From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

SUB v. NATIONAL

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 25, 2006
31 A.D.3d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2005-07951.

July 25, 2006.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Connell, J.), dated July 27, 2005, as, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

Before: Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

"As this case was tried to the court, without a jury, this Court's power to review the evidence is as broad as that of the trial court, with appropriate regard given to the decision of the trial judge who was in a position to assess the credibility of the witnesses" ( Bubba's Bagels of Wesley Hills, Inc. v Bergstol, 18 AD3d 411, 412; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc, v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499). Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the evidence adduced at the nonjury trial demonstrated that the contractual agreement in question was abandoned. The plaintiff acquiesced to the defendants' actions, which were inconsistent with the terms of the contract ( see Aliperti v Laurel Links, Ltd., 27 AD3d 675; Savitsky v Sukenik, 240 AD2d 557, 559).

The Supreme Court therefore properly dismissed the complaint.


Summaries of

SUB v. NATIONAL

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 25, 2006
31 A.D.3d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

SUB v. NATIONAL

Case Details

Full title:SUB 10k, INC., Appellant, v. NATIONAL MARKETING SERVICES, LTD., et al.…

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

Date published: Jul 25, 2006

Citations

31 A.D.3d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5940
819 N.Y.S.2d 775

Citing Cases

Mendez v. Robbins

After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed the action on the ground that plaintiff had failed to prove…