On August 13, 2025, the Second Department issued a decision in Bank of Am., N.A. v. ABC Realty Holdings, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op. 04616, holding that a referee did not err in deciding not to hold an evidentiary hearing because the defendant had an opportunity to respond to the plaintiff’s arguments in writing, explaining:
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the referee’s failure to hold a hearing did not warrant the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. Pursuant to CPLR 4313, unless the order of reference otherwise provides, the referee shall forthwith notify the parties of a time and place for the first hearing to be held within twenty days after the date of the order. However, as long as a defendant is not prejudiced by the inability to submit evidence directly to the referee, a referee’s failure to notify a defendant and hold a hearing is not, by itself, a basis to reverse a judgment of foreclosure and sale and remit the matter for a hearing and a new determination of amounts owed. Here, the defendant was not prejudiced by the referee’s failure to hold a hearing, since, in opposing the motion, it had an opportunity to raise questions and submit evidence directly to the Supreme Court.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).