Golding v. Gottesman

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: Golding v. Gottesman, 41 A.D.3d 430, 837 N.Y.S.2d 719, 2007 NY Slip Op 4790 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
• Decision Date: 05 June 2007
• Docket Number: 2006-05278.
• Parties: MICHAEL R. GOLDING, Respondent, v. LITA D. G. GOTTESMAN, Appellant.

41 A.D.3d 430

837 N.Y.S.2d 719

2007 NY Slip Op 04790

MICHAEL R. GOLDING, Respondent, v. LITA D. G. GOTTESMAN, Appellant.

2006-05278.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

Decided June 5, 2007.

In an action to recover the proceeds of certain loans, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered April 11, 2006, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal sum of $194,065.47.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

"`Where, as here, a case is tried without a jury, our 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 decision of the Trial Judge who was in a position to assess the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses'" (Tornheim v Kohn, 31 AD3d 748 [2006], quoting Universal Leasing Servs. v Flushing Hae Kwan Rest., 169 AD2d 829, 830 [1991]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Kaywood Props., Ltd. v Glover, 34 AD3d 645 [2006]). The evidence established that the plaintiff made a series of loans to the defendant in order to save the defendant's house from foreclosure, first by a bank and then by the City of New Rochelle, that the defendant promised to repay the loans, and that the defendant failed to do so (see Langenbach v Renna, 255 AD2d 366 [1998]; see generally Wallach v Dryfoos, 140 App Div 438, 440 [1910]). The defendant did not prove that the plaintiff's tender of money was a gift (see Langenbach v Renna, supra; Matter of Carroll, 100 AD2d 337, 338-339 [1984]). Accordingly, the trial court's determination is supported by the record, and we find no reason to disturb it (see Kahan v Sulaymanov, 24 AD3d 612 [2005]; Bucci v...