Dayan v. Yurkowski

30 A.D.3d 561, 816 N.Y.S.2d 385
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 20, 2006·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

30 A.D.3d 561 (Dayan v. Yurkowski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Taub v. Taub
94 A.D.3d 901 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)