From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dayan v. Yurkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 20, 2006
30 A.D.3d 561 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2004-10703.

June 20, 2006.

In an action to recover on a promissory note, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated May 3, 2004, which, upon an order of the same court dated April 6, 2004, confirming the report of a Judicial Hearing Officer (Leviss, J.H.O.), dated November 18, 2003, made after a hearing, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against him in the total sum of $196,170.

Neiman Ginsburg Mairanz, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Marvin Neiman and Teodore T. Mairanz of counsel), for appellant.

Engel Gustin, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Mona C. Engel of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Florio, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly entered judgment based on its order confirming the determination of the Judicial Hearing Officer since the findings contained in the Judicial Hearing Officer's report were supported by the record ( see Mondello v. Mondello, 253 AD2d 861; Namer v. 152-54-56 W. 15th St. Realty Corp., 108 AD2d 705).


Summaries of

Dayan v. Yurkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 20, 2006
30 A.D.3d 561 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Dayan v. Yurkowski

Case Details

Full title:NAIMA DAYAN et al., Respondents, v. JOSEPH YURKOWSKI, Also Known as JOSEPH…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 20, 2006

Citations

30 A.D.3d 561 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 4984
816 N.Y.S.2d 385

Citing Cases

Taub v. Taub

recommended denying the wife's petition for an order of protection pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. A…

Hackett v. Hackett

” It must also be recognized that a Referee's report is “in no way binding upon Special Term but is merely to…