Anderson v. Mastrangelo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anderson v. Mastrangelo

18 A.D.3d 677, 796 N.Y.S.2d 118

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

DecidedMay 23, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 677 (Anderson v. Mastrangelo) 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

Anderson v. Mastrangelo, 18 A.D.3d 677, 796 N.Y.S.2d 118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated August 27, 2003, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b) to set aside an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court dated June 30, 2003, entered after a nonjury trial, inter alia, awarding the plaintiffs a judgment of foreclosure and dismissing his counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the trial court after a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clear that the court’s conclusions could not have been reached upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, especially where the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]; Loughran v Town of Eastchester, 299 AD2d 329 [2002]; Matter of Hartford Ins. Co. v Khan, 279 AD2d 524, 525 [2001]). The trial court’s rejection of the defendant’s account of the plaintiffs’ representations about the property prior to closing is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. Therefore, we decline to disturb it.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

— In a mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated August 27, 2003, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b) to set aside an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court dated June 30, 2003, entered after a nonjury trial, inter alia, awarding the plaintiffs a judgment of foreclosure and dismissing his counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the trial court after a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clear that the court’s conclusions could not have been reached upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, especially where the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]; Loughran v Town of Eastchester, 299 AD2d 329 [2002]; Matter of Hartford Ins. Co. v Khan, 279 AD2d 524, 525 [2001]). The trial court’s rejection of the defendant’s account of the plaintiffs’ representations about the property prior to closing is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. Therefore, we decline to disturb it.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 677, 796 N.Y.S.2d 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-mastrangelo-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack