Berkowitz v. Halberstam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berkowitz v. Halberstam

151 A.D.2d 535, 543 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7915

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

DecidedJune 12, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 151 A.D.2d 535 (Berkowitz v. Halberstam) 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

Berkowitz v. Halberstam, 151 A.D.2d 535, 543 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for an accounting between former partners, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marks, J.), dated January 20, 1988, which following a hearing, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal amount of $169,124.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Although the defendant objected to the judgment embodying the Referee’s ultimately confirmed findings and conclusions, she did not do so on the ground that no transcript of the proceedings before the Referee was filed with his report (see, CPLR 4320 [b]; see also, Matter of Galiber v Previte, 40 NY2d 822, 824). Moreover, she did not take issue with the Referee’s conclusion that the case was essentially a documentary one and she did not challenge the accuracy of the 10-page list of checks appended to the report upon which the final money award was premised (cf., Aron v Aron, 280 NY 328; Matter of Shulman v Elco Constr. Corp., 12 AD2d 460). Under these circumstances, the defendant waived the nonfatal defect of failure to file a transcript (see, Matter of Galiber v Previte, supra). Brown, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for an accounting between former partners, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marks, J.), dated January 20, 1988, which following a hearing, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal amount of $169,124.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Although the defendant objected to the judgment embodying the Referee’s ultimately confirmed findings and conclusions, she did not do so on the ground that no transcript of the proceedings before the Referee was filed with his report (see, CPLR 4320 [b]; see also, Matter of Galiber v Previte, 40 NY2d 822, 824). Moreover, she did not take issue with the Referee’s conclusion that the case was essentially a documentary one and she did not challenge the accuracy of the 10-page list of checks appended to the report upon which the final money award was premised (cf., Aron v Aron, 280 NY 328; Matter of Shulman v Elco Constr. Corp., 12 AD2d 460). Under these circumstances, the defendant waived the nonfatal defect of failure to file a transcript (see, Matter of Galiber v Previte, supra). Brown, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A.D.2d 535, 543 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berkowitz-v-halberstam-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack