Rosenberg v. Canetti & Troodler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenberg v. Canetti & Troodler

309 A.D.2d 914, 766 N.Y.S.2d 92

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

DecidedOctober 27, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 914 (Rosenberg v. Canetti & Troodler) 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

Rosenberg v. Canetti & Troodler, 309 A.D.2d 914, 766 N.Y.S.2d 92 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an alleged escrow agreement, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), entered March 1, 2002, as, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

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

The determination of a trial court after a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal unless it could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]; Kaniklidis v 235 Lincoln Place Hous. Corp., 305 AD2d 546, 547 [2003]). The evidence, fairly interpreted, supports a finding that the purported escrow agreement was never communicated to the defendants and thus the defendants never undertook the obligations contained therein (see Farago v Burke, 262 NY 229, 233 [1933]; Shapiro v Snow Becker Krauss, 208 AD2d 461 [1994]; Grossman v Fieland, 107 AD2d 659, 660 [1985]). Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendants’ alternative argument in support of affirmance. Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt 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 alleged escrow agreement, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), entered March 1, 2002, as, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

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

The determination of a trial court after a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal unless it could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]; Kaniklidis v 235 Lincoln Place Hous. Corp., 305 AD2d 546, 547 [2003]). The evidence, fairly interpreted, supports a finding that the purported escrow agreement was never communicated to the defendants and thus the defendants never undertook the obligations contained therein (see Farago v Burke, 262 NY 229, 233 [1933]; Shapiro v Snow Becker Krauss, 208 AD2d 461 [1994]; Grossman v Fieland, 107 AD2d 659, 660 [1985]). Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendants’ alternative argument in support of affirmance. Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 914, 766 N.Y.S.2d 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberg-v-canetti-troodler-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack