referee to conduct hearing in New York

2023Mellon v Viola , 181 AD3d 767, 770 ).

2022Mellon v Viola , 181 AD3d 767, 770 ).

2023Contrary to the defendant's further contention, the failure of the referee to conduct a hearing does not require reversal of the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale in this matter since the defendant had the opportunity to submit relevant evidence to the Supreme Court ( see Hartford Funding, Ltd. v Harris , 193 AD3d 1035, 1036 ; Bank of N.Y.

2022Contrary to the defendant's contention, the failure of the referee to conduct a hearing does not require reversal of the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale in this matter, since the defendant had the opportunity to submit relevant evidence to the Supreme Court ( see Hartford Funding, Ltd. v Harris , 193 AD3d 1035, 1036 ; Bank of N.Y.

2022As set forth in his affidavit accompanying this motion, "[o]nly for the purpose of supporting the joint motion as provided in 22 NYCRR [*2]1240.8(a)(5)," respondent conditionally admits the facts set forth in the stipulation of facts section and that his misconduct "constitutes a violation of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth in the 'Respondent's Conditional Admissions' section." The aforementioned conditional admissions section refers to respondent's conviction and sentence, that the conviction constitutes a "serious crime" and that "his conviction violated the Rules of

2022As set forth in his affidavit accompanying this motion, "[o]nly for the purpose of supporting the joint motion as provided in 22 NYCRR [*2]1240.8(a)(5)," respondent conditionally admits the facts set forth in the stipulation of facts section and that his misconduct "constitutes a violation of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth in the 'Respondent's Conditional Admissions' section." The aforementioned conditional admissions section refers to respondent's conviction and sentence, that the conviction constitutes a "serious crime" and that "his conviction violated the Rules of

2022As set forth in his affidavit accompanying this motion, "[o]nly for the purpose of supporting the joint motion as provided in 22 NYCRR [*2]1240.8(a)(5)," respondent conditionally admits the facts set forth in the stipulation of facts section and that his misconduct "constitutes a violation of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth in the 'Respondent's Conditional Admissions' section." The aforementioned conditional admissions section refers to respondent's conviction and sentence, that the conviction constitutes a "serious crime" and that "his conviction violated the Rules of

2022As set forth in his affidavit accompanying this motion, "[o]nly for the purpose of supporting the joint motion as provided in 22 NYCRR [*2]1240.8(a)(5)," respondent conditionally admits the facts set forth in the stipulation of facts section and that his misconduct "constitutes a violation of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth in the 'Respondent's Conditional Admissions' section." The aforementioned conditional admissions section refers to respondent's conviction and sentence, that the conviction constitutes a "serious crime" and that "his conviction violated the Rules of

2022Contrary to Queens USA's contention, the failure of the referee to conduct a hearing does not require reversal in this matter, since Queens USA had the opportunity to submit relevant evidence to the Supreme Court ( see U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Bank of Am., N.A. , 201 AD3d 769, 772 ; Bank of N.Y.

2022Contrary to the defendant's contention, the failure of the referee to conduct a hearing does not require reversal of the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale insofar as appealed from, as the defendant had the opportunity to submit relevant evidence to the Supreme Court ( see Christiana Trust v Campbell , 202 AD3d 750, 751 ; Hartford Funding, Ltd. v Harris , 193 AD3d 1035, 1036 ; Bank of N.Y.

2015This Court denied the motion and referred the matter to a Referee to conduct a hearing and report his findings and recommendations ( 118 AD3d 1248 [2014]).

2001By order and decision dated April 15, 1999 ( 257 AD2d 18 ), this Court granted the petition of the Departmental Disciplinary Committee, finding that the crime of which respondent had been convicted was a “serious crime” as defined by Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d) and 22 NYCRR 603.12 (b), suspending respondent on an interim basis, and appointing a Referee to conduct a hearing within 90 days from the date of respondent’s sentencing in Federal court.