Fidelity New York FSB v. Madden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fidelity New York FSB v. Madden

228 A.D.2d 473, 643 N.Y.2d 1020, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6627

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

DecidedJune 10, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 473 (Fidelity New York FSB v. Madden) 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

Fidelity New York FSB v. Madden, 228 A.D.2d 473, 643 N.Y.2d 1020, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6627 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[474]*474Although it is well settled, that a court directing appointment of a Referee is empowered to specify or limit the scope of a Referee’s powers (CPLR 4311; see, Chang v Chang, 190 AD2d 311, 319; McCormack v McCormack, 174 AD2d 612), in this case the Supreme Court’s January 4, 1993, order of reference did not preclude the Referee from considering the appellant’s claim that he had satisfied the judgment docketed against him on January 5, 1988 by, among others, the defendant Demar Packing Corp., and any evidence with respect to that issue. The referee’s finding that the appellant had satisfied the January 5, 1988, judgment is supported by the record. Therefore, the court should have granted the appellant’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report (see generally, Kaplan v Einy, 209 AD2d 248, 251; Plaza Funding Corp. v J. C. Dev. Corp., 155 AD2d 298; Kardanis v Velis, 90 AD2d 727). Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

[474]*474Although it is well settled, that a court directing appointment of a Referee is empowered to specify or limit the scope of a Referee’s powers (CPLR 4311; see, Chang v Chang, 190 AD2d 311, 319; McCormack v McCormack, 174 AD2d 612), in this case the Supreme Court’s January 4, 1993, order of reference did not preclude the Referee from considering the appellant’s claim that he had satisfied the judgment docketed against him on January 5, 1988 by, among others, the defendant Demar Packing Corp., and any evidence with respect to that issue. The referee’s finding that the appellant had satisfied the January 5, 1988, judgment is supported by the record. Therefore, the court should have granted the appellant’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report (see generally, Kaplan v Einy, 209 AD2d 248, 251; Plaza Funding Corp. v J. C. Dev. Corp., 155 AD2d 298; Kardanis v Velis, 90 AD2d 727). Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 473, 643 N.Y.2d 1020, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fidelity-new-york-fsb-v-madden-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack