From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Olympic Funding v. Ladies Mile, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 31, 2011
84 A.D.3d 699 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 5217-5218.

May 31, 2011.

Order (denominated a judgment), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered on or about August 31, 2010, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered December 16, 2010, which denied plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse Hirschtritt LLP, New York (Kenneth M. Block of counsel), for appellant.

Cohen Tauber Spievack Wagner P.C., New York (Sari E. Kolatch of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.


The trial court's conclusion that plaintiff failed to prove trespass because it permitted the installations of which it now complains ( see Copart Indus. v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 41 NY2d 564, 570; see also 829 Post, LLC v Town of Eastchester, 57 AD3d 717, 718) was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Saperstein v Lewenberg, 11 AD3d 289). There exists no basis to disturb the trial court's credibility determinations ( see id.).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

[Prior Case History: 28 Misc 3d 1229(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 51534(U).]


Summaries of

Olympic Funding v. Ladies Mile, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 31, 2011
84 A.D.3d 699 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Olympic Funding v. Ladies Mile, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:OLYMPIC FUNDING LLC, Appellant, v. LADIES MILE, INC., et al., Respondents

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

Date published: May 31, 2011

Citations

84 A.D.3d 699 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 4529
923 N.Y.S.2d 319