Gershfeld v. Mozer Architect Design, P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gershfeld v. Mozer Architect Design, P.C.

120 A.D.3d 548, 990 N.Y.S.2d 830

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

DecidedAugust 13, 2014

Docket2012-10143

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.3d 548 (Gershfeld v. Mozer Architect Design, P.C.) 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

Gershfeld v. Mozer Architect Design, P.C., 120 A.D.3d 548, 990 N.Y.S.2d 830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated August 28, 2012, which, upon a decision of the same court dated July 3, 2012, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $24,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court’s power is as broad as the trial court’s power, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account in a close case that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). Here, the Supreme Court’s determination that the de *549 fendants breached the subject contract was warranted by the facts. Thus, we decline to disturb that determination.

Rivera, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated August 28, 2012, which, upon a decision of the same court dated July 3, 2012, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $24,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court’s power is as broad as the trial court’s power, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account in a close case that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). Here, the Supreme Court’s determination that the de *549 fendants breached the subject contract was warranted by the facts. Thus, we decline to disturb that determination.

Rivera, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 548, 990 N.Y.S.2d 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gershfeld-v-mozer-architect-design-pc-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack