Opinion
July 23, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.).
The court's finding that there was no proof that defendant Haymes breached a fiduciary duty to plaintiff or that he improperly obtained the transfer of certain properties, based as it was largely upon the credibility of the witnesses, should not be disturbed since there is no showing that the court's conclusion "`"could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence"'" ( Thoreson v. Penthouse Intl., 80 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Nor do we disturb the conclusion that plaintiff was only the nominal owner of the properties that were acquired and maintained through defendant's work ( see, Tordai v. Tordai, 109 A.D.2d 996, 998).
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.