Northville Industries Corp. v. Huebner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Northville Industries Corp. v. Huebner

233 A.D.2d 488, 650 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12656

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

DecidedNovember 25, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 488 (Northville Industries Corp. v. Huebner) 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

Northville Industries Corp. v. Huebner, 233 A.D.2d 488, 650 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), entered November 27, 1995, as, upon a nonjury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the sum of $37,439.15.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

" ' "[T]he 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” ’ ” (Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495, quoting Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 545). In the present case, the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that the defendants received the disputed gasoline products and failed to pay the plaintiff for these products. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), entered November 27, 1995, as, upon a nonjury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the sum of $37,439.15.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

" ' "[T]he 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” ’ ” (Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495, quoting Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 545). In the present case, the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that the defendants received the disputed gasoline products and failed to pay the plaintiff for these products. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 488, 650 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northville-industries-corp-v-huebner-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack