Connery v. Sultan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Connery v. Sultan

126 A.D.3d 525, 2 N.Y.S.3d 894

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2015

Docket401336/05 -14243A 14243 14242

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 525 (Connery v. Sultan) 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

Connery v. Sultan, 126 A.D.3d 525, 2 N.Y.S.3d 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered December 3, 2012, in plaintiffs’ favor, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered November 28, 2012, which decided the parties’ motions addressed to the report of the Special Referee, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered February 6, 2013, which denied defendant’s motion to reargue (denominated a motion to renew and reargue), unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

As the action had not been discontinued, the court properly granted enforcement of the stipulation of settlement (Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51 [1979]). Because the court’s power to do so was inherent, it was not necessary that the stipulation provide for the court to retain the power to enforce the settlement. The referee’s findings, which were based largely on a finding of credibility, were properly upheld (see Matter of *526 Jones v Blake, 120 AD3d 415 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 908 [2014]). Defendant’s claim that he was denied the opportunity to present evidence at the hearing is unsupported, and his challenge to the referee’s calculations was made, improperly, for the first time in the appellate reply brief.

We deny plaintiffs’ request for sanctions on appeal.

Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered December 3, 2012, in plaintiffs’ favor, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered November 28, 2012, which decided the parties’ motions addressed to the report of the Special Referee, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered February 6, 2013, which denied defendant’s motion to reargue (denominated a motion to renew and reargue), unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

As the action had not been discontinued, the court properly granted enforcement of the stipulation of settlement (Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51 [1979]). Because the court’s power to do so was inherent, it was not necessary that the stipulation provide for the court to retain the power to enforce the settlement. The referee’s findings, which were based largely on a finding of credibility, were properly upheld (see Matter of *526 Jones v Blake, 120 AD3d 415 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 908 [2014]). Defendant’s claim that he was denied the opportunity to present evidence at the hearing is unsupported, and his challenge to the referee’s calculations was made, improperly, for the first time in the appellate reply brief.

We deny plaintiffs’ request for sanctions on appeal.

Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 525, 2 N.Y.S.3d 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connery-v-sultan-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack