Opinion
06-06-2017
Beverly HEMMINGS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Leatrice SUTTON, as Administratrix of the Estate of Percy Sutton, Defendant–Respondent.
Law Office of Andrea M.A. Osborne, Chestnut Ridge (Andrea M.A. Osborne of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Basem Ramadan LLC, New York (Basem Ramadan and Alan D. Bowman of the bar of the State of New Jersey, admitted pro hac vice of counsel), for respondent.
Law Office of Andrea M.A. Osborne, Chestnut Ridge (Andrea M.A. Osborne of counsel), for appellant.
Law Office of Basem Ramadan LLC, New York (Basem Ramadan and Alan D. Bowman of the bar of the State of New Jersey, admitted pro hac vice of counsel), for respondent.
RENWICK, J.P., RICHTER, FEINMAN, GISCHE, KAHN, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered December 17, 2015, dismissing with prejudice the complaint seeking to enforce a promissory note, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 30, 2015, which, after a bench trial, directed that judgment be entered in favor of defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The trial court properly concluded that the note plaintiff sought to enforce was void due to a lack of consideration (see
UCC 3–408 ; Samet v. Binson, 122 A.D.3d 710, 711, 996 N.Y.S.2d 149 [2d Dept.2014] ). Plaintiff testified that the note was given in exchange for past economic, technological, and financial assistance, but failed to submit any documentary evidence of such work. The trial court found the claim to be not credible, and that finding is entitled to deference on appeal (see Matter of Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 86 A.D.3d 314, 320, 927 N.Y.S.2d 67 [1st Dept.2011] ; see also New Media Holding Co., L.L.C. v. Kagalovsky, 118 A.D.3d 68, 78, 985 N.Y.S.2d 216 [1st Dept.2014] ).We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.