province hearing in New York

2012Where, as here, an evidentiary hearing is conducted by the 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 the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses” (Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 544-545 [1st Dept 1990]; see also Kronish v Koffman, 199 AD2d 136 , 138 [1st Dept 1993]).

2012Where, as here, an evidentiary hearing is conducted by the 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 the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses” (Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 544-545 [1st Dept 1990]; see also Kronish v Koffman, 199 AD2d 136 , 138 [1st Dept 1993]).

2012Where, as here, an evidentiary hearing is conducted by the 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 the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses” (Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 544-545 [1st Dept 1990]; see also Kronish v Koffman, 199 AD2d 136 , 138 [1st Dept 1993]).

2012Where, as here, an evidentiary hearing is conducted by the 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 the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses” (Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 544-545 [1st Dept 1990]; see also Kronish v Koffman, 199 AD2d 136 , 138 [1st Dept 1993]).

2020Although issuance of a certificate of eviction against petitioner and her daughter is a significant sanction, in light of the circumstances of this case, including the risk posed to the safety of other residents and petitioner's denial of any culpability, the sanction does not shock the conscience ( see Matter of Featherstone v Franco , 95 NY2d 550, 554-555 [2000]).

2020That is unsurprising since at the time of trial, our case law was clear that “[t]he selection of particular jurors falls within the category of tactical decisions entrusted to counsel, and defendants do not retain a personal veto power over counsel’s exercise of professional judgments” (Colon, 90 NY2d at 826 , citing People v Sprowal, 84 NY2d 113, 119 [1994]; ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Defense Function, Standard 4-5.2 [b] [3d ed 1993]).

2018The Appellate{**32 NY3d at 1047} Division improperly engaged in a re-weighing of the evidence when it substituted its own factual findings for those of respondents ( see Pell , 34 NY2d at 230).

2008However, “[w]here, as here, a case is tried without a jury, the Appellate Division’s ‘authority is as broad as that of the trial court . . . and as to a bench trial it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts’ ” (Matter of Lehrer v Cavallo, 43 AD3d 1059, 1061 [2007], quoting Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]).

2008However, “[w]here, as here, a case is tried without a jury, the Appellate Division’s ‘authority is as broad as that of the trial court . . . and as to a bench trial it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts’ ” (Matter of Lehrer v Cavallo, 43 AD3d 1059, 1061 [2007], quoting Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]).

2007The petitioner’s testimony at the disciplinary hearing that his intent was not to steal the property, but merely to set it aside for later purchase by an acquaintance, presented a credibility issue, the resolution of which was within the province of the hearing officer (see Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 617 [1986]; Matter of Griffin v Goord, 43 AD3d 591 [2007]; Matter of Rivera v Selsky, 266 AD2d 295, 295 [1999]).

2007The petitioner’s testimony at the disciplinary hearing that his intent was not to steal the property, but merely to set it aside for later purchase by an acquaintance, presented a credibility issue, the resolution of which was within the province of the hearing officer (see Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 617 [1986]; Matter of Griffin v Goord, 43 AD3d 591 [2007]; Matter of Rivera v Selsky, 266 AD2d 295, 295 [1999]).

2006School Dist., 273 AD2d 785, 786 [2000]).

2005A decision not to testify would be well within the province of defense tactics and the attorney’s choice (see, People v Foy, 220 AD2d 220 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 901 [1995]; see also, People v Wiggins, 89 NY2d 872 [1996]).

2003It is well settled that issues of credibility are within the province of the hearing court, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, and its determination must be accorded great deference and should not be set aside unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 [1977]; People v Rivera, 186 AD2d 692, 693 [1992]).

2003It is well settled that issues of credibility are within the province of the hearing court, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, and its determination must be accorded great deference on appeal and should not be set aside unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Davis, 221 AD2d 358, 359 [1995]; People v Overton, 188 AD2d 491 [1992]).

1995Acknowledging that the resolution of this issue is within the province of the hearing court as the finder of fact (see, Matter of Markowitz v Gumbs, supra, at 907) and that the essential facts in this matter are undisputed, we find that Supreme Court’s conclusion could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence.

1993It has been stressed on innumerable occasions that credibility findings are the province of the hearing court (see, e.g., People v Falciglia, 153 AD2d 795 , affd 75 NY2d 935 ; People v Rivera, 121 AD2d 166 , affd 68 NY2d 786 ; People v Martinez, 111 AD2d 707, 710 , appeal dismissed 67 NY2d 752 ; People v Stroman, 83 AD2d 370, 372 ; People v Wright, 71 AD2d 585, 586; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 ).