Dupurton v. Faiella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dupurton v. Faiella

304 A.D.2d 614, 757 N.Y.S.2d 473

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

DecidedApril 14, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 614 (Dupurton v. Faiella) 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

Dupurton v. Faiella, 304 A.D.2d 614, 757 N.Y.S.2d 473 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover money owed on a loan, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), entered February 11, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $25,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A determination of the trial court after a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clear that the trial court’s conclusion could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]; Islamic Ctr. of Harrison v Islamic Science Found., 262 AD2d 362, 363 [1999]). Here, a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that the defendants were liable to the plaintiff for the funds that he loaned to them. Krausman, J.P., Townes, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover money owed on a loan, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), entered February 11, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $25,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A determination of the trial court after a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clear that the trial court’s conclusion could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]; Islamic Ctr. of Harrison v Islamic Science Found., 262 AD2d 362, 363 [1999]). Here, a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that the defendants were liable to the plaintiff for the funds that he loaned to them. Krausman, J.P., Townes, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 614, 757 N.Y.S.2d 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dupurton-v-faiella-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack