Hyperlawhypertext legal database SDF7 Richmond, LLC v. Rich-Nich Realty, LLC 132 A.D.3d 838

← Cases

SDF7 Richmond, LLC v. Rich-Nich Realty, LLC

132 A.D.3d 838 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2015-10-21 English

Judges Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.

Contents

Majority

p. 838
SDF7 Richmond, LLC, Respondent, v Rich-Nich Realty, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
[17 NYS3d 881]

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Rich

p. 839
Nich Realty, LLC, and Yehuda Leib Puretz appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Fusco, J.), dated August 16, 2013, as granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, to confirm a referee’s report dated March 27, 2013, made after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process of the plaintiff’s amended motion for leave to enter a deficiency judgment against the defendant Yehuda Leib Puretz, and to deem service of process of that amended motion properly effected on that defendant, and denied their cross motion to reject the referee’s report.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The determination of a referee, made after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process of the plaintiff’s amended motion for leave to enter a deficiency judgment against the defendant Yehuda Leib Puretz, that the testimony of the process server was more credible than that of Puretz, is entitled to great deference on appeal, and his conclusion that service of the plaintiff’s amended motion was properly effected upon Puretz was supported by the record (see Prosolov v PSRS Realty, 128 AD3d 934 [2015]; Lattingtown Harbor Prop. Owners Assn., Inc. v Agostino, 34 AD3d 536 [2006]; Rowlan v Brooklyn Jewish Hosp., 100 AD2d 844 [1984]; cf. Holtzer v Stepper, 268 AD2d 372 [2000]; Skyline Agency v Coppotelli, Inc., 117 AD2d 135 [1986]). Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, we discern no basis in the record to disturb the referee’s resolution of the issues.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly confirmed the referee’s report.

Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cases cited