Opinion
5283 5283A
January 3, 2002.
Petitions pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, seeking review of orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki Scherer, J.), entered on or about about May 21 and May 23, 2001, which, pursuant to Rules of the Chief Administrator Part 127.2(b), as amended effective April 16, 2001, modified the compensation to petitioners for services rendered as assigned counsel, by reducing it, in each case, to the statutory limits set forth in County Law § 722-b, unanimously denied, and the proceedings dismissed, without costs.
PRO SE, for petitioner.
MICHAEL COLODNER, for respondents.
PRO SE, for petitioners.
MICHAEL COLODNER, for respondents.
CRAIG A. LANDY MALVINA NATHANSON, BARTLEY J. COSTELLO, JANE BELLO BURKE, JONATHAN E. GRADESS, for Lawyers' Association.
Before: Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Wallach, Lerner, Friedman, JJ.
Petitioners' challenges to the reduction of their compensation pursuant to administrative orders of the Supreme Court are not justiciable (see,Matter of Director of Assigned Counsel Plan of City of New York [Bodek], 87 N.Y.2d 191, 194; see also, Matter of Werfel v. Agresta, 36 N.Y.2d 624;Matter of Gilman v. Golfinopoulous, 284 A.D.2d 224, 726 N.Y.S.2d 271). To the extent that petitioners seek a declaration as to the validity of respondent Chief Administrator's rule ( 22 NYCRR 127.2[b], as amended, effective April 16, 2001), allowing administrative review of trial court determinations as to the propriety of fee awards in excess of the limits prescribed in County Law § 722-b, the matter is not, in the first instance, properly before us
Motions seeking leave to file amici curiae briefs granted.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.