Dealership Holdings, Inc. v. Griffin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dealership Holdings, Inc. v. Griffin

221 A.D.2d 997, 635 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13497

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 997 (Dealership Holdings, Inc. v. Griffin) 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

Dealership Holdings, Inc. v. Griffin, 221 A.D.2d 997, 635 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme [998]*998Court properly confirmed the Referee’s report. "A Referee’s determination is entitled to great weight, particularly in cases where the Referee, as trier of fact, must resolve conflicting testimony and matters of credibility” (Bellnier v Bellnier, 158 AD2d 947, 948; see, Zuckerman v Altman, 200 AD2d 520, Iv denied 83 NY2d 756). The court properly rejected the objection that plaintiffs obligation to make payments pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement was conditioned upon the determination of the adjusted purchase price of the stock. That objection is contrary to the theory advanced at the trial before the Referee (see, Pipe Welding Supply Co. v Haskell, Conner & Frost, 61 NY2d 884, 886). We agree with the court that the record supports the Referee’s determination that plaintiff is not entitled to credit for sums withdrawn from the Stock Payment Account, 50% of the net proceeds of used vehicle sales or salaries paid to defendants Griffin and Sorbini. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J.—Specific Performance.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme [998]*998Court properly confirmed the Referee’s report. "A Referee’s determination is entitled to great weight, particularly in cases where the Referee, as trier of fact, must resolve conflicting testimony and matters of credibility” (Bellnier v Bellnier, 158 AD2d 947, 948; see, Zuckerman v Altman, 200 AD2d 520, Iv denied 83 NY2d 756). The court properly rejected the objection that plaintiffs obligation to make payments pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement was conditioned upon the determination of the adjusted purchase price of the stock. That objection is contrary to the theory advanced at the trial before the Referee (see, Pipe Welding Supply Co. v Haskell, Conner & Frost, 61 NY2d 884, 886). We agree with the court that the record supports the Referee’s determination that plaintiff is not entitled to credit for sums withdrawn from the Stock Payment Account, 50% of the net proceeds of used vehicle sales or salaries paid to defendants Griffin and Sorbini. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J.—Specific Performance.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 997, 635 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dealership-holdings-inc-v-griffin-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack