Herman v. Gill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Herman v. Gill

61 A.D.3d 433, 876 N.Y.S.2d 55

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

DecidedApril 7, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 61 A.D.3d 433 (Herman v. Gill) 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

Herman v. Gill, 61 A.D.3d 433, 876 N.Y.S.2d 55 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered February 8, 2008, which granted petitioners’ motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee and directed respondent to pay petitioners $154,509.24, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is well settled that “where questions of fact are submitted to a referee, it is the function of the referee to determine the issues presented, as well as to resolve conflicting testimony and matters of credibility” (Kardanis v Velis, 90 AD2d 727, 727 [1982]). The record does not demonstrate that the Special Referee exhibited partiality toward petitioners. Nor does it otherwise disclose any ground upon which the Referee’s credibility determinations should be disturbed. The amount awarded is supported by the record. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Nardelli, Buckley, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 30384(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered February 8, 2008, which granted petitioners’ motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee and directed respondent to pay petitioners $154,509.24, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is well settled that “where questions of fact are submitted to a referee, it is the function of the referee to determine the issues presented, as well as to resolve conflicting testimony and matters of credibility” (Kardanis v Velis, 90 AD2d 727, 727 [1982]). The record does not demonstrate that the Special Referee exhibited partiality toward petitioners. Nor does it otherwise disclose any ground upon which the Referee’s credibility determinations should be disturbed. The amount awarded is supported by the record. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Nardelli, Buckley, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 30384(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 433, 876 N.Y.S.2d 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herman-v-gill-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack