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

• Decision Date: 21 October 2015
• Citation: 132 A.D.3d 838,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07640,17 N.Y.S.3d 881
• Parties: SDF7 RICHMOND, LLC, respondent, v. RICH–NICH REALTY, LLC, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

132 A.D.3d 838

17 N.Y.S.3d 881

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07640

SDF7 RICHMOND, LLC, respondent,

v.RICH–NICH REALTY, LLC, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Oct. 21, 2015.

Mark D. Mermel, Lake Success, N.Y., for appellants.

Kriss & Feuerstein LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jerold C. Feuerstein and Michelle Mandelstein of counsel), for respondent.

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Rich–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 A.D.3d 934, 11 N.Y.S.3d 188; Lattingtown Harbor Prop. Owners Assn., Inc. v. Agostino, 34 A.D.3d 536, 825 N.Y.S.2d 86; Rowlan v. Brooklyn Jewish Hosp., 100 A.D.2d 844, 474 N.Y.S.2d 84; cf. Holtzer v. Stepper, 268 A.D.2d 372, 702 N.Y.S.2d 268; Skyline Agency v. Coppotelli, Inc., 117 A.D.2d 135, 502 N.Y.S.2d 479). 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.