Courtesy Performance, Inc. v. Top Notch Auto Sales, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Courtesy Performance, Inc. v. Top Notch Auto Sales, Inc.

113 A.D.3d 722, 978 N.Y.2d 888

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 22, 2014·Published

Opinion

“In reviewing a decision made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and we may render a judgment we find warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses” (DeAngelis v DeAngelis, 104 AD3d 901, 902 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). Here, we find that the judgment of the Supreme Court was warranted by the facts presented at trial. Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

“In reviewing a decision made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and we may render a judgment we find warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses” (DeAngelis v DeAngelis, 104 AD3d 901, 902 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). Here, we find that the judgment of the Supreme Court was warranted by the facts presented at trial. Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Courtesy Performance, Inc. v. Top Notch Auto Sales, Inc., 113 A.D.3d 722, 978 N.Y.2d 888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

113 A.D.3d 722 (Courtesy Performance, Inc. v. Top Notch Auto Sales, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related