Stone v. Stone
Cases that cite this one
28 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Stone v. Aronwald & Pykett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Gargano v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Wynkoop v. 622A President St. Owners Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Rosselli v. Passalacqua (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Pathak v. Shukla (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Rackis v. Adelman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Konig (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Tsoukas v. Tsoukas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Hudson v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- IG Second Generation Partners, L.P. v. Kaygreen Realty Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- IG Second Generation Partners, L.P. v. Kaygreen Realty Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Last Time Beverage Corp. v. F & V Distribution Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Last Time Beverage Corp. v. F & V Distribution Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Zupa v. Keitt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Stone v. Stone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Spodek v. Feibusch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Breidbart v. Wiesenthal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Capili v. Ilagan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Blangiardo v. Horstmann (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Stone v. Stone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Thomas v. Thomas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Corsa v. Biernacki (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Rosen v. Rosen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Kashyap v. Babcock & Wilcox (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Pittoni v. Boland (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In an action for the dissolution of a partnership, the appointment of a receiver, and an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.), entered October 11, 1994, which, inter alia, granted the motion of the defendant Norman Stone to confirm the Referee’s findings and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion to reject the Referee’s report and appoint a successor Referee to conduct the balance of the hearings, and for partial summary judgment, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered January 9, 1995, which is in favor of the defendant Norman Stone and against the plaintiff in the principal sum of $28,788.63.
Ordered that the appeal from the order and judgment entered October 11, 1994, is dismissed, as that order and judgment was superseded by the judgment entered January 9,1995; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment entered January 9, 1995, is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
The report of a Referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the Referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility (see, Kaplan v Einy, 209 AD2d 248; United States Trust Co. v Olsen, 194 AD2d 481). We agree with the Supreme Court that the Referee’s findings, which were based on more than a dozen hearings over an 18-month period, are supported by the record. Accordingly, the respondent’s motion to confirm the report was properly granted.
We note that, in his motion to confirm the Referee’s findings, the respondent contended that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by a general release he signed in a Federal action. We decline to reach this issue because the respondent never moved
We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.