Hamilton v. Blackwood

85 A.D.3d 1116, 925 N.Y.S.2d 892
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 28, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by237 cases

This text of 85 A.D.3d 1116 (Hamilton v. Blackwood) 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
Hamilton v. Blackwood, 85 A.D.3d 1116, 925 N.Y.S.2d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to set aside a deed on the basis of fraud, the defendant Lloyd Blackwood appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J), entered April 15, 2010, as, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against him in the principal sum of $97,653.42, and (2) from a supplemental judgment of the same court entered October 22, 2010, which directed him to “execute all documents necessary to effectuate transfer of title to [certain real property] to Falcynth Hamilton and Joseph Hamilton, as grantees.”

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the supplemental judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs.

“Where, as here, a case is tried without a jury, this Court’s authority is as broad as that of the trial court, 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,’ ” and hearing the testimony (MJAC Realty Corp. v Boccio, 67 AD3d 870 [2009], quoting Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here the Supreme Court’s determination, including its conclusion that the defendant Lloyd Blackwood was jointly and severally liable to the plaintiffs for monetary damages, was warranted by the facts adduced at trial. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s determination “rest[ed] in large measure upon its assessment of the credibility of witnesses,” and we perceive no basis to disturb it (Terry v State of New York, 39 AD3d 846 [2007]; see Elias v Handler, 244 AD2d 522 [1997]).

Blackwood’s remaining claims either have been waived or are without merit (see US Bank N.A. v Eaddy, 79 AD3d 1022 [2010]). Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Related

221 Irving Ave., LLC v. Chasi
2025 NY Slip Op 51162(U) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of N.Y. v. Joseph
2025 NY Slip Op 50501(U) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Bonham Strand, LLC v. Vidarte
2025 NY Slip Op 50176(U) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Smile Huntington Dental, P.C. v. LaPlace
2024 NY Slip Op 51553(U) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Yao Wen Lei v. Yu Hin Chan
83 Misc. 3d 136(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
712 Realty, LLC v. Poliard
2024 NY Slip Op 24016 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Jeremy Props., LLC v. Franklin
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023
Li Jen Yao v. Steele
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023
James J. Kim, L.A.C., P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023
Maharaja Asian Supermarket, Inc. v. A&S Vegetables, Inc.
77 Misc. 3d 138(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Veraso Med. Supply Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
77 Misc. 3d 131(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
37-20 104th St. v. Sanchez
173 N.Y.S.3d 826 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
29 Flatbush Assoc., LLC v. Cain
76 Misc. 3d 127(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
111-39 76th Rd., LLC v. Rothman
76 Misc. 3d 126(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Williams & Georgia Towers HDFC v. Green
76 Misc. 3d 127(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
34-15 Parsons Blvd., LLC v. Ming Hang Zhao
74 Misc. 3d 134(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
700 Bklyn Realty, LLC v. Forsythe
74 Misc. 3d 132(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
5539-181 & 182 Prospect Park W. Brooklyn, LLC v. Caseres
74 Misc. 3d 128(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Andujar v. Ng
73 Misc. 3d 145(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Cruise v. Coleman
72 Misc. 3d 140(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 A.D.3d 1116, 925 N.Y.S.2d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-blackwood-nyappdiv-2011.