Morrone v. Costagliola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morrone v. Costagliola

2017 NY Slip Op 5218, 151 A.D.3d 1055, 58 N.Y.S.3d 468

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 28, 2017·No. 2015-04366·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Ralph T. Costagliola appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Archer, Ct. Atty. Ref.), entered March 9, 2015, which, upon a decision of the same court dated February 12, 2015, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against him in the principal sum of $160,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“ Tn reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court’s power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses’ ” (Quadrozzi v Estate of Quadrozzi, 99 AD3d 688, 691 [2012], quoting BRK Props., Inc. v Wagner Ziv Plumbing & Heating Corp., 89 AD3d *1056 883, 884 [2011]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). Where the court’s findings of fact “ ‘rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses,’ deference is owed to the trial court’s credibility determinations” (Tornheim v Blue & White Food Prods. Corp., 88 AD3d 867, 868 [2011], quoting Anderson v Mastrangelo, 18 AD3d 677, 677 [2005]; see Trimarco v Data Treasury Corp., 146 AD3d 1004, 1007-1008 [2017]).

Here, according deference to the Supreme Court’s credibility assessments, the determination that the parties orally entered into a series of valid personal loan agreements that the defendant Ralph T. Costagliola breached by failing to repay was warranted by the facts. Moreover, contrary to Costagliola’s contention, the loans were not void under the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]), because there was no evidence demonstrating that the loans had “ ‘absolutely no possibility in fact and law’ ” of being repaid within a year (Micena v Katz, 68 AD3d 826, 827 [2009], quoting D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 63 NY2d 449, 454 [1984]; see Cron v Hargro Fabrics, 91 NY2d 362, 366-367 [1998]; JNG Constr., Ltd. v Roussopoulos, 135 AD3d 709, 710 [2016]; Stillman v Kalikow, 22 AD3d 660, 662 [2005]).

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Ralph T. Costagliola appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Archer, Ct. Atty. Ref.), entered March 9, 2015, which, upon a decision of the same court dated February 12, 2015, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against him in the principal sum of $160,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“ Tn reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court’s power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses’ ” (Quadrozzi v Estate of Quadrozzi, 99 AD3d 688, 691 [2012], quoting BRK Props., Inc. v Wagner Ziv Plumbing & Heating Corp., 89 AD3d *1056 883, 884 [2011]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). Where the court’s findings of fact “ ‘rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses,’ deference is owed to the trial court’s credibility determinations” (Tornheim v Blue & White Food Prods. Corp., 88 AD3d 867, 868 [2011], quoting Anderson v Mastrangelo, 18 AD3d 677, 677 [2005]; see Trimarco v Data Treasury Corp., 146 AD3d 1004, 1007-1008 [2017]).

Here, according deference to the Supreme Court’s credibility assessments, the determination that the parties orally entered into a series of valid personal loan agreements that the defendant Ralph T. Costagliola breached by failing to repay was warranted by the facts. Moreover, contrary to Costagliola’s contention, the loans were not void under the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]), because there was no evidence demonstrating that the loans had “ ‘absolutely no possibility in fact and law’ ” of being repaid within a year (Micena v Katz, 68 AD3d 826, 827 [2009], quoting D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 63 NY2d 449, 454 [1984]; see Cron v Hargro Fabrics, 91 NY2d 362, 366-367 [1998]; JNG Constr., Ltd. v Roussopoulos, 135 AD3d 709, 710 [2016]; Stillman v Kalikow, 22 AD3d 660, 662 [2005]).

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Morrone v. Costagliola, 2017 NY Slip Op 5218, 151 A.D.3d 1055, 58 N.Y.S.3d 468 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

2017 NY Slip Op 5218 (Morrone v. Costagliola) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related