Dayan v Yurkowski
2006 NY Slip Op 04984 [30 AD3d 561]
Decided on June 20, 2006
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on June 20, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
THOMAS A. ADAMS
DANIEL F. LUCIANO
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
2004-10703 DECISION & ORDER

[*1]Naima Dayan, etc., et al., respondents,

v

Joseph Yurkowski, a/k/a Joseph York, appellant (and a third-party action). (Index No. 22526/93)





Neiman Ginsburg & Mairanz, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Marvin
Neiman and Teodore T. Mairanz of counsel), for appellant.
Engel & Gustin, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Mona C. Engel of
counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover on a promissory note, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated May 3, 2004, which, upon an order of the same court dated April 6, 2004, confirming the report of a Judicial Hearing Officer (Leviss, J.H.O.), dated November 18, 2003, made after a hearing, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against him in the total sum of $196,170.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly entered judgment based on its order confirming the determination of the Judicial Hearing Officer since the findings contained in the Judicial Hearing Officer's report were supported by the record (see Mondello v Mondello, 253 AD2d 861; Namer v 152-54-56 W. 15th St. Realty Corp., 108 AD2d 705).
FLORIO, J.P., ADAMS, LUCIANO and FISHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court