Matter of Martinez v. Maher, 39 N.Y.2d 823 (1976)

A party waives their right to object to a referee’s report if they fail to raise those objections before the Special Term, particularly concerning the absence of a transcript.

Summary

This case concerns a dispute over the validity of a designating petition for a state senate seat. The referee found pervasive fraud in the petitioning process. The candidate, Martinez, appealed the confirmation of the referee’s report, arguing that the Special Term erred by accepting the report without a transcript and without allowing him to make requests for findings or move to reject the report. The Court of Appeals held that Martinez waived his right to object by failing to raise these issues before the Special Term. This decision underscores the importance of timely objections and the waivability of procedural defects.

Facts

Americo Martinez sought the Democratic nomination for State Senator. A challenge was brought against his designating petition. A referee was appointed to hear and report on the issues. The referee found that signatures were obtained without regard to the signatories’ eligibility, that subscribing witnesses were not the actual witnesses, that dates were falsified, and that the entire process was permeated with fraud, with Martinez’s knowledge and participation.

Procedural History

The Special Term referred the matter to a referee. The referee conducted hearings and issued a report recommending invalidation of the petition. The Special Term confirmed the referee’s report and invalidated the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed the Special Term’s decision based on the referee’s findings. Martinez appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the appellant waived his objection to the referee’s report by failing to request the filing of a transcript or a change of determination before the Special Term.

Holding

Yes, because by failing to make any application before Special Term to require the filing of the transcript or for a change of determination, the appellant waived his objection in respect to the transcript.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found that under CPLR 4320(b), while a transcript should be filed with the report, the failure to do so is a waivable defect. The court emphasized that Special Term had the power to confirm or reject the report on its own initiative under CPLR 4403. Because Martinez failed to raise his objections regarding the transcript or request specific findings before the Special Term, he could not raise them for the first time on appeal. The Court cited precedent establishing that such procedural defects can be waived. The court noted that although Martinez claimed inaccuracies in the referee’s report, he failed to provide specific examples or support for these assertions. The court implicitly signaled that general assertions of error without specific evidentiary support are insufficient to overturn a referee’s findings. The court stated, “Although appellant states in his brief that the report of the referee is replete with inaccuracy as to the testimony and that the evidence does not support the latter’s conclusions, there is no articulation or specification of these assertions nor support in the submission before us.”