Sichel v. Polak

36 A.D.3d 416, 828 N.Y.S.2d 310
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 4, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 36 A.D.3d 416 (Sichel v. Polak) 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
Sichel v. Polak, 36 A.D.3d 416, 828 N.Y.S.2d 310 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered February 8, 2006, which confirmed the report and recommendations of a Special Referee, dated March 11, 2003, and accepted the 1997 accounting submitted by defendants, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered January 25, 2006, which referred the issue of allocation and reimbursement for the parties’ net contributions to the partnership, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The report and recommendations of a Special Referee should be confirmed if its findings are supported by the record (Baker v Kohler, 28 AD3d 375 [2006]). The findings of the Special Referee herein were clearly supported by the record (see R.V.R. Realty v Tenants Alliance, 305 AD2d 289 [2003]). Defendants’ expert accountant testified at the hearing that his accounting firm had reviewed not only tax returns but extensive supporting documentation, which material was then cross-checked for accuracy. Under these circumstances, plaintiff has not demonstrated that the second accounting was insufficiently documented so as to require disturbing the report of the Special Referee. We also affirm the order calling for a post-accounting hearing on the issue of allocation and reimbursement for the parties’ net contributions to the partnership. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Sweeny, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Reargument granted and upon reargument, the decision and order of this Court entered on September 19, 2006 (32 AD3d 734 [2006]) recalled and vacated and a new decision and order [417]*417substituted therefor; leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.

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

Related

Fairouz v. Bennett Moving & Stor.
2025 NY Slip Op 34396(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Isaly v. Garde
2024 NY Slip Op 34311(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Universal Constr., Inc. v. Ramza LLC
2023 NY Slip Op 06462 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Board of Mgrs. of Ruppert Yorkville Towers Condominium v. Hayden
2019 NY Slip Op 1335 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Terrastone Audubon, L.P. v. Blair Ventures, LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 2576 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Kosovsky v. Zahl
96 A.D.3d 420 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Galasso, Langione & Botter, LLP v. Galasso
89 A.D.3d 897 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
MacNiallias v. Potter
82 A.D.3d 718 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Barrett v. Toroyan
45 A.D.3d 301 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 A.D.3d 416, 828 N.Y.S.2d 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sichel-v-polak-nyappdiv-2007.