Long Island Auto Consultants, Inc. v. Hubbard Sand & Gravel Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Long Island Auto Consultants, Inc. v. Hubbard Sand & Gravel Corp.

64 A.D.3d 688, 881 N.Y.S.2d 909

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

DecidedJuly 21, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A.D.3d 688 (Long Island Auto Consultants, Inc. v. Hubbard Sand & Gravel 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

Long Island Auto Consultants, Inc. v. Hubbard Sand & Gravel Corp., 64 A.D.3d 688, 881 N.Y.S.2d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of an option to purchase real property pursuant to a commercial lease, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk [689]*689County (Blydenberg, J.), entered January 31, 2008, which, upon a decision of the same court dated October 17, 2007, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant and against them, dismissing the complaint and awarding the defendant the principal sum of $260,689 on its counterclaim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Where, as here, a nonjury trial is involved, this Court’s power to review the evidence is as broad as that of the trial court, bearing in mind that due regard must be given to “ ‘the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses’ ” (Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc, v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983], quoting York Mtge. Corp. v Clotar Constr. Corp., 254 NY 128, 133-134 [1930]; see Totonelly v Enos, 49 AD3d 710, 711 [2008]). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the trial court’s determination dismissing the complaint and awarding judgment in favor of the defendant in the principal sum of $260,689 on the counterclaim was warranted by the facts.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Eng, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of an option to purchase real property pursuant to a commercial lease, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk [689]*689County (Blydenberg, J.), entered January 31, 2008, which, upon a decision of the same court dated October 17, 2007, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant and against them, dismissing the complaint and awarding the defendant the principal sum of $260,689 on its counterclaim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Where, as here, a nonjury trial is involved, this Court’s power to review the evidence is as broad as that of the trial court, bearing in mind that due regard must be given to “ ‘the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses’ ” (Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc, v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983], quoting York Mtge. Corp. v Clotar Constr. Corp., 254 NY 128, 133-134 [1930]; see Totonelly v Enos, 49 AD3d 710, 711 [2008]). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the trial court’s determination dismissing the complaint and awarding judgment in favor of the defendant in the principal sum of $260,689 on the counterclaim was warranted by the facts.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Eng, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.3d 688, 881 N.Y.S.2d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-island-auto-consultants-inc-v-hubbard-sand-gravel-corp-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack