From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nightingale Restaurant Corp. v. Shak Food Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 14, 1989
155 A.D.2d 297 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Summary

In Nightingale Rest. Corp. v Shak Food Corp. (155 A.D.2d 297, 297-298 [1st Dept 1989], lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 702), we stated that "[o]n a bench trial, the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses".

Summary of this case from Reichman v. Warehouse One, Inc.

Opinion

November 14, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Andrew R. Tyler, J.).


On a bench trial, the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses (Matter of Poggemeyer, 87 A.D.2d 822, 823). Here, the record supports the Trial Judge's conclusions.

There was competent evidence to show that defendant Taubenblat represented defendants Shak Food Corp. and Mike Shak in the sale of a coffee shop and restaurant business to the plaintiff. In response to questions from plaintiff's counsel over a possible credit for accumulated interest, and the amount of future interest, on an accompanying chattel mortgage, defendant Taubenblat provided a schedule showing interest payments in descending amounts, and represented that this was an accurate schedule. Defendant Taubenblat did so to induce the plaintiff to close on the purchase. After the closing, counsel for the chattel mortgagee provided the plaintiff with a true schedule showing increasing payments. As a consequence, the plaintiff was damaged in the amount of $11,237.50.

Contrary to defendant's argument on appeal, there was competent evidence to show a false representation of material facts, with intent to defraud, justifiable reliance, and resulting damages (Bramex Assocs. v CBI Agencies, 149 A.D.2d 383, 384). We have reviewed defendant's other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Ross, J.P., Asch, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.


Summaries of

Nightingale Restaurant Corp. v. Shak Food Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 14, 1989
155 A.D.2d 297 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

In Nightingale Rest. Corp. v Shak Food Corp. (155 A.D.2d 297, 297-298 [1st Dept 1989], lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 702), we stated that "[o]n a bench trial, the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses".

Summary of this case from Reichman v. Warehouse One, Inc.
Case details for

Nightingale Restaurant Corp. v. Shak Food Corp.

Case Details

Full title:NIGHTINGALE RESTAURANT CORP., Respondent, v. SHAK FOOD CORP. et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 14, 1989

Citations

155 A.D.2d 297 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
547 N.Y.S.2d 213

Citing Cases

Yoba v. Yoba

The information which petitioner sought to include was not relatively contemporaneous, and the Family Court…

WSC Riverside Drive Owners LLC v. Williams

Moreover, the factual findings of the trial court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious…