Justs v. Kalnins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Justs v. Kalnins

68 A.D.2d 901, 414 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11151

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.2d 901 (Justs v. Kalnins) 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

Justs v. Kalnins, 68 A.D.2d 901, 414 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11151 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover for work, labor and services rendered, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 28, 1978, which is in favor of the plaintiff, after a nonjury trial. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The trial court found that plaintiff’s right to recovery was grounded on an account stated as of December 15, 1971. Since the cause of action did not accrue until that date, the action was timely commenced (see Siepka v Bogulski, 164 Misc 831; see, also, Schutz v Morette, 146 NY 137). The remainder of defendants’ arguments rest mainly on their contention that the Trial Judge’s findings of fact were erroneous. However, since the Trial Judge’s findings rest essentially on his assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, they may not be disturbed on this appeal. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Mangano, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover for work, labor and services rendered, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 28, 1978, which is in favor of the plaintiff, after a nonjury trial. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The trial court found that plaintiff’s right to recovery was grounded on an account stated as of December 15, 1971. Since the cause of action did not accrue until that date, the action was timely commenced (see Siepka v Bogulski, 164 Misc 831; see, also, Schutz v Morette, 146 NY 137). The remainder of defendants’ arguments rest mainly on their contention that the Trial Judge’s findings of fact were erroneous. However, since the Trial Judge’s findings rest essentially on his assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, they may not be disturbed on this appeal. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.2d 901, 414 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/justs-v-kalnins-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack