Olympic Funding v. Ladies Mile, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Olympic Funding v. Ladies Mile, Inc.

84 A.D.3d 699, 923 N.Y.S.2d 319

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

DecidedMay 31, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 84 A.D.3d 699 (Olympic Funding v. Ladies Mile, Inc.) 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

Olympic Funding v. Ladies Mile, Inc., 84 A.D.3d 699, 923 N.Y.S.2d 319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order (denominated a judgment), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered on or about August 31, 2010, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered December 16, 2010, which denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff failed to prove trespass because it permitted the installations of which it now complains (see Copart Indus, v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 41 NY2d 564, 570 [1977]; see also 829 Post, LLC v Town of Eastchester, 57 AD3d 717, 718 [2008]) was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Saperstein v Lewenberg, 11 AD3d 289 [2004]). There exists no basis to disturb the trial court’s credibility determinations (see id.).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 28 Misc 3d 1229(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 51534(U).]

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

Order (denominated a judgment), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered on or about August 31, 2010, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered December 16, 2010, which denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff failed to prove trespass because it permitted the installations of which it now complains (see Copart Indus, v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 41 NY2d 564, 570 [1977]; see also 829 Post, LLC v Town of Eastchester, 57 AD3d 717, 718 [2008]) was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Saperstein v Lewenberg, 11 AD3d 289 [2004]). There exists no basis to disturb the trial court’s credibility determinations (see id.).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 28 Misc 3d 1229(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 51534(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.D.3d 699, 923 N.Y.S.2d 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olympic-funding-v-ladies-mile-inc-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack