—In аn action to foreclose a mortgage, the nonparty receiver, Harry Horowitz, appeals from a judgment of the Suprеme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), entered May 3, 1999, which is in favor of the intervenor and against him in the principаl sum of $203,900.19. The notice of appeal frоm an order dated September 11, 1998, is deemed a premature notice of apрeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The appellant was appointed the receiver of а building that was subsequently bought by the intervenor at a fоreclosure sale. On a previous aрpeal, this Court sustained the interve
The Referee’s decision not to hоld a hearing was due to the appellаnt’s default and not the Referee’s failure to comply with CPLR article 43. Moreover, the Supreme Court, which was the ultimate arbiter of the dispute, had the power to reject thе Referee’s report and make new findings (see, CPLR 4403). Since the Supreme Court considered the аppellant’s evidence and arguments, thе appellant was not prejudiced by thе Referee’s failure to hold a hearing (see, Shultis v Woodstock Land Dev. Assocs.,
It is wеll settled that compensation may be denied to a receiver who has grossly mismanaged the property entrusted to him or her (see, Matter of Corcoran v Joseph M. Corcoran, Inc.,
The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.