From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Winopa Internat'l v. Woori Am. Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 10, 2009
59 A.D.3d 203 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Summary

holding that plaintiffs' contention that the court improperly referred the matter to a Special Referee to hear and report on contested issues of fact was waived by their failure to object to the reference and their willing participation in the resulting hearing

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Dixon

Opinion

Nos. 5197, 5198.

February 10, 2009.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered October 26, 2007, which granted defendant's motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee recommending dismissal of plaintiffs' claims, and denied plaintiffs' cross motion to set the report aside, deemed an appeal from judgment, same court and Justice, entered March 10, 2008 (CPLR 5501 [c]), inter alia, dismissing the complaint, and, so considered, said judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Allen M. Schwartz, New York, for appellants.

Koven Krausz, New York (Murray T. Koven of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.


Plaintiffs' contention that the court improperly referred the matter to a referee to hear and report on contested questions of fact was waived by their failure to object to the reference as well as by their willing participation in the resulting hearing ( see Law Offs. of Sanford A. Rubenstein v Shapiro Baines Saasto, 269 AD2d 224, 225, lv denied 95 NY2d 757). Furthermore, the court, in confirming the report, properly deferred to the findings of the Special Referee, "who was in the best position to weigh the evidence and make credibility determinations" ( Andersen v Weinroth, 48 AD3d 121, 133).

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions, including that the court, in confirming the report, failed to consider all of their claims, and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Winopa Internat'l v. Woori Am. Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 10, 2009
59 A.D.3d 203 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

holding that plaintiffs' contention that the court improperly referred the matter to a Special Referee to hear and report on contested issues of fact was waived by their failure to object to the reference and their willing participation in the resulting hearing

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Dixon

holding that plaintiffs' contention that the court improperly referred the matter to a Special Referee to hear and report on contested issues of fact was waived by their failure to object to the reference and their willing participation in the resulting hearing

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Dixon
Case details for

Winopa Internat'l v. Woori Am. Bank

Case Details

Full title:WINOPA INTERNATIONAL, LTD., et al., Appellants, v. WOORI AMERICA BANK…

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

Date published: Feb 10, 2009

Citations

59 A.D.3d 203 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 989
873 N.Y.S.2d 37

Citing Cases

Lbubs 2005-C2 N.Y. Retail, LLC v. AC 1 Sw. Broadway LLC

It is well settled that a special referee's findings of fact and credibility will generally not be disturbed…

Jordan v. Dixon

Next, as Jordan, who was represented by counsel, did not object to the reference to the Special Referee and…