Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 11, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51620(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co. (Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Ultimate Health Products, Inc., as Assignee of Zenaida Solero, Appellant,

against

Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Janice A. Robinson of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), entered September 23, 2015. The judgment, upon a decision of that court dated December 22, 2014, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision dated December 22, 2014 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment entered September 23, 2015 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with $25 costs.

At a nonjury trial of this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the only issue to be tried was whether plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The Civil Court dismissed the complaint, finding that defendant had established that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs.

In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility [*2](see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492 [1983]; Hamilton v Blackwood, 85 AD3d 1116 [2011]; Zeltser v Sacerdote, 52 AD3d 824 [2008]). Upon a review of the testimony and evidence which was admitted at trial without objection, we find no basis to disturb the Civil Court's finding.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 11, 2019

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

Ultimate Health Products, Inc., as Assignee of Zenaida Solero, Appellant,

against

Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Janice A. Robinson of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), entered September 23, 2015. The judgment, upon a decision of that court dated December 22, 2014, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision dated December 22, 2014 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment entered September 23, 2015 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with $25 costs.

At a nonjury trial of this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the only issue to be tried was whether plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The Civil Court dismissed the complaint, finding that defendant had established that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs.

In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility [*2](see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492 [1983]; Hamilton v Blackwood, 85 AD3d 1116 [2011]; Zeltser v Sacerdote, 52 AD3d 824 [2008]). Upon a review of the testimony and evidence which was admitted at trial without objection, we find no basis to disturb the Civil Court's finding.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 11, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ultimate-health-prods-inc-v-travelers-ins-co-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack