Barrett v. Stone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barrett v. Stone

236 A.D.2d 323, 653 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1597

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 323 (Barrett v. Stone) 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

Barrett v. Stone, 236 A.D.2d 323, 653 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered June 26, 1996, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to vacate a prior installment payment order in favor of plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s motion to vacate the installment payment order was held in abeyance pending receipt of a Special Referee’s report "on the issue of defendant’s income and assets”. The Special Referee’s report purported to do no more than recite the "essential testimony” of defendant, the only witness called at the hearing, that he has had no employment or income since being fired from his job shortly after issuance of the installment payment order, and that his wife owns their home. The motion court confirmed this report but denied vacatur of the installment payment order, finding it "suspect” that defendant has no assets, "incredible” that he had not worked since losing his job, and "unbelievable” that he lacked the means to pay [324]*324the $1,500 a month installment payment order. We affirm. Under CPLR 4403, the motion court could, with respect to the Special Referee’s report, "make new findings with or without taking additional testimony!’. With the benefit of the hearing transcript, the motion court simply made findings as to defendant’s credibility that the Special Referee did not purport to make. Upon review of that transcript—wherein defendant claimed that he is entirely dependent upon his wife’s $40,000 a year salary as a school teacher for payment of his living expenses but disclaimed knowledge as to how his wife is able to maintain their home in Connecticut, the amount of the mortgage on his home and the identity of the mortgagee, the sources of income he admittedly earned in the same year as the judgment sought to be enforced was entered, when he last paid his attorney and the amount thereof, and whether his accountant had forwarded his recent tax returns to him—we see no reason to disturb those findings. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered June 26, 1996, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to vacate a prior installment payment order in favor of plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s motion to vacate the installment payment order was held in abeyance pending receipt of a Special Referee’s report "on the issue of defendant’s income and assets”. The Special Referee’s report purported to do no more than recite the "essential testimony” of defendant, the only witness called at the hearing, that he has had no employment or income since being fired from his job shortly after issuance of the installment payment order, and that his wife owns their home. The motion court confirmed this report but denied vacatur of the installment payment order, finding it "suspect” that defendant has no assets, "incredible” that he had not worked since losing his job, and "unbelievable” that he lacked the means to pay [324]*324the $1,500 a month installment payment order. We affirm. Under CPLR 4403, the motion court could, with respect to the Special Referee’s report, "make new findings with or without taking additional testimony!’. With the benefit of the hearing transcript, the motion court simply made findings as to defendant’s credibility that the Special Referee did not purport to make. Upon review of that transcript—wherein defendant claimed that he is entirely dependent upon his wife’s $40,000 a year salary as a school teacher for payment of his living expenses but disclaimed knowledge as to how his wife is able to maintain their home in Connecticut, the amount of the mortgage on his home and the identity of the mortgagee, the sources of income he admittedly earned in the same year as the judgment sought to be enforced was entered, when he last paid his attorney and the amount thereof, and whether his accountant had forwarded his recent tax returns to him—we see no reason to disturb those findings. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 323, 653 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-stone-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack