Goldstein v. Guida
| Decision Date | 22 June 2010 |
| Citation | 74 A.D.3d 1143,904 N.Y.S.2d 117 |
| Parties | Shirley GOLDSTEIN, respondent, v. Paul GUIDA, et al., appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
74 A.D.3d 1143
Shirley GOLDSTEIN, respondent,
v.
Paul GUIDA, et al., appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
June 22, 2010.
Blay & Liss, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Stafford Liss of counsel), for appellants.
Michael D. Garber, Valley Stream, N.Y., for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, RANDALL T. ENG, and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.H.O.), dated July 28, 2009, which, upon a decision of the same court dated May 1, 2009, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $17,200.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In March 2006 the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for breach of an oral contract and conversion. Specifically, she alleges that in 2004, she contacted the defendant Paul Guida, the president and sole shareholder of the defendant Barth Tex Fabrics, Inc. (hereinafter Barth Tex), to reupholster six dining room chairs which were approximately 90 years old and valuable family heirlooms. According to the plaintiff, Guida arranged for a man named Edward Chifari to pick up the chairs from the plaintiff's home and deliver them to his store. After several months, the plaintiff asked Guida about the chairs and Guida denied ever having received them. After a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court found both defendants liable for conversion and awarded damages to the plaintiff in the principal sum of $17,200. We affirm.
Upon review of a determination rendered after a nonjury trial, this Court's authority "is as broad as that of the trial
court," and 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 N.Y.2d 492, 499, 470 N.Y.S.2d 350, 458 N.E.2d 809, quoting York Mtge. Corp. v. Clotar Constr. Corp., 254 N.Y. 128, 133-134, 172 N.E. 265; see Damianos Realty Group, LLC v. Fracchia, 64 A.D.3d 537, 538, 883 N.Y.S.2d 905). Moreover, "in a nonjury trial, evaluating the credibility of the respective witnesses and determining which of the proffered items of evidence are most credible are matters committed to the trial court's sound...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. BK 418 LLC
...of the proffered items of evidence are most credible are matters committed to the trial court's sound discretion" (Goldstein v. Guida, 74 A.D.3d 1143, 904 N.Y.S.2d 117 [2 Dept., 2010], quoting Ivani v. Ivani, 303 A.D.2d 639, 757 N.Y.S.2d 89 [2 Dept., 2003], quoting L'Esperance v. L'Esperanc......
-
Mojdeh M. v. Jamshid A.
...the proffered items of evidence are most credible are matters committed to the trial court's sound discretion” (Goldstein v. Guida, 74 A.D.3d 1143, 904 N.Y.S.2d 117 [2 Dept.,2010], quoting Ivani v. Ivani, 303 A.D.2d 639, 757 N.Y.S.2d 89 [2 Dept.,2003], quoting L'Esperance v. L'Esperance, 24......
-
Alice M. v. Terrance T.
...the proffered items of evidence are most credible are matters committed to the trial court's sound discretion" (Goldstein v. Guida, 74 A.D.3d 1143, 904 N.Y.S.2d 117 [2d Dept 2010], quoting Ivani v. Ivani, 303 A.D.2d 639, 757 N.Y.S.2d 89 [2d Dept 2003], quoting L'Esperance v. L'Esperance, 24......
-
Rochel H. v. Joel H.
...the proffered items of evidence are most credible are matters committed to the trial court's sound discretion" ( Goldstein v. Guida, 74 AD3d 1143, 904 N.Y.S.2d 117 [2 Dept.,2010], quoting Ivani v. Ivani, 303 A.D.2d 639, 757 N.Y.S.2d 89 [2 Dept.,2003], quoting L'Esperance v. L'Esperance, 243......