The only objections that plaintiff raised in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment and pursues on this appeal were defendant's valuations of the partnership's lease and office furnishings. These objections were not supported by evidence showing, prima facie, that defendant's accounting of these items was inaccurate or incomplete. Accordingly, the burden of coming forward with countervailing evidence never shifted to defendant (see Matter of Schnare, 191 A.D.2d 859, 860,lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 653; cf. Silkwood v. Butler, 297 A.D.2d 669, 670), and the objections were properly dismissed. The other objections raised by plaintiff on appeal — that he was improperly held liable for a worthless receivable and that he is entitled to compensation for his continuing representation of a client — were first advanced before the Special Referee only on settlement of the judgment. Accordingly, these objections were properly disregarded by the Special Referee (see Ritt v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 182 A.D.2d 560, 562; Pinkow v. Herfield, 264 A.D.2d 356, 358), and may not be considered on appeal (see Recovery Consultants v. Shih-Hsieh, 141 A.D.2d 272, 276).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.