Otto v. Triangle Aviation Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Otto v. Triangle Aviation Services, Inc.

1 A.D.2d 582, 767 N.Y.S.2d 657

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 24, 2003·Published

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an employment agreement, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered January 31, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of him and against the defendant in the sum of only $56,141.37.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the trial court after a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal unless its conclusions could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evi[583] dence, especially where the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]; Loughran v Town of Eastchester, 299 AD2d 329 [2002]; Matter of Hartford Ins. Co. v Khan, 279 AD2d 524, 525 [2001]). The trial court’s rejection of the plaintiff’s interpretation of the disputed phrase regarding sales bonuses is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. The trial court’s determinations of the particular accounts attributable to the plaintiffs efforts, and the amount of damages were also supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. Altman, J.E, Smith, Friedmann and Crane, 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 an employment agreement, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered January 31, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of him and against the defendant in the sum of only $56,141.37.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the trial court after a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal unless its conclusions could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evi[583] dence, especially where the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]; Loughran v Town of Eastchester, 299 AD2d 329 [2002]; Matter of Hartford Ins. Co. v Khan, 279 AD2d 524, 525 [2001]). The trial court’s rejection of the plaintiff’s interpretation of the disputed phrase regarding sales bonuses is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. The trial court’s determinations of the particular accounts attributable to the plaintiffs efforts, and the amount of damages were also supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. Altman, J.E, Smith, Friedmann and Crane, JJ., concur.

Otto v. Triangle Aviation Services, Inc., 1 A.D.2d 582, 767 N.Y.S.2d 657 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

1 A.D.2d 582 (Otto v. Triangle Aviation Services, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related