O’Toole v. McTaggart (In re Trinsum Grp., Inc.), 467 B.R. 734, 740 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2012) (“In adversary proceedings, orders dismissing fewer than all claims are considered to be interlocutory.”); see also LTV Steel Co., Inc. v. United Mine Workers of Am. (In re Chateaugay Corp.), 922 F.2d 86, 90 (2d Cir.1990) (“Orders in bankruptcy cases may be immediately appealed if they resolve discrete disputes within the larger case. The disposition of a discrete dispute is generally considered to be the resolution of an adversary proceeding within the bankruptcy action.” (internal citations omitted)). Therefore, the Court has authority to enter this Order, and is not limited to submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court. See Trinsum Grp., 467 B.R. at 740 (<HOLDING>). This Order is still subject to discretionary
holding that bankruptcy judges may hear and enter final judgments in core proceedings holding that bankruptcy court possessed jurisdiction to enter money judgment in noncore proceeding against third party holding that after stem bankruptcy judges have the authority to enter interlocutory orders in noncore proceedings and in core proceedings as to which the bankruptcy court may not enter final orders or judgment consistent with article iii absent consent holding that stem does not change bankruptcy courts authority to decide fundamental core procedures of bankruptcy court holding that in a noncore proceeding a bankruptcy court may enter final orders with the consent of all the parties to the proceeding