Ahmed v. C.D. Kobsons, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ahmed v. C.D. Kobsons, Inc.

49 A.D.3d 399, 854 N.Y.2d 358

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 18, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 399 (Ahmed v. C.D. Kobsons, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ahmed v. C.D. Kobsons, Inc., 49 A.D.3d 399, 854 N.Y.2d 358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[400]*400On this record, there is no basis to disturb the IAS court’s determination crediting the consistent testimony of plaintiff tenant that the landlord’s principal gave him permission to sign her name in the owner-authorization section of the building-renovation application. There was no basis to conclude that the court’s findings of fact could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially where, as here, those findings rest in large measure on witness credibility (Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]). As between the parties, the tenant did not falsely or fraudulently submit the landlord’s authorization to the proposed renovations when he signed the landlord’s signature pursuant to the landlord’s instruction. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[400]*400On this record, there is no basis to disturb the IAS court’s determination crediting the consistent testimony of plaintiff tenant that the landlord’s principal gave him permission to sign her name in the owner-authorization section of the building-renovation application. There was no basis to conclude that the court’s findings of fact could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially where, as here, those findings rest in large measure on witness credibility (Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]). As between the parties, the tenant did not falsely or fraudulently submit the landlord’s authorization to the proposed renovations when he signed the landlord’s signature pursuant to the landlord’s instruction. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 399, 854 N.Y.2d 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahmed-v-cd-kobsons-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack