MacNiallias v. Potter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MacNiallias v. Potter

82 A.D.3d 718, 917 N.Y.2d 895

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

DecidedMarch 1, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 718 (MacNiallias v. Potter) 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

MacNiallias v. Potter, 82 A.D.3d 718, 917 N.Y.2d 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff Tarlach MacNiallias and the defendant Kevin Potter were domestic partners. They purchased a house in Corona, Queens, as tenants in common, on March 31, 1997. Their relationship subsequently deteriorated, and MacNiallias moved out of the house in July 2002. MacNiallias thereafter commenced the instant action to sell the property and divide the proceeds between himself and Potter. A referee was appointed to determine the parties’ respective interests in the property.

MacNiallias submitted an affidavit, loan statements, copies of checks, the original mortgage agreement, refinanced mortgage agreements, and statements from his checking account, in order to demonstrate his interest in the property. Potter testified in opposition that he had some repairs done to the house, including fixing a leak in the ceiling, and replacing a bathtub. The referee found that MacNiallias established that he was entitled to receive the sum of $57,451.85, representing his contributions to the value of the house. MacNiallias moved to confirm the referee’s report, and Potter opposed the motion. In an order and judgment (one paper) dated October 1, 2009, the Supreme Court, Queens County, granted MacNiallias’s motion to confirm the referee’s report, directed that the house be sold at auction, and directed that, after the satisfaction of all outstanding mortgages, MacNiallias be awarded the sum of $57,451.85, with the remainder of the proceeds to be divided equally between him and Potter.

[719]*719The report and recommendations of a referee should be confirmed if its findings are supported by the record (see Sichel v Polak, 36 AD3d 416 [2007]; Baker v Kohler, 28 AD3d 375 [2006]). Here, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the referee’s report was supported by the record.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Dillon, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiff Tarlach MacNiallias and the defendant Kevin Potter were domestic partners. They purchased a house in Corona, Queens, as tenants in common, on March 31, 1997. Their relationship subsequently deteriorated, and MacNiallias moved out of the house in July 2002. MacNiallias thereafter commenced the instant action to sell the property and divide the proceeds between himself and Potter. A referee was appointed to determine the parties’ respective interests in the property.

MacNiallias submitted an affidavit, loan statements, copies of checks, the original mortgage agreement, refinanced mortgage agreements, and statements from his checking account, in order to demonstrate his interest in the property. Potter testified in opposition that he had some repairs done to the house, including fixing a leak in the ceiling, and replacing a bathtub. The referee found that MacNiallias established that he was entitled to receive the sum of $57,451.85, representing his contributions to the value of the house. MacNiallias moved to confirm the referee’s report, and Potter opposed the motion. In an order and judgment (one paper) dated October 1, 2009, the Supreme Court, Queens County, granted MacNiallias’s motion to confirm the referee’s report, directed that the house be sold at auction, and directed that, after the satisfaction of all outstanding mortgages, MacNiallias be awarded the sum of $57,451.85, with the remainder of the proceeds to be divided equally between him and Potter.

[719]*719The report and recommendations of a referee should be confirmed if its findings are supported by the record (see Sichel v Polak, 36 AD3d 416 [2007]; Baker v Kohler, 28 AD3d 375 [2006]). Here, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the referee’s report was supported by the record.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Dillon, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 718, 917 N.Y.2d 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macniallias-v-potter-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack