THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE BASED WERE NOT SUBMITTED; THE REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been confirmed because the business records upon which the referee’s calculations were based were not submitted:
Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. “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” … . However, computations based on the “review of unidentified and unproduced business records . . . constitute[ ] inadmissible hearsay and lack[ ] probative value” … . Although the plaintiff contends that the referee’s report was supported by the affidavit of an employee of its loan servicer, the plaintiff did not submit the business records upon which that employee purportedly relied in computing the total amount due on the mortgage. Consequently, the referee’s findings in that regard were not substantially supported by the record … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Conforti, 2022 NY Slip Op 05973, Second Dept 10-26-22
Practice Point: Here the calculations in the referee’s report were based upon business records which were not submitted. Therefore the report was not supported by the record and should not have been confirmed.
