Uzir v. Maram Tours & Travel Inc.

73 Misc. 3d 131(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50966(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: October 12, 2021
• Docket: 570100/21
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Uzir v Maram Tours & Travel Inc. (2021 NY Slip Op 50966(U)) [*1]

Uzir v Maram Tours & Travel Inc.

2021 NY Slip Op 50966(U) [73 Misc 3d 131(A)]

Decided on October 12, 2021

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 12, 2021

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Brigantti, Hagler, JJ.
570100/21

Ahmed Ali Uzir, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Maram Tours & Travel Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), entered December 12, 2019, after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $2,320.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), entered December 12, 2019, reversed, without costs, and judgment directed in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Our authority to review the record developed at the bench trial and render the judgment warranted by the facts is as broad as that of the trial court (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). Exercising that authority here, we have no basis to disturb so much of the trial court's finding that plaintiff was entitled to a $2,320 discount in the cost of his hajj pilgrimage to Saudia Arabia in return for his performance of certain Iman services. However, contrary to the trial court's conclusion, the trial evidence conclusively established that plaintiff had, in fact, received that discount. Specifically, the invoice issued to plaintiff clearly shows that plaintiff's account was credited in the sum of $2,320. The trial court should not have disregarded this invoice on the ground that it "predate[d]" subsequent text messages exchanged by the parties concerning a "refund." The refund referred to in the text messages concerned a separate proposed agreement in the event plaintiff would "lead religiously" during the hajj.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 12, 2021