U.S. Ice Cream Corp. v. Bizar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

U.S. Ice Cream Corp. v. Bizar

303 A.D.2d 747, 757 N.Y.S.2d 458

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 747 (U.S. Ice Cream Corp. v. Bizar) 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

U.S. Ice Cream Corp. v. Bizar, 303 A.D.2d 747, 757 N.Y.S.2d 458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover legal fees paid to the defendant, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cutrona, J.), entered October 23, 2001, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the court after a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal unless the court’s conclusion could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Dimmitt & Owens Fin. v Dependable Indus. Supply Co., 293 AD2d 446 [2002]). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court’s determination was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence. The defendant law firm did not abandon the plaintiffs, and any alleged misconduct of the law firm did not force the plaintiffs to settle their actions against the Carvel Corporation.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Feuerstein and Adams, 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 legal fees paid to the defendant, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cutrona, J.), entered October 23, 2001, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the court after a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal unless the court’s conclusion could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Dimmitt & Owens Fin. v Dependable Indus. Supply Co., 293 AD2d 446 [2002]). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court’s determination was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence. The defendant law firm did not abandon the plaintiffs, and any alleged misconduct of the law firm did not force the plaintiffs to settle their actions against the Carvel Corporation.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 747, 757 N.Y.S.2d 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-ice-cream-corp-v-bizar-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack