1605 Putnam Avenue Realty Corp. v. Suey Kee Huey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

1605 Putnam Avenue Realty Corp. v. Suey Kee Huey

204 A.D.2d 67, 612 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4634

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 3, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 67 (1605 Putnam Avenue Realty Corp. v. Suey Kee Huey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

1605 Putnam Avenue Realty Corp. v. Suey Kee Huey, 204 A.D.2d 67, 612 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about January 21 and February 10, 1993 in a shareholders derivative action, denying plaintiffs’ motion to disaffirm the report of the Special Master and adhering to the January 21 decision which sua sponte confirmed the report, granted a money judgment for the Special Master’s fee, and directed the clerk to enter judgment dismissing both the complaint and the counterclaims, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the Special Master’s report disaffirmed, the money judgment for the Special Master’s fee vacated, and the matter remanded for a proper accounting.

The record on appeal reveals that plaintiffs never received a proper accounting as ordered by the IAS Court in confirming the Judicial Hearing Officer’s report, and that at the proceeding before the Special Master, defendant was allowed to patently forestall and evade efforts to hold a proper accounting. Accordingly, there was no basis in the record for the subsequent conclusion by the Special Master to dismiss the complaint, and the IAS Court’s confirming of the Special Master’s report and dismissal of the complaint was error. However, the court did not err in denying plaintiffs’ request for entry of a money judgment, since there is no basis in the record for fixing an amount.

On the issue of the Special Master’s fee, the record does not reflect an agreement on the part of plaintiffs to defray any of such costs, and it was improper for the IAS Court to grant a judgment against plaintiffs for a portion of the fee. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about January 21 and February 10, 1993 in a shareholders derivative action, denying plaintiffs’ motion to disaffirm the report of the Special Master and adhering to the January 21 decision which sua sponte confirmed the report, granted a money judgment for the Special Master’s fee, and directed the clerk to enter judgment dismissing both the complaint and the counterclaims, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the Special Master’s report disaffirmed, the money judgment for the Special Master’s fee vacated, and the matter remanded for a proper accounting.

The record on appeal reveals that plaintiffs never received a proper accounting as ordered by the IAS Court in confirming the Judicial Hearing Officer’s report, and that at the proceeding before the Special Master, defendant was allowed to patently forestall and evade efforts to hold a proper accounting. Accordingly, there was no basis in the record for the subsequent conclusion by the Special Master to dismiss the complaint, and the IAS Court’s confirming of the Special Master’s report and dismissal of the complaint was error. However, the court did not err in denying plaintiffs’ request for entry of a money judgment, since there is no basis in the record for fixing an amount.

On the issue of the Special Master’s fee, the record does not reflect an agreement on the part of plaintiffs to defray any of such costs, and it was improper for the IAS Court to grant a judgment against plaintiffs for a portion of the fee. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 67, 612 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/1605-putnam-avenue-realty-corp-v-suey-kee-huey-nyappdiv-1994.