
    ROUSE v. GOODMAN.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    April 23, 1894.)
    Supplementary Proceedings—Removal of Referee.
    Where the judgment debtor appears at the examination before the referee, he waives the objection that the referee and plaintiff’s attorney occupied the same office.
    Appeal from special term.
    
      Action by Callman Rouse against Aaron Goodman. From an ■order denying a motion to remove a referee in supplementary proceedings, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before NEWBURGER, McCARTHY, and CONLAN, JJ.
    Abraham Levy, for appellant.
    William A. Gans, for respondent.
   McCARTHY, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant judgment ■debtor from an order denying a motion to remove a referee in supplementary proceedings, on the ground that that referee has his ■office in the same office with the plaintiff’s attorney. On the hearing of the motion, this was disputed, and it was also asserted and sworn to that the judgment debtor appeared at the examination, and waived this objection. This is also certified to by the referee. On these facts the justice at special term, in the exercise of his •sound discretion, denied the motion to remove. The facts are sufficient to justify this determination, and, there being no abuse of •discretion, order must be affirmed with costs. All concur.  