Melnitzky v. UribeMelnitzky v. Uribe
Plaintiff‘s actions for breach of contract, fraud and deceptive conduct, stemming from an exclusive agreement to provide conservation and restoration services to the Latin American painting department, were previously dismissed on the merits (Melnitzky v Sotheby Parke Bernet, 300 AD2d 201 [2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 510 [2003]; Melnitzky v Uribe, 18 AD3d 328 [2005]). Thus, the Special Referee properly limited the evidence at the sanctions hearing to the issue of whether plaintiff had acted frivolously in commencing a second action, and his conduct throughout the litigation. The report of the Special Referee was properly confirmed, since the findings contained therein are substantially supported by the record and the Referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility (see Kaplan v Einy, 209 AD2d 248, 251 [1994]).
We have considered plaintiff‘s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Concur—Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.