reject the report before the court acting. As §506(4) lacked a time frame in which the court was mandated to wait before confirming the report,vacatur of this branch of Albert’s motion was denied. Also, the court noted as the appointments of referees were quasi-judicial in nature, the judge was not required to disclose their former employment relationship, ruling the referee’s appointment was proper. Thus, it denied recusal, thereby denying the objectant’s motion entirely.
