Case Name: In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Marcus A. Bettman, as One of the Joint Administrators of the Goods, Chattels and Credits of Sigmund Schneittacher, Deceased. Marcus A. Bettman, Appellant; Sylvan Schneittacher and Others, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901
Citations: 65 A.D. 229
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Marcus A. Bettman, as One of the Joint Administrators of the Goods, Chattels and Credits of Sigmund Schneittacher, Deceased. Marcus A. Bettman, Appellant; Sylvan Schneittacher and Others, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 65
Pages: 229–230

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Marcus A. Bettman, as One of the Joint Administrators of the Goods, Chattels and Credits of Sigmund Schneittacher, Deceased. Marcus A. Bettman, Appellant; Sylvan Schneittacher and Others, Respondents.
Findings of fact and law by a surrogate—not required on the confirmation of a referee’s report containing them—review not obtainable on an affidavit as to the errors complained of.
Section 2545 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring the decision of a surrogate to state separately the findings of fact and conclusions of law, does not impose upon a surrogate who confirms the report of a referee, which states separately the facts found and the conclusions of law, the duty of making independent findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Errors of a referee or a surrogate, not appearing in the proceedings before them, cannot be properly brought before the appellate court by an affidavit of the attorney.
Appeal by Marcus A. Bettman, one of the joint administrators, etc., of Sigmund Schneittacher, deceased, from an order of the Surrogate’s Court of the county of Hew York, entered in said Surrogate’s Court on the 7th day of August, 1901, denying his motion for a resettlement of the final decree judicially settling his accounts.
Frederick F. Neuma/n, for the appellant.
Charles J. McDermott, for the respondent.*

Opinion:
Hatch, J.:
It is claimed that the final decree is irregular and defective in form in failing to make separate findings of fact and conclusions of law as prescribed by section 2545 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the next section (2546) the surrogate is authorized to refer a question of fact to a referee, who is vested with the same power as a referee appointed by the Supreme Court for the trial of an issue of fact in an action, and provision is made for confirming, modifying or rejecting the report of such referee by the surrogate. In the present proceeding a reference was ordered by the surrogate pursuant to this provision of law, and it appears, although the report of the referee is not in the record, that the referee, after a hearing, made a report containing separate findings of fact and distinct conclusions of law, and this report was confirmed by the surrogate and a decree entered thereon. The irregularity is claimed to consist in the fact that the surrogate did not make separate, independent findings of fact and conclusions of law. The surrogate was not required by the provision of the Code invoked by the appellant, or by any other, to make such findings and conclusions under such circumstances. When the surrogate confirmed the report he adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law reported by the referee as his own, and in all respects complied with the law: (Matter of Yetter, 44 App. Div. 404.)
As to the other questions involved in this appeal, the record is clearly insufficient to determine them. There is no appeal from the final decree, nor is the report of the referee or the papers used in the proceeding before him contained in this record, and aside from the affidavit of the attorney nothing appears respecting the proceeding before the referee. There is, therefore, nothing from which the court can determine that either the referee or the surrogate committed any error, as the questions sought to be presented will not be determined upon affidavits. The error must appear in the proceedings had before the respective officers before the court is authorized to make determination. Presumptively the proceedings had and the steps taken were regular, and a mere affidavit attacking them is entirely insufficient in the absence of the papers and proceedings.
It follows that the order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the respondent.
Van Brunt, P. J., O'Brien, Ingraham and McLaughlin, JJ., concurred.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.