Shaftel v. Moezinia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shaftel v. Moezinia

132 A.D.2d 658, 518 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49202

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

DecidedJuly 20, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.D.2d 658 (Shaftel v. Moezinia) 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

Shaftel v. Moezinia, 132 A.D.2d 658, 518 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover the value of architectural services rendered to the defendant by the plaintiff, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Samenga, J.), dated December 10, 1985, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal amount of $20,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Applying the well-settled standard of review with respect to nonjury trials (see, Matter of Fasano v State of New York, 113 AD2d 885, 887-888), we conclude that the trial court correctly found that the plaintiff had rendered architectural services to the defendant and was entitled to damages in the amount of $20,000. In the absence of any showing that the defendant was prejudiced by the trial court’s decision to exclude from the courtroom all nonparty witnesses, including the defendant’s son, Aram Moezinia, this ruling, even if erroneous, does not constitute a ground for reversal of the judgment (see, Levine v Levine, 56 NY2d 42, 49-50; People v Ernest M. J., 42 AD2d 717, 718; Richardson, Evidence §§ 460-461 [Prince 10th ed]). Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Harwood, 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 the value of architectural services rendered to the defendant by the plaintiff, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Samenga, J.), dated December 10, 1985, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal amount of $20,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Applying the well-settled standard of review with respect to nonjury trials (see, Matter of Fasano v State of New York, 113 AD2d 885, 887-888), we conclude that the trial court correctly found that the plaintiff had rendered architectural services to the defendant and was entitled to damages in the amount of $20,000. In the absence of any showing that the defendant was prejudiced by the trial court’s decision to exclude from the courtroom all nonparty witnesses, including the defendant’s son, Aram Moezinia, this ruling, even if erroneous, does not constitute a ground for reversal of the judgment (see, Levine v Levine, 56 NY2d 42, 49-50; People v Ernest M. J., 42 AD2d 717, 718; Richardson, Evidence §§ 460-461 [Prince 10th ed]). Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.2d 658, 518 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaftel-v-moezinia-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack