Botkin v. Cadman Plaza North

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Botkin v. Cadman Plaza North

82 A.D.3d 527, 919 N.Y.2d 10

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 527 (Botkin v. Cadman Plaza North) 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

Botkin v. Cadman Plaza North, 82 A.D.3d 527, 919 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The determination that petitioner engaged in behavior that constituted a nuisance was supported by substantial evidence, including the testimony of a mail carrier, a doorman in the building, and other cooperators, who all described instances of petitioner’s objectionable conduct (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). There exists no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer’s credibility determinations, including the finding that it was not credible that every witness who testified that petitioner was the [528]*528aggressor in their interactions with her was mistaken or lying (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

The determination that petitioner engaged in behavior that constituted a nuisance was supported by substantial evidence, including the testimony of a mail carrier, a doorman in the building, and other cooperators, who all described instances of petitioner’s objectionable conduct (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). There exists no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer’s credibility determinations, including the finding that it was not credible that every witness who testified that petitioner was the [528]*528aggressor in their interactions with her was mistaken or lying (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 527, 919 N.Y.2d 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/botkin-v-cadman-plaza-north-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack