Law Offices of Ronald V. DeCaprio v. Boncoeur
| Decision Date | 02 December 2015 |
| Citation | 134 A.D.3d 682,21 N.Y.S.3d 305 |
| Parties | LAW OFFICES OF RONALD V. DeCAPRIO, respondent, v. Oswald BONCOEUR, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Gunilla Perez–Faringer, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.
Law Offices of Ronald V. DeCaprio, Garnerville, N.Y., respondent pro se.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
In an action to recover fees for legal services rendered, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), dated March 31, 2014, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $13,499.08.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see 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 ; Fernandez v. State, 130 A.D.3d 566, 14 N.Y.S.3d 49 ). As recited by the trial court in its decision, the testimony of Ronald V. DeCaprio, the plaintiff's principal, and the defendant, the two parties to this action, which emanates from a dispute over fees for legal services rendered, was in sharp conflict with respect to the scope of the services that the defendant hired the plaintiff to perform. The trial court found that DeCaprio "testified truthfully and candidly" and that the defendant was not "entirely truthful or candid."
The Supreme Court's determination that DeCaprio's testimony was more credible than that of the defendant is supported by the record. Further, the record supports the conclusion that, in seeking the legal assistance of DeCaprio in connection with a Family Court petition filed by his former wife, the defendant told DeCaprio that he did not "want to pay a penny" in child support or college expenses with respect to his daughter. DeCaprio's testimony shows that the defendant took this "no pay position" despite DeCaprio's warning that "it was going to take a lot of time and a lot of money" to seek, or to obtain, an order that would completely absolve the defendant of any monetary obligation with respect to his daughter.
The record also supports the conclusion that the amount billed by DeCaprio for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
STL Rest. Corp. v. Microcosmic, Inc.
...Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499, 470 N.Y.S.2d 350, 458 N.E.2d 809 ; Law Offs. of Ronald V. DeCaprio v. Boncoeur, 134 A.D.3d 682, 21 N.Y.S.3d 305 ; Kamalian v. Community OB/GYN Assoc., PLLC, 132 A.D.3d 814, 17 N.Y.S.3d 879 ). Upon our review of the record here......
- In re Levitan
- Lauinger v. Surf's Out at Kismet, LLC
-
Moezinia v. Ashkenazi
...Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499, 470 N.Y.S.2d 350, 458 N.E.2d 809 ; Law Offs. of Ronald V. DeCaprio v. Boncoeur, 134 A.D.3d 682, 21 N.Y.S.3d 305 ; Kamalian v. Community OB/GYN Assoc., PLLC, 132 A.D.3d 814, 17 N.Y.S.3d 879 ). Upon our review of the record here......