Watkins v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Watkins v. Martin

78 A.D.3d 685, 909 N.Y.S.2d 910

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

DecidedNovember 3, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.3d 685 (Watkins v. Martin) 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

Watkins v. Martin, 78 A.D.3d 685, 909 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a permanent injunction, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated June 23, 2009, which, upon a decision of the same court dated October 17, 2008, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant and against him in the principal sum of $53,750 on the first counterclaim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On an appeal from a judgment entered after a nonjury trial, this Court “may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account in a close case ‘the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses’ ” (Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983], quoting York Mtge. Corp. v Clotar Constr. Corp., 254 NY 128, 134 [1930]). Upon our review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination (see Trump Vil. Section 3 v New York State Hous. Fin. Agency, 292 AD2d 156, 158 [2002]; see also Ross v Ross, 233 App Div 626, 635 [1931], affd 262 NY 381 [1933]; see generally Furia v Furia, 116 AD2d 694, 695 [1986]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are not properly before us (see generally Centurion Taxi v Happy Go Lucky Cab Corp., 230 AD2d 817, 818 [1996]; see also Cholowsky v Civiletti, 69 AD3d 110, 116 [2009]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Covello, J.P., Leventhal, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for a permanent injunction, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated June 23, 2009, which, upon a decision of the same court dated October 17, 2008, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant and against him in the principal sum of $53,750 on the first counterclaim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On an appeal from a judgment entered after a nonjury trial, this Court “may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account in a close case ‘the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses’ ” (Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983], quoting York Mtge. Corp. v Clotar Constr. Corp., 254 NY 128, 134 [1930]). Upon our review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination (see Trump Vil. Section 3 v New York State Hous. Fin. Agency, 292 AD2d 156, 158 [2002]; see also Ross v Ross, 233 App Div 626, 635 [1931], affd 262 NY 381 [1933]; see generally Furia v Furia, 116 AD2d 694, 695 [1986]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are not properly before us (see generally Centurion Taxi v Happy Go Lucky Cab Corp., 230 AD2d 817, 818 [1996]; see also Cholowsky v Civiletti, 69 AD3d 110, 116 [2009]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Covello, J.P., Leventhal, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 685, 909 N.Y.S.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watkins-v-martin-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack