Hudson
v.
Smith

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.Apr 8, 2015
4 N.Y.S.3d 894 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
4 N.Y.S.3d 894127 A.D.3d 8162015 N.Y. Slip Op. 2935

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • In re Cincotta

    …241 N.Y. 593, 150 N.E. 568 ). Although the Surrogate's Court is entitled to reject the report of a referee…

  • CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Kidd

    …However, as the defendant correctly contends, the Supreme Court erred in confirming the referee's report. The…

lock 5 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

04-08-2015

Donneil Oliver HUDSON, appellant, v. Thomas J. SMITH, et al., defendants, Wayne A. Hoyte, respondent.

Lozner & Mastropietro (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac, Jacob Aronauer, and Beth S. Gereg ], of counsel), for appellant. Laurie DiPreta, Jericho, N.Y. (Lord Chester So of counsel), for respondent.


Lozner & Mastropietro (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac, Jacob Aronauer, and Beth S. Gereg ], of counsel), for appellant.

Laurie DiPreta, Jericho, N.Y. (Lord Chester So of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated December 19, 2013, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Wayne A. Hoyte which was pursuant to CPLR 4403 to confirm the report of a referee (Sunshine, Ct.Atty.Ref.) dated June 12, 2013.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The recommendations and report of a referee will not be disturbed when they are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility (see IG Second Generation Partners, L.P., v. Kaygreen Realty Co., 114 A.D.3d 641, 980 N.Y.S.2d 479 ; Spodek v. Feibusch, 55 A.D.3d 903, 865 N.Y.S.2d 575 ; Matter of County Conduit Corp., 49 A.D.3d 641, 852 N.Y.S.2d 788 ; Stone v. Stone, 229 A.D.2d 388, 644 N.Y.S.2d 648 ). Here, the record substantially supports the referee's finding that the defendant Wayne A. Hoyte's vehicle was not involved in the subject accident. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Hoyte's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4403 to confirm the report of the referee.

BALKIN, J.P., HALL, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.