Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

Niemira v. Dean

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 31, 1997

245 A.D.2d 1068; 666 N.Y.S.2d 75; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13835

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Bloomfield Inv. Res. Corp. v. Daniloff (2d Cir. 2024)
Pues Family Trust Ira Ex Rel. Pues v. Parnas Holdings Inc. (2d Cir. 2017)
Virtuoso v. Pepsi-Cola Laurel Bottling Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Carney v. Davignon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
MacCasland v. Mandara (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The parties’ conflicting accounts of the *1069terms of the oral agreement raised questions of fact for Supreme Court to resolve. “On a bench trial, the decision of the 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, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses (Nightingale Rest. Corp. v Shak Food Corp., 155 AD2d 297 [, lv denied 76 NY2d 702])” (Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 544-545). The evidence supports the court’s determination with respect to the terms of the parties’ agreement.

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Roberts, J.H.O.—Contract.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.