FKG Associates, Inc. v. Mile Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

FKG Associates, Inc. v. Mile Development Corp.

59 A.D.3d 693, 874 N.Y.S.2d 521

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.3d 693 (FKG Associates, Inc. v. Mile Development Corp.) 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

FKG Associates, Inc. v. Mile Development Corp., 59 A.D.3d 693, 874 N.Y.S.2d 521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a finder’s fee in connection with the acquisition of real property, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (LaMarca, J.), entered November 5, 2007, which, upon a decision of the same court dated October 10, 2007, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $540,000.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the facts, by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff the principal sum of $540,000 and substituting therefor a provision awarding the plaintiff the principal sum of $360,000; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a recalculation of prejudgment interest and the entry of an appropriate amended judgment thereafter.

Upon review of a determination rendered after a nonjury trial, this Court’s authority “is as broad as that of the trial court” (Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]), and this Court may “render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account in a close case the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses” (id.; see Perfect Crown Vic, Inc. v Douce Hacking Corp., 56 AD3d 448 [2008]). Upon our review of the record, we find that an award of $360,000 is warranted by the facts. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Dickerson and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover a finder’s fee in connection with the acquisition of real property, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (LaMarca, J.), entered November 5, 2007, which, upon a decision of the same court dated October 10, 2007, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $540,000.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the facts, by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff the principal sum of $540,000 and substituting therefor a provision awarding the plaintiff the principal sum of $360,000; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a recalculation of prejudgment interest and the entry of an appropriate amended judgment thereafter.

Upon review of a determination rendered after a nonjury trial, this Court’s authority “is as broad as that of the trial court” (Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]), and this Court may “render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account in a close case the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses” (id.; see Perfect Crown Vic, Inc. v Douce Hacking Corp., 56 AD3d 448 [2008]). Upon our review of the record, we find that an award of $360,000 is warranted by the facts. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Dickerson and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 693, 874 N.Y.S.2d 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fkg-associates-inc-v-mile-development-corp-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack