Opinion
01-31-2017
In re Tracy TYLER, Petitioner–Respondent, v. The MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, Respondent–Appellant.
Kornfeld, Rew, Newman & Simeone, Suffern (William S. Badura of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Brian J. Elbaum, New York (Brian J. Elbaum of counsel), for respondent.
Kornfeld, Rew, Newman & Simeone, Suffern (William S. Badura of counsel), for appellant.
Law Offices of Brian J. Elbaum, New York (Brian J. Elbaum of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered November 16, 2015, which confirmed the report of the special referee and granted the petition for leave to commence an action against respondent (MVAIC) pursuant to Insurance Law § 5218, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered February 22, 2016, which denied MVAIC's motion to reject the report of the special referee, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
By failing to object to the scope of the reference ordered by the motion court or at the hearing, MVAIC waived its claim that the issue before the special referee was incorrectly limited and that the motion court should have broadened the issue (see Adelaide Prods., Inc. v. BKN Intl. AG, 51 A.D.3d 598, 858 N.Y.S.2d 167 [1st Dept.2008] ; Hexcel Corp. v. Hercules Inc., 291 A.D.2d 222, 223, 737 N.Y.S.2d 349 [1st Dept.2002], lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 607, 746 N.Y.S.2d 457, 774 N.E.2d 222 [2002] ). The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying MVAIC's motion to reject the referee's report on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, WEBBER, GESMER, JJ., concur.