In re Carter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Carter

295 A.D.2d 617, 744 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6774

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

DecidedJune 24, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 617 (In re Carter) 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

In re Carter, 295 A.D.2d 617, 744 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding, inter alia, to dissolve a corporation, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Dollard, R.), dated April 6, 2001, which, upon finding grounds for dissolution, is in favor of the petitioner and against the appellant in the amount of $114,383.09.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for the referee to set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law that formed the basis of his award, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court, Richmond County, is to file its report containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law with all convenient speed.

[618]*618When determinations concerning questions of fact are submitted to a referee, it is the function of the referee to resolve the issues presented, as well as to resolve conflicting testimony and matters of credibility (see Muir v Cuneo, 267 AD2d 439). The decision of the referee, however, must also comply with the requirements for a decision by the court (see CPLR 4319). Thus, the decision of the referee must state the facts it deems essential (see CPLR 4213 [b]). This requirement recognizes that intelligent appellate review is impossible if the appellate court cannot ascertain upon what facts and conclusions of law the Supreme Court based its decision (see Tri-State Sol-Aire Corp. v United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 198 AD2d 494; see also Muir v Cuneo, supra).

After summarizing the evidence in this case, the referee found that the petitioner’s share of the corporation should be valued at $114,383.09, based upon “all” the evidence in the case. It is not clear from his decision how the referee determined, from the evidence in the record, the petitioner’s entitlement to that sum. Accordingly, we remit the matter for the referee to provide the findings of fact and conclusions of law that formed the basis of his decision (see Tri-State Sol-Aire Corp. v United States Fid. & Guar. Co., supra; see also Muir v Cuneo, supra). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, McGinity and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding, inter alia, to dissolve a corporation, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Dollard, R.), dated April 6, 2001, which, upon finding grounds for dissolution, is in favor of the petitioner and against the appellant in the amount of $114,383.09.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for the referee to set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law that formed the basis of his award, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court, Richmond County, is to file its report containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law with all convenient speed.

[618]*618When determinations concerning questions of fact are submitted to a referee, it is the function of the referee to resolve the issues presented, as well as to resolve conflicting testimony and matters of credibility (see Muir v Cuneo, 267 AD2d 439). The decision of the referee, however, must also comply with the requirements for a decision by the court (see CPLR 4319). Thus, the decision of the referee must state the facts it deems essential (see CPLR 4213 [b]). This requirement recognizes that intelligent appellate review is impossible if the appellate court cannot ascertain upon what facts and conclusions of law the Supreme Court based its decision (see Tri-State Sol-Aire Corp. v United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 198 AD2d 494; see also Muir v Cuneo, supra).

After summarizing the evidence in this case, the referee found that the petitioner’s share of the corporation should be valued at $114,383.09, based upon “all” the evidence in the case. It is not clear from his decision how the referee determined, from the evidence in the record, the petitioner’s entitlement to that sum. Accordingly, we remit the matter for the referee to provide the findings of fact and conclusions of law that formed the basis of his decision (see Tri-State Sol-Aire Corp. v United States Fid. & Guar. Co., supra; see also Muir v Cuneo, supra). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, McGinity and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 617, 744 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-carter-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack