From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Braunstein v. Taj Group of Hotels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 30, 1997
235 A.D.2d 370 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

January 30, 1997.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered August 7, 1995, which, inter alia, granted defendants' cross motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee upon a traverse hearing, dismissed the complaint against all defendants on Statute of Limitations grounds, and dismissed the complaint against all the defendants except Hotel Lexington for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.


A traverse hearing was directed to be conducted before a Special Referee in order to determine whether service in this personal injury action was properly made, and the date on which service was made. The evidence supported the Special Referee's finding that service was attempted on April 1, 1992, outside the Statute of Limitations (CPLR 214). Plaintiff did not make a written motion to recuse the Special Referee on the ground that he engaged in ex parte communications with counsel for both sides until after the Special Referee rendered a report against plaintiffs interests. His argument is therefore waived ( see, Markonic v Leroy, 167 AD2d 713).

In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to reach the other issues raised.


Summaries of

Braunstein v. Taj Group of Hotels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 30, 1997
235 A.D.2d 370 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Braunstein v. Taj Group of Hotels

Case Details

Full title:ELMA BRAUNSTEIN, Appellant, v. TAJ GROUP OF HOTELS et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 30, 1997

Citations

235 A.D.2d 370 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
653 N.Y.S.2d 18

Citing Cases

Karen E.A. v. 545 W. 146th St., Inc.

Defendant's failure to comply with CPLR 3122–a did not prevent it from objecting to the report's…

Dunlop Development Corp. v. Spitzer

The court properly denied petitioner's motion to amend the petition to include certain claims of bias based…