Niemira v. Dean

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Niemira v. Dean

245 A.D.2d 1068, 666 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13835

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 1068 (Niemira v. Dean) 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

Niemira v. Dean, 245 A.D.2d 1068, 666 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13835 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The parties’ conflicting accounts of the [1069]*1069terms of the oral agreement raised questions of fact for Supreme Court to resolve. “On a bench trial, the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court’s conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses (Nightingale Rest. Corp. v Shak Food Corp., 155 AD2d 297 [, lv denied 76 NY2d 702])” (Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 544-545). The evidence supports the court’s determination with respect to the terms of the parties’ agreement.

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Roberts, J.H.O.—Contract.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The parties’ conflicting accounts of the [1069]*1069terms of the oral agreement raised questions of fact for Supreme Court to resolve. “On a bench trial, the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court’s conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses (Nightingale Rest. Corp. v Shak Food Corp., 155 AD2d 297 [, lv denied 76 NY2d 702])” (Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 544-545). The evidence supports the court’s determination with respect to the terms of the parties’ agreement.

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Roberts, J.H.O.—Contract.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 1068, 666 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/niemira-v-dean-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack