Russell v. Maione

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russell v. Maione

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

DecidedJuly 1, 2026

Docket2024-03664

StatusPublished

This text of Russell v. Maione (Russell v. Maione) 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

Russell v. Maione, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell v Maione - 2026 NY Slip Op 04221

skip to main content

It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.

Law Reporting
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter

Russell v Maione

2026 NY Slip Op 04221

July 1, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Gina Russell, respondent,

v

Albert Maione, Jr., appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on July 1, 2026

2024-03664, (Index No. 616782/22)

Lara J. Genovesi, J.P.

Lillian Wan

Lourdes M. Ventura

Susan Quirk, JJ.

Somer & Heller, LLP, Commack, NY (Stanley J. Somer of counsel), for appellant.

Russell Law, PLLC, West Islip, NY (Frank S. Russell of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, for the partition and sale of real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kathy G. Bergmann, J.), dated February 29, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon an order of the same court dated January 30, 2024, in effect, denying the defendant's application to reject a referee's report dated January 4, 2024, and granting the plaintiff's application to confirm the referee's report, directed that the plaintiff's attorney's fees and expenses in the amount of $18,100, that 50% of the referee's fees in the amount of $8,000, that certain rent collected by the defendant in the amount of $10,080, and that 100% of the balance of a certain mechanic's lien in the amount of $44,066.66, be deducted and paid from the defendant's share of the proceeds of the partition sale of the subject real property.

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated February 29, 2024, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

In August 2022, the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, for the partition and sale of certain real property located in West Islip. During the relevant time period, the property was owned by the parties, who are siblings, as tenants in common, with the plaintiff holding a two-thirds ownership interest in the property and the defendant holding the remaining one-third interest. Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the cause of action seeking partition and sale of the property, appointed a referee, and directed the referee to sell the property and to make recommendations in the accounting of rents received and expenses borne by the respective parties. In November 2023, the property was sold to the defendant for the sum of $650,000.

On January 4, 2024, the referee issued a report recommending, inter alia, that the plaintiff's attorney's fees and expenses in the amount of $18,100, that 50% of the referee's fees in the amount of $8,000, that certain rent collected by the defendant in the amount of $10,080, and that 100% of the balance of a mechanic's lien in the amount of $44,066.66, purportedly related to repairs done to the property that were unilaterally contracted for by the defendant, be deducted and paid [*2]from the defendant's share of the proceeds of the partition sale of the property. Thereafter, the defendant, in effect, submitted an application to reject the referee's report, and the plaintiff submitted an application to confirm the referee's report. In an order dated January 30, 2024, the Supreme Court, in effect, denied the defendant's application and granted the plaintiff's application. In an order dated February 29, 2024, the court, among other things, directed that the plaintiff's attorney's fees and expenses in the amount of $18,100, that 50% of the referee's fees in the amount of $8,000, that certain rent collected by the defendant in the amount of $10,080, and that 100% of the balance of the mechanic's lien in the amount of $44,066.66, be deducted and paid from the defendant's share of the proceeds of the partition sale of the property. The defendant appeals.

"[A] referee's findings and recommendations are advisory only and have no binding effect on the court, which remains the ultimate arbiter of the dispute" (Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v Coles, 223 AD3d 678, 680 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Delgado, 211 AD3d 920, 921; Citimortgage, Inc. v Kidd, 148 AD3d 767, 768). "The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility" (Citimortgage, Inc. v Kidd, 148 AD3d at 768). Here, the referee's determination that $10,080 in rent collected by the defendant, and that 100% of the balance of the mechanic's lien, should be deducted and paid from the defendant's share of the proceeds of the partition sale of the property, was substantially supported by the record (see Capili v Ilagan, 26 AD3d 354, 354; Frater v Lavine, 229 AD2d 564; Wawrzusin v Wawrzusin, 212 AD2d 779).

"'[P]artition, although statutory (see RPAPL art 9), is equitable in nature, and the court may compel the parties to do equity between themselves when adjusting the distribution of the proceeds of a sale'" (Marone v Marone, 150 AD3d 1097, 1097, quoting Koniosis v Tsororos, 83 AD3d 665, 668). Here, the attorney's fee award in the sum of $18,100, payable from the defendant's share of the proceeds of the partition sale of the property, was equitable and reasonable (see id.).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court "properly required each of the parties to pay one half of the referee's fee" (Degliuomini v Degliuomini, 45 AD3d 626, 630; see H & Y Realty Co. v Baron, 193 AD2d 429, 430).

GENOVESI, J.P., WAN, VENTURA and QUIRK, JJ., concur.

2024-03664 DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Gina Russell, respondent, v Albert Maione, Jr., appellant.

(Index No. 616782/22)

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated February 29, 2024. By order to show cause dated August 12, 2024, the parties were directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that no appeal lies as of right from an order that is not the result of a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701). By decision and order on motion of this Court dated October 2, 2024, the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

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

Russell v Maione - 2026 NY Slip Op 04221

skip to main content

It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.

Law Reporting
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter

Russell v Maione

2026 NY Slip Op 04221

July 1, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Gina Russell, respondent,

v

Albert Maione, Jr., appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on July 1, 2026

2024-03664, (Index No. 616782/22)

Lara J. Genovesi, J.P.

Lillian Wan

Lourdes M. Ventura

Susan Quirk, JJ.

Somer & Heller, LLP, Commack, NY (Stanley J. Somer of counsel), for appellant.

Russell Law, PLLC, West Islip, NY (Frank S. Russell of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, for the partition and sale of real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kathy G. Bergmann, J.), dated February 29, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon an order of the same court dated January 30, 2024, in effect, denying the defendant's application to reject a referee's report dated January 4, 2024, and granting the plaintiff's application to confirm the referee's report, directed that the plaintiff's attorney's fees and expenses in the amount of $18,100, that 50% of the referee's fees in the amount of $8,000, that certain rent collected by the defendant in the amount of $10,080, and that 100% of the balance of a certain mechanic's lien in the amount of $44,066.66, be deducted and paid from the defendant's share of the proceeds of the partition sale of the subject real property.

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated February 29, 2024, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

In August 2022, the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, for the partition and sale of certain real property located in West Islip. During the relevant time period, the property was owned by the parties, who are siblings, as tenants in common, with the plaintiff holding a two-thirds ownership interest in the property and the defendant holding the remaining one-third interest. Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the cause of action seeking partition and sale of the property, appointed a referee, and directed the referee to sell the property and to make recommendations in the accounting of rents received and expenses borne by the respective parties. In November 2023, the property was sold to the defendant for the sum of $650,000.

On January 4, 2024, the referee issued a report recommending, inter alia, that the plaintiff's attorney's fees and expenses in the amount of $18,100, that 50% of the referee's fees in the amount of $8,000, that certain rent collected by the defendant in the amount of $10,080, and that 100% of the balance of a mechanic's lien in the amount of $44,066.66, purportedly related to repairs done to the property that were unilaterally contracted for by the defendant, be deducted and paid [*2]from the defendant's share of the proceeds of the partition sale of the property. Thereafter, the defendant, in effect, submitted an application to reject the referee's report, and the plaintiff submitted an application to confirm the referee's report. In an order dated January 30, 2024, the Supreme Court, in effect, denied the defendant's application and granted the plaintiff's application. In an order dated February 29, 2024, the court, among other things, directed that the plaintiff's attorney's fees and expenses in the amount of $18,100, that 50% of the referee's fees in the amount of $8,000, that certain rent collected by the defendant in the amount of $10,080, and that 100% of the balance of the mechanic's lien in the amount of $44,066.66, be deducted and paid from the defendant's share of the proceeds of the partition sale of the property. The defendant appeals.

"[A] referee's findings and recommendations are advisory only and have no binding effect on the court, which remains the ultimate arbiter of the dispute" (Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v Coles, 223 AD3d 678, 680 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Delgado, 211 AD3d 920, 921; Citimortgage, Inc. v Kidd, 148 AD3d 767, 768). "The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility" (Citimortgage, Inc. v Kidd, 148 AD3d at 768). Here, the referee's determination that $10,080 in rent collected by the defendant, and that 100% of the balance of the mechanic's lien, should be deducted and paid from the defendant's share of the proceeds of the partition sale of the property, was substantially supported by the record (see Capili v Ilagan, 26 AD3d 354, 354; Frater v Lavine, 229 AD2d 564; Wawrzusin v Wawrzusin, 212 AD2d 779).

"'[P]artition, although statutory (see RPAPL art 9), is equitable in nature, and the court may compel the parties to do equity between themselves when adjusting the distribution of the proceeds of a sale'" (Marone v Marone, 150 AD3d 1097, 1097, quoting Koniosis v Tsororos, 83 AD3d 665, 668). Here, the attorney's fee award in the sum of $18,100, payable from the defendant's share of the proceeds of the partition sale of the property, was equitable and reasonable (see id.).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court "properly required each of the parties to pay one half of the referee's fee" (Degliuomini v Degliuomini, 45 AD3d 626, 630; see H & Y Realty Co. v Baron, 193 AD2d 429, 430).

GENOVESI, J.P., WAN, VENTURA and QUIRK, JJ., concur.

2024-03664 DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Gina Russell, respondent, v Albert Maione, Jr., appellant.

(Index No. 616782/22)

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated February 29, 2024. By order to show cause dated August 12, 2024, the parties were directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that no appeal lies as of right from an order that is not the result of a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701). By decision and order on motion of this Court dated October 2, 2024, the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the order to show cause and the papers filed in response thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is

ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Russell v. Maione, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-maione-nyappdiv-2026.

Opinion

Russell v Maione

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack