Thomas v. Thomas

21 A.D.3d 949, 800 N.Y.S.2d 768
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 12, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 949 (Thomas v. Thomas) 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
Thomas v. Thomas, 21 A.D.3d 949, 800 N.Y.S.2d 768 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In an action to partition real property, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated November 17, 2003, which, sua sponte, confirmed a referee’s report dated August 7, 2003, and (2) an order of the same court (Douglass, J.), dated April 7, 2004, which, in effect, denied his motion, in effect, to vacate the prior order.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 17, 2003, is dismissed, as no appeal lies as of right from an order that does not decide a motion made on notice, and leave to appeal has not been granted (see CFLR 5701 [a] [2]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated April 7, 2004, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

“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” (Pittoni v Boland, 278 AD2d 396 [2000], quoting Stone v Stone, 229 AD2d 388 [1996]; see Matter of Smiros v Lopez, 251 AD2d 587 [1998]). Here, the referee’s findings regarding the distribution of the parties’ respective shares of the proceeds and the profits from the sale of the subject real property were substantially supported by the record. Thus, the Supreme Court [950]*950properly, in effect, denied the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, to vacate the order dated November 17, 2003, which, sua sponte, confirmed the referee’s report.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Ritter and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Durane-Bolivard
2019 NY Slip Op 6502 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Faistman v. Faistman
2018 NY Slip Op 7094 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
33-37 Farrington, LLC v. Global Universal Group, Ltd.
2018 NY Slip Op 7081 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
41st Rd. Props., LLC v. Wang Real Prop., LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 5565 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Konig
2017 NY Slip Op 6255 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Rackis v. Adelman
2017 NY Slip Op 4305 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Kidd
2017 NY Slip Op 1668 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Cincotta
139 A.D.3d 1058 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Bubul v. Port Parties, Ltd.
83 A.D.3d 517 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Spodek v. Feibusch
55 A.D.3d 903 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re County Conduit Corp.
49 A.D.3d 641 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Blangiardo v. Horstmann
32 A.D.3d 876 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 A.D.3d 949, 800 N.Y.S.2d 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-thomas-nyappdiv-2005.