Guttman v. Gutman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guttman v. Gutman

46 A.D.3d 514, 845 N.Y.S.2d 920

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 514 (Guttman v. Gutman) 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

Guttman v. Gutman, 46 A.D.3d 514, 845 N.Y.S.2d 920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and imposition of a constructive trust, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated September 29, 2006, as denied their cross motion to compel the plaintiff to comply with the prior recommendation of a Judicial Hearing Officer (Barasch, J.), contained in a decision dated May 19, 2005, that the plaintiff should place $800,000 in escrow.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Judicial Hearing Officer was authorized to hear and report, not hear and determine, the factual issues (see First Data Merchant Servs. Corp. v One Solution Corp., 14 AD3d 534, 535 [2005]; CPLR 4311).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are either without merit or are not properly before this Court. Krausman, J.P, Fisher, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and imposition of a constructive trust, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated September 29, 2006, as denied their cross motion to compel the plaintiff to comply with the prior recommendation of a Judicial Hearing Officer (Barasch, J.), contained in a decision dated May 19, 2005, that the plaintiff should place $800,000 in escrow.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Judicial Hearing Officer was authorized to hear and report, not hear and determine, the factual issues (see First Data Merchant Servs. Corp. v One Solution Corp., 14 AD3d 534, 535 [2005]; CPLR 4311).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are either without merit or are not properly before this Court. Krausman, J.P, Fisher, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 514, 845 N.Y.S.2d 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guttman-v-gutman-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack