Totonelly v. Enos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Totonelly v. Enos

49 A.D.3d 710, 853 N.Y.2d 886

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 710 (Totonelly v. Enos) 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

Totonelly v. Enos, 49 A.D.3d 710, 853 N.Y.2d 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[711]*711The plaintiff brought this action to determine the sum he owed to the defendant pursuant to a written agreement between the parties, and the defendant interposed a counterclaim for a sum allegedly owed based on the parties’ oral and written agreements. Where, as here, a nonjury trial is involved, this Court’s power to review the evidence is as broad as that of the trial court, bearing in mind that due regard must be given to the trial court, which was in a position to assess the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492 [1983]; Vizzari v Hernandez, 1 AD3d 431 [2003]).

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the trial court’s determination awarding judgment in favor of the defendant in the principal sum of $68,550 is warranted by the facts.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Garni, JJ., concur.

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

[711]*711The plaintiff brought this action to determine the sum he owed to the defendant pursuant to a written agreement between the parties, and the defendant interposed a counterclaim for a sum allegedly owed based on the parties’ oral and written agreements. Where, as here, a nonjury trial is involved, this Court’s power to review the evidence is as broad as that of the trial court, bearing in mind that due regard must be given to the trial court, which was in a position to assess the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492 [1983]; Vizzari v Hernandez, 1 AD3d 431 [2003]).

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the trial court’s determination awarding judgment in favor of the defendant in the principal sum of $68,550 is warranted by the facts.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Garni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 710, 853 N.Y.2d 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/totonelly-v-enos-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack