Rosen v. Rosen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosen v. Rosen

301 A.D.2d 532, 753 N.Y.S.2d 736

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 532 (Rosen v. Rosen) 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

Rosen v. Rosen, 301 A.D.2d 532, 753 N.Y.S.2d 736 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to dissolve a corporation pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104, Jerome Rosen appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated July 9, 2001, as granted that branch of the petitioner’s motion which was to confirm, in part, the report of a Special Referee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the Special Referee did not exceed his authority, and his findings were “substantially supported by the record” (Pittoni v Boland, 278 AD2d 396; see CPLR 4311; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Suleymanova, 289 AD2d 404; Matter of Lipsky v Koplen, 282 AD2d 462; Stone v Stone, 229 AD2d 388). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly confirmed, in part, the report of the Special Referee.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Feuerstein, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to dissolve a corporation pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104, Jerome Rosen appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated July 9, 2001, as granted that branch of the petitioner’s motion which was to confirm, in part, the report of a Special Referee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the Special Referee did not exceed his authority, and his findings were “substantially supported by the record” (Pittoni v Boland, 278 AD2d 396; see CPLR 4311; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Suleymanova, 289 AD2d 404; Matter of Lipsky v Koplen, 282 AD2d 462; Stone v Stone, 229 AD2d 388). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly confirmed, in part, the report of the Special Referee.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Feuerstein, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 532, 753 N.Y.S.2d 736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosen-v-rosen-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack