New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
February 11, 2013
134-38 MAPLE AVENUE REALTY CORP., RESPONDENT, --
PETER HART ALSO KNOWN AS PETER HAR, MEI XUE LIN AND HARSUVANAKIT BUSABAR, "JOHN DOE" AND "JANE DOE,"
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Michael J. Pinckney, J.), entered December 20, 2010.
134-38 Maple Ave. Realty Corp. v Hart
Decided on February 11, 2013
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., RIOS and SOLOMON, JJ
The order, after a hearing, denied tenant Peter Hart's motion to, in effect, mark satisfied a final judgment's monetary award and to stay the issuance of a warrant in a nonpayment summary proceeding.
ORDERED that so much of the appeal as was taken by Mei Xue Lin, Harsuvanakit Busabar, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" is dismissed as they are not aggrieved by the order, which denied a motion by another party (see CPLR 5511; Rinaldi v Evenflo Co., Inc., 62 AD3d 856 ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
In this nonpayment summary proceeding, tenant Peter Hart moved, in effect, to mark satisfied a final judgment's monetary award and to stay the issuance of a warrant. At a hearing on the motion, tenant described a meeting with landlord's principal, Mohammad Malik, at which, tenant alleged, he had tendered $6,300 in cash. He further testified that Mr. Malik had promised to give him a receipt for the payment after Mr. Malik had confirmed the amount of the judgment. Mr. Malik never provided him with a receipt. Mr. Malik testified that the meeting had taken place, but that tenant had only offered $4,000, which Mr. Malik had rejected because it did not fully satisfy tenant's debt. The Civil Court denied tenant's motion, finding his testimony to be lacking in credibility.
The decision of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 ). Here, there is no basis in the record to disturb the Civil Court's decision. Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 11, 2013
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.