Ahmed v. El-Refaie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ahmed v. El-Refaie

228 A.D.2d 530, 645 N.Y.2d 44, 645 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7096

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

DecidedJune 17, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.D.2d 530 (Ahmed v. El-Refaie) 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. El-Refaie, 228 A.D.2d 530, 645 N.Y.2d 44, 645 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7096 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff brought this action, inter alia, alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution. The defendant, inter alia, interposed the affirmative defenses of release and Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff alleged that the releases were forged. The parties agreed to refer the issues of "forgery and Statute of Limitations” to a Judicial Hearing Officer. After a hearing the Judicial Hearing Officer concluded that the "plaintiff has failed to sustain his burden of proof to prove the claims which he asserts” and dismissed the action. The counterclaims were also dismissed.

The Judicial Hearing Officer did not exceed his jurisdiction in dismissing the action (see, CPLR 4318; Lipton v Lipton, 119 AD2d 809). At the hearing the parties extensively litigated the issue of whether or not the plaintiff executed two documents, one in English and one in Arabic, both of which released the defendant from all the claims which were asserted in the plaintiff’s lawsuit. Since the determination of this issue was dispositive of the entire controversy, the Judicial Hearing Officer did not exceed his authority in dismissing the action based upon his conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to sustain his [531]*531burden of proof (see, Chalu v Tov-Le Realty Corp., 220 AD2d 552).

Furthermore, "the trial court’s determination will generally not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that the conclusion could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Universal Leasing Servs. v Flushing Hae Kwan Rest., 169 AD2d 829, 830; see also, Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499; Arnold v State of New York, 108 AD2d 1021, 1023; Trode v Omnetics, Inc., 106 AD2d 808). Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, there is no reason to disturb the conclusion of the Judicial Hearing Officer.

We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Miller, J. P., Coper tino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiff brought this action, inter alia, alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution. The defendant, inter alia, interposed the affirmative defenses of release and Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff alleged that the releases were forged. The parties agreed to refer the issues of "forgery and Statute of Limitations” to a Judicial Hearing Officer. After a hearing the Judicial Hearing Officer concluded that the "plaintiff has failed to sustain his burden of proof to prove the claims which he asserts” and dismissed the action. The counterclaims were also dismissed.

The Judicial Hearing Officer did not exceed his jurisdiction in dismissing the action (see, CPLR 4318; Lipton v Lipton, 119 AD2d 809). At the hearing the parties extensively litigated the issue of whether or not the plaintiff executed two documents, one in English and one in Arabic, both of which released the defendant from all the claims which were asserted in the plaintiff’s lawsuit. Since the determination of this issue was dispositive of the entire controversy, the Judicial Hearing Officer did not exceed his authority in dismissing the action based upon his conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to sustain his [531]*531burden of proof (see, Chalu v Tov-Le Realty Corp., 220 AD2d 552).

Furthermore, "the trial court’s determination will generally not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that the conclusion could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Universal Leasing Servs. v Flushing Hae Kwan Rest., 169 AD2d 829, 830; see also, Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499; Arnold v State of New York, 108 AD2d 1021, 1023; Trode v Omnetics, Inc., 106 AD2d 808). Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, there is no reason to disturb the conclusion of the Judicial Hearing Officer.

We have considered the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Miller, J. P., Coper tino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 530, 645 N.Y.2d 44, 645 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahmed-v-el-refaie-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack