On April 7, 2026, Justice d’Auguste of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Rocco Agostino Landscape & Gen. Contr. Corp. v. City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op. 31400(U), holding the format of a special master’s report is an improper basis for objecting to the report, explaining:
At the outset, the Court notes that respondent’s apparent procedural objections to the report are ill-founded. The Court gathers from respondent’s papers that it would have preferred a different format to the report, including a specifically identified factual findings section and more footnoting and pin cites to the record in the report. Respondent also makes much of the report being filed prior to a portion of the transcript and without additional duplicative copies of exhibits.
However, respondent, by counsel, assumed responsibility for filing the very transcript which counsel then raised concerns about. Further, nothing in CPLR 4320 requires the formatting specifics respondent prefers, and New York courts have rejected respondent’s format objections for well over a century when, from the report, it is very evident, what the findings and their basis are. The special master also correctly noted, which is also available at 2026 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 164) that electronic filing rules did not actually require the electronic filing of duplicative and irregularly-sized materials at issue here, and petitioner’s contention that respondent’s argument evidences an extreme and unsupported attempt to procedurally overturn the Special Master’s R&R, may have found its mark.
While courts have rejected recommendations which consisted of a checked box next to the word dismissed, the multi-page report at issue is not that. To the extent that respondent did not abandon its filing arguments on reply, the law of New York abandoned them long ago. Respondent’s papers notably do not cite to any precedent supporting its format objections, and the Court finds that respondent’s] problem is not that the [special master] has not considered respondent’s argument, but that the special master has considered it and does not agree.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).