Hanley v. Williamson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hanley v. Williamson

186 A.D.2d 1010, 590 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11553

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 1010 (Hanley v. Williamson) 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

Hanley v. Williamson, 186 A.D.2d 1010, 590 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs only argument on appeal is that the determination of the trial court following a bench trial was contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. We disagree. Our function is to determine whether there is "credible proof in the record to sustain the findings and conclusion of the trial court. In such review the record proof is to be given a view most favorable to sustain the judgment” (McCall v Town [1011]*1011of Middlebury, 52 AD2d 736). The IAS Court was in the best position to observe the credibility of the witnesses and its determination giving credit to the testimony of defendant should be given great weight (see, Atkin v Union Processing Corp., 90 AD2d 332, affd 59 NY2d 919, cert denied 465 US 1038). The record before us supports the IAS Court’s finding that there was no "meeting of the minds” on the issue of defendant’s agreement to pay a commission for plaintiffs efforts to reduce defendant’s obligation. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hayes, J. — Breach of Contract.) Present — Denman, P. J., Boomer, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs only argument on appeal is that the determination of the trial court following a bench trial was contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. We disagree. Our function is to determine whether there is "credible proof in the record to sustain the findings and conclusion of the trial court. In such review the record proof is to be given a view most favorable to sustain the judgment” (McCall v Town [1011]*1011of Middlebury, 52 AD2d 736). The IAS Court was in the best position to observe the credibility of the witnesses and its determination giving credit to the testimony of defendant should be given great weight (see, Atkin v Union Processing Corp., 90 AD2d 332, affd 59 NY2d 919, cert denied 465 US 1038). The record before us supports the IAS Court’s finding that there was no "meeting of the minds” on the issue of defendant’s agreement to pay a commission for plaintiffs efforts to reduce defendant’s obligation. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hayes, J. — Breach of Contract.) Present — Denman, P. J., Boomer, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 1010, 590 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanley-v-williamson-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack