Lee v Solimano

Annotate this Case
Eun Lee v Solimano 2006 NY Slip Op 08185 [34 AD3d 299] November 14, 2006 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Eun Lee, Respondent,
v
Matthew D. Solimano, Appellant.

—[*1]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered June 7, 2005, which, inter alia, dissolving the parties' marriage, equitably distributing the marital property, and awarding plaintiff child support, plus maintenance of $1,000 per month until April 1, 2007, and bringing up for review the order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 15, 2005, confirming the report of the Special Referee, unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Defendant, who asserted in the trial court that there was no need to submit to the court the transcript of the hearing conducted before the Special Referee, has waived the argument he would now make that the court should not have confirmed the Special Referee's report without having before it a complete transcript of the underlying hearing. In any case, the record submitted to the court by plaintiff was sufficiently complete to permit meaningful review of the Special Referee's findings and conclusions (see Matter of Sledge v Sledge, 228 AD2d 310 [1996]).

The trial court appropriately decided those matters not addressed by the Special Referee pertaining to maintenance, child support and medical insurance (see CPLR 4403; Salomon v Angsten, 19 AD3d 143, 144 [2005]). We decline to disturb the court's determinations on these issues, which comport with the applicable statutory guidelines and are well supported by the record. The findings of the Special Referee are also supported by the record and, accordingly, were properly confirmed (see Baker v Kohler, 28 AD3d 375, 375-376 [2006]). [*2]

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.