Coggeshall Painting & Restoration Co. v. Zetlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coggeshall Painting & Restoration Co. v. Zetlin

282 A.D.2d 364, 723 N.Y.S.2d 656, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4152

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

DecidedApril 24, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 364 (Coggeshall Painting & Restoration Co. v. Zetlin) 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

Coggeshall Painting & Restoration Co. v. Zetlin, 282 A.D.2d 364, 723 N.Y.S.2d 656, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered May 19, 1999, which affirmed a judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Leona Freedman, J.), entered January 16, 1997, after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $42,000 with costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the majority of the Appellate Term that the [365]*365limited carpentry work undertaken by plaintiff was decorative in nature and incidental to the extensive preparation, painting and refinishing work performed by plaintiff on defendant’s duplex apartment. Inasmuch as due deference must be accorded to the trier of fact, who is in the best position to determine issues of credibility, the Civil Court’s finding of fact and award of judgment to plaintiff are affirmed. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered May 19, 1999, which affirmed a judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Leona Freedman, J.), entered January 16, 1997, after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $42,000 with costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the majority of the Appellate Term that the [365]*365limited carpentry work undertaken by plaintiff was decorative in nature and incidental to the extensive preparation, painting and refinishing work performed by plaintiff on defendant’s duplex apartment. Inasmuch as due deference must be accorded to the trier of fact, who is in the best position to determine issues of credibility, the Civil Court’s finding of fact and award of judgment to plaintiff are affirmed. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 364, 723 N.Y.S.2d 656, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coggeshall-painting-restoration-co-v-zetlin-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack