409-411 Sixth Street, LLC v. Mogi, 999 N.E.2d 159 (N.Y. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
409-411 Sixth Street, LLC v. Mogi, 999 N.E.2d 159 (N.Y. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
30 citation events (30 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: DNY 1 434-436 E. 76th LLC v. Hammer, 85 Misc. 3d 140(A) (N.Y. App. Term. 2025)
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013 2019 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
22 N.Y.3d at 876 Reviewing evidence to determine if findings should be disturbed12 citing cases11 listed here
  • DNY 1 434-436 E. 76th LLC v. Hammer, 85 Misc. 3d 140(A) (N.Y. App. Term. 2025).unpublished 4 cites
    DNY 1 434-436 E. 76th LLC v Hammer ( 2025 NY Slip Op 50587(U) ) [*1] <table align="center"> <tbody><tr> <td align="center"><b>DNY 1 434-436 E. 76th LLC v Hammer</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center"> 2025 NY Slip Op 50587(U) [ 85 Misc 3d…
  • Schneider v. Hanasab, 2022 NY Slip Op 05552 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2022).published
    "A jury verdict is contrary to the weight of the credible evidence where the verdict could not have been reached 'under any fair interpretation of the evidence'" ( Wieder v Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. , ___ AD3d ___, ___, 2022 NY Slip Op 04830…
  • Hous. Dev. Assoc., LLC v. Fitzgerald, 73 Misc. 3d 137(A) (N.Y. App. Term. 2021).unpublished
    In a nonprimary residence case such as this, 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, e…
  • Leya, LLC v. Kodicek, 154 N.Y.S.3d 577 (N.Y. App. Term. 2021).unpublished
    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 finding…
  • Matter of Barton v. Truesdell, 123 N.Y.S.3d 271 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2020).published
    Here, the record — including the notice of termination, the email discussions and the transcript of the initial hearing — clearly reveals that the determination was properly supported and should not be disturbed ( see 409-411 Sixth St., LL…
  • 315 W. 113th St., LLC v. Taylor, No. 2019 NYSlipOp 51030(U) (N.Y. App. Term. June 24, 2019).published
    In a primary residence case such as this, "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, esp…
  • Matter of Houston St. Mgt. Co. v. La Croix, 2018 NY Slip Op 1241 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2018).published
    "In primary residence cases, where the Appellate Division acts as the second appellate court, 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…
  • Express Elevator Constr. Co. v. Rashti Constr. Corp., 133 A.D.3d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2015).published
    The trial court’s findings that defendants unjustifiably canceled their contract with plaintiff, locked plaintiff out of the work site, and refused to pay the remainder of the contract price, is supported by a fair interpretation of the ev…
  • Hyatt Ave. Assocs., LLC v. Rahman, 49 Misc. 3d 24 (N.Y. App. Term. 2015).published
    Consequently, we do not disturb the factfinder’s determination (see 409-411 Sixth St., LLC v Mogi, 22 NY3d 875, 876-877 [2013]; Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 545 [1990]).
  • 409-411 Sixth Street LLC v. Mogi, 112 A.D.3d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    Specifically, the Court held that in primary residence cases, where the Appellate Division acts as the second appellate court, “ ‘the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the cour…
Show 1 more citing case
  • James Riv. Multi-Strategy Fund, L.P. v. MotherRock, L.P., 2018 NY Slip Op 2299 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2018).published
    Accordingly, the judgment should be affirmed ( see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl ., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]; see also 409-411 Sixth St., LLC v Mogi , 22 NY3d 875, 876-877 [2013]).
22 N.Y.3d at 875 “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 o…”0 citing cases6 citing courts quote it
    Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
    409-411 Sixth Street, LLC
    v.
    Masako Mogi
    New York Court of Appeals.
    Oct 10, 2013.
    Published opinion
    999 N.E.2d 159
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLC, New York City (Magda L. Cruz of counsel), for appellant., De Castro Law Firm, Woodside (Steven M. De Castro of counsel), for respondent.
    Abdus, Graffeo, Lippman, Pigott, Read, Rivera, Salaam, Smith.
    Cited by 267 opinions  |  Published

    OPINION OF THE COURT

    Memorandum.

    The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum. The certified question should not be answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.

    Landlord 409-411 Sixth Street, LLC commenced a holdover proceeding to evict tenant Masako Mogi from her rent-stabilized apartment in New York City on the ground that she was not using the apartment as her primary residence as required by Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2524.4. After a bench trial, New York City Civil Court found in landlord’s favor, determining that tenant had not used the apartment as her primary residence. The Appellate Term affirmed the judgment, concluding that a fair interpretation of the evidence supported the Civil Court’s determination (27 Mise 3d 126[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50511[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2010]). In a 3-2 decision, the Appellate Division reversed the Appellate Term order, denied the holdover petition, and dismissed the proceeding (100 AD3d 112 [2012]).

    We agree with the dissenting opinion that the Appellate Division applied the incorrect standard of review to the Appellate Term order. In primary residence cases, where the Appellate Division acts as the second appellate court,

    “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[*877] the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses” (Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 544-555 [1st Dept 1990]; see also Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]).

    The Appellate Division did not apply this standard of review to this case, instead substituting its own view of the trial evidence. Accordingly, the case needs to be remitted to that Court to apply the appropriate standard of review.

    Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.

    On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein, and certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.