G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2015–2021 ·
…in reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this court may render the judgment it finds 'warranted by the facts,' bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing th…
at p. 827
✓
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2019–2020 ·
…in reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the …
at p. 827
✓
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rushton v. State of New York
The claimants appeal, and we affirm. "'In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony' " ( Rodriguez v State of New York , 166 AD3d 922 , 923, quoting DePaula v State of New York , 82 AD3d 827, 827 [internal quotation marks omitted]; W.M.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
PFT Tech., LLC v. Wieser
"In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony" ( DePaula v State of New York , 82 AD3d 827, 827 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Dean/Carson Tappan, LLC v State of New York , 178 AD3d 664 , 665; Jones v State of New York , 124 AD3d 599, 600 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dean/Carson Tappan, LLC v. State of New York
The claimant appeals. " In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony'" ( Jones v State of New York , 124 AD3d 599, 600 , quoting DePaula v State of New York , 82 AD3d 827, 827 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
W.M. Movers, Inc. v. State of New York
The claimant appeals. " In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony'" ( Rodriguez v State of New York , 166 AD3d 922 , 923, quoting DePaula v State of New York , 82 AD3d 827, 827 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Lucas v State of New York , 155 AD3d 710, 711 ; Chavez v State of New York , 139 AD3d 994, 994-995 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lucas v. State of New York
“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds ‘warranted by the facts,’ bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony” (DePaula v State of New York, 82 AD3d 827, 827 [2011], quoting Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; see Jones v State of New York, 124 AD3d 599, 600 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeffers v. Stein
“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds ‘warranted by the facts,’ bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony” (DePaula v State of New York, 82 AD3d 827, 827 [2011], quoting Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc, v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; see Samuel Yu v Fortuna Design & Constr., Inc., 106 AD3d 732 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ganai v. 6910 Fort Hamilton Parkway Corp.
“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds ‘warranted by the facts,’ bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge *916 had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony” (DePaula v State of New York, 82 AD3d 827, 827 [2011], quoting Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; see Jones v State of New York, 124 AD3d 599, 600 [2015]). “[W]here the court’s findings of fact rest in large m…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chavez v. State of New York
“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, *995 and this Court may render the judgment it finds ‘warranted by the facts,’ bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony” (DePaula v State of New York, 82 AD3d 827, 827 [2011], quoting Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; see Jones v State of New York, 124 AD3d 599, 600 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guzman v. State of New York
“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, *776 and this Court may render the judgment it finds ‘warranted by the facts,’ bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony” (DePaula v State of New York, 82 AD3d 827, 827 [2011], quoting Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; see Jones v State of New York, 124 AD3d 599, 600 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. State of New York
“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds ‘warranted by the facts,’ bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony” (DePaula v State of New York, 82 AD3d 827, 827 [2011], quoting Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; see Melius v Breslin, 46 AD3d 524, 525 [2007]; Betsy Meyer Assoc., Inc. v Lorber, 42 AD3d 509 [2007]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kai Hong Hom v. Hom
In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds “warranted by the facts,” bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony (Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bed-ford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; see DePaula v State of New York, 82 AD3d 827 [2011]; Kaygreen Realty Co. v IG Second Generation Partners, L.P., 68 AD3d 933 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kai Hong Hom v. Hom
In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds “warranted by the facts,” bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony (Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bed-ford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; see DePaula v State of New York, 82 AD3d 827 [2011]; Kaygreen Realty Co. v IG Second Generation Partners, L.P., 68 AD3d 933 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Link v. Sarcona
In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds “warranted by the facts,” bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony (Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; see DePaula v State of New York, 82 AD3d 827 [2011]; Kaygreen Realty Co. v IG Second Generation Partners, L.P., 68 AD3d 933 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Quintanilla v. State
In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds “warranted by the facts,” bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony (Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; see DePaula v State of New York, 82 AD3d 827 [2011]).
cited
Cited "see"
Plato General Construction Corp./EMCO Tech Construction Corp. JV, LLC v. Dormitory Authority
Corp., 254 NY 128, 133-134 [1930]; see DePaula v State of New York, 82 AD3d 827 [2011]; Bryant v State of New York, 77 AD3d 875, 875-876 [2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Farrell v. State
In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds “warranted by the facts,” bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony (Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; see DePaula v State of New York, 82 AD3d 827 [2011]; Bryant v State of New York, 77 AD3d 875, 876 [2010]; Stevens v State of New York, 47 AD3d 624, 625 [2008]; Domanova v State of New York…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joseph A. DePaula
v.
State of New York
v.
State of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 8, 2011.
Cited by 23 opinions | Published
In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds “warranted by the facts,” bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony (Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; see Bryant v State of New York, 77 AD3d 875, 876 [2010]; Stevens v State of New York, 47 AD3d 624, 625 [2008]; Domanova v State of New York, 41 AD3d 633, 634 [2007]).
Here, the trial court’s determination that the claimant failed to establish his claim to recover damages for malicious prosecution was warranted by the facts, and we decline to disturb it. Although the trial court largely credited the account of events given by the claimant and an independent witness, neither their testimony, nor the lack of probable cause for the claimant’s arrest, compels the conclusion that a prior criminal proceeding was instituted “due to a wrong or improper motive, something other than a desire to see the ends of justice served” (Nardelli v Stamberg, 44 NY2d 500, 503 [1978]; see Martin v City of Albany, 42 NY2d 13, 17 [1977]; Minasian v Lubow, 49 AD3d 1033, 1035 [2008]; Arnold v Town of Wilton, 126 AD2d 135, 136-137 [1987]). The claimant was arrested after he admittedly called a uniformed court officer a derogatory name in a crowded courtroom, and the evidence presented at trial supports the conclusion that[*828] the court officer acted in a good faith belief that arresting the claimant was necessary to preserve order and decorum in the courtroom and that the court officer did not act with actual malice or a wrong or improper motive (see Vidal v Bloomingdale Bros., Div. of Federated Dept. Stores, 85 AD2d 508, 509 [1981]).
In light of the fact that the claimant was confined for no more than 15 to 20 minutes following his arrest, and that he failed to establish that he suffered any other injury during the period between his arrest and arraignment, the amount of damages awarded by the trial court for false arrest was not inadequate (see Jian Ren Chen v City of New York, 64 AD3d 542 [2009]; Gutierrez v City of New York, 288 AD2d 86 [2001]). Prudenti, EJ., Eng, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.