MARTINEZ, GILBERTO AGUDO v. REMBERT, APRIL M.

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 26, 2013
DocketCA 12-00260
StatusPublished

This text of MARTINEZ, GILBERTO AGUDO v. REMBERT, APRIL M. (MARTINEZ, GILBERTO AGUDO v. REMBERT, APRIL M.) 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
MARTINEZ, GILBERTO AGUDO v. REMBERT, APRIL M., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

374 CA 12-00260 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

GILBERTO AGUDO MARTINEZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

APRIL M. REMBERT, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

GILBERTO AGUDO MARTINEZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE.

HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP, ROCHESTER (MARK T. WHITFORD, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (John Lewis DeMarco, J.), entered December 22, 2011. The order affirmed a judgment of the Rochester City Court.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order affirming City Court’s judgment in favor of defendant in this small claims action. The record establishes that plaintiff and defendant gave different versions of the automobile accident, raising a credibility issue for the factfinder to resolve (see generally Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126-127, lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898; Moses v Randolph, 236 AD2d 706, 707). We affirm the order, inasmuch as we agree with County Court that “substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law” (UCCA 1807; see Mead Home Improvement, Inc. v Goldstein, 56 AD3d 1179, 1179). Contrary to plaintiff’s further contention, there is no indication that City Court was biased against him (see Makas v Every, 224 AD2d 793, 794, appeal dismissed 88 NY2d 867).

Entered: April 26, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

Related

Makas v. Every
224 A.D.2d 793 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Moses v. Randolph
236 A.D.2d 706 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Williams v. Roper
269 A.D.2d 125 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
MARTINEZ, GILBERTO AGUDO v. REMBERT, APRIL M., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-gilberto-agudo-v-rembert-april-m-nyappdiv-2013.