Opinion
April 25, 2000.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered May 24, 1999, which, after a referee hearing, granted defendant's motion to confirm the report and recommendations of the referee, denied plaintiff's cross-motion to reject the report, granted defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Leslie D. Corwin, for plaintiff-appellant.
Laura B. Hoguet, for defendant-respondent.
WILLIAMS, J.P., MAZZARELLI, RUBIN, BUCKLEY, FRIEDMAN, JJ.
None of the employees or non-equity partners in the law firm stood "to gain or lose * * * by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment"; (see, Will of Sheehan, 51 A.D.2d 645, 647), to an extent that was present, certain and vested (see, Stay v. Horvath, 177 A.D.2d 897, 899), and not a mere possibility (see, Curtis v. Hennequin, 27 Misc.2d 1042, 1044). Accordingly, the motion court correctly upheld the referee's ruling that none of them was barred from testifying by CPLR 4519. Substantively, the referee's report was supported by the record (see, Muhlstock v. Cole, 245 A.D.2d 55, 58) as the evidence demonstrates that plaintiff's decedent was not an equity partner (see, Bereck v. Meyer, 222 A.D.2d 243, 244).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.