Saljanin v. Malota

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Saljanin v. Malota

22 A.D.3d 482, 801 N.Y.S.2d 535

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

DecidedOctober 3, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 482 (Saljanin v. Malota) 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

Saljanin v. Malota, 22 A.D.3d 482, 801 N.Y.S.2d 535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover money owed, the plaintiff appeals, inter alia, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated June 25, 2004, which, after a nonjury trial, is in his favor and against the defendant Malote Malota only in the principal sum of $900.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Supreme Court’s determination after a nonjury trial could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Rivera v TRW Tit. Ins. of N.Y., 309 AD2d 740 [2003]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover money owed, the plaintiff appeals, inter alia, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated June 25, 2004, which, after a nonjury trial, is in his favor and against the defendant Malote Malota only in the principal sum of $900.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Supreme Court’s determination after a nonjury trial could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Rivera v TRW Tit. Ins. of N.Y., 309 AD2d 740 [2003]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 482, 801 N.Y.S.2d 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saljanin-v-malota-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack