Opinion
October 31, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Tenenbaum, R.).
Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The appellants contend that the Referee appointed in this lawsuit exceeded his authority in ordering disclosure relating to income the firm received for providing nonlegal services to its clients. We disagree.
A Referee's authority is derived from the order of reference (CPLR 4311; Lipton v Lipton, 128 Misc.2d 528, 531, affd 119 A.D.2d 809; see also, Feder Corp. v Bozkurtian, 48 A.D.2d 701). In the instant case, the order of reference of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kelly, J.), authorized the Referee "to supervise all discovery proceedings in the instant action". The order further empowered him to report his findings "with respect to all accounting issues in the instant action". In light of the broad language contained in the order of reference, we find that the Referee had the authority to order the discovery sought by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the determination of the Referee was proper.
We also reject the appellants' contention that the plaintiffs were required to obtain an interlocutory judgment establishing their right to an accounting prior to obtaining the disclosure ordered by the Referee.
We have examined the appellants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.