Dayan v. Yurkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dayan v. Yurkowski

30 A.D.3d 561, 816 N.Y.S.2d 385

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

DecidedJune 20, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 561 (Dayan v. Yurkowski) 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

Dayan v. Yurkowski, 30 A.D.3d 561, 816 N.Y.S.2d 385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover on a promissory note, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J), dated May 3, 2004, which, upon an order of the same court dated April 6, 2004, confirming the report of a Judicial Hearing Officer (Leviss, J.H.O.), dated November 18, 2003, made after a hearing, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against him in the total sum of $196,170.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly entered judgment based on its order confirming the determination of the Judicial Hearing Officer since the findings contained in the Judicial Hearing Officer’s report were supported by the record (see Mondello v Mondello, 253 AD2d 861 [1998]; Namer v 152-54-56 W. 15th St. Realty Corp., 108 AD2d 705 [1985]). Florio, J.E, Adams, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover on a promissory note, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J), dated May 3, 2004, which, upon an order of the same court dated April 6, 2004, confirming the report of a Judicial Hearing Officer (Leviss, J.H.O.), dated November 18, 2003, made after a hearing, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against him in the total sum of $196,170.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly entered judgment based on its order confirming the determination of the Judicial Hearing Officer since the findings contained in the Judicial Hearing Officer’s report were supported by the record (see Mondello v Mondello, 253 AD2d 861 [1998]; Namer v 152-54-56 W. 15th St. Realty Corp., 108 AD2d 705 [1985]). Florio, J.E, Adams, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 561, 816 N.Y.S.2d 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dayan-v-yurkowski-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack