Opinion
February 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
On appeal from a judgment entered after a nonjury trial, this Court's scope of review is as broad as that of the trial court (see, DiBruno v. Abrams, 208 A.D.2d 672). 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"'" (DiBruno v. Abrams, supra, at 674, quoting Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499). However, a rule of restraint has arisen to the effect that the decision of the trial court should not be disturbed on appeal unless its conclusions could not have been reached based upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Matter of Poggemeyer, 87 A.D.2d 822, 823; cf., Nicastro v Park, 113 A.D.2d 129).
We find no reason to disturb the findings of the Supreme Court. Under the circumstances of this case and pursuant to the terms of the promissory notes in question, the plaintiff was permitted to declare the defendants in default and to accelerate the notes at will (see, UCC 1-208).
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.