witnesses hearing in New York

2025In 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 in a close case the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony ( see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of [*2]Bedford , 60 NY2d 492, 499 ).

2025In 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 in a close case the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony ( see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of [*2]Bedford , 60 NY2d 492, 499).

2022In 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 ; see Rodriguez v State of New York , 166 AD3d 922 , 923; DePaula v State of New York , 82 AD3d 827 ).

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 the witnesses and hearing the testimony" ( DePaula v State of New York , 82 AD3d 827, 827 , quoting Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford , 60 NY2d 492, 499 ; see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Macaulay , 187 AD3d 721, 723-724 ; [*3]Ganai v 6910 Fort Hamilton Parkway Corp. , 149 AD3d 914, 915-916 ). "[W]

2024"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" ( Matter of Jewett , 145 AD3d 1114, 1116 [3d Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks, ellipsis and citations omitted]; see Baba-Ali v State of New York , 19 NY3d 627, 640 [2012]).

2024"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" ( Matter of Jewett , 145 AD3d 1114, 1116 [3d Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks, ellipsis and citations omitted]; see Baba-Ali v State of New York , 19 NY3d 627, 640 [2012]).

2018Dist., 125 AD3d 620, 621 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of [*2]Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 ).

2016Dist., 125 AD3d 620, 621 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]).

2024"The State has a nondelegable duty to maintain its roads and highways in a reasonably safe condition" ( Rubio v State of New York , 168 AD3d 892 , 893; see Friedman v State of New York , 67 NY2d 271, 283 ).

2019"The State, while not an insurer of the safety of its roads, has a nondelegable duty to maintain its roads in a reasonably safe condition" ( Rodriguez v State of New York , 166 AD3d at 923 [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Friedman v State of New York , 67 NY2d 271, 286 ; Chavez v State of New York , 139 AD3d at 995 ).

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 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 ).

2019The 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]).

2022"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" ( HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Macaulay , 187 AD3d 721, 723 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford , 60 NY2d 492, 499 ; Jeffers v Stein , 152 AD3d 754, 754 ). "[W]here the [trial] court's findings of fact rest in large measur

2022"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" ( HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Macaulay , 187 AD3d 721, 723 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford , 60 NY2d 492, 499 ; Jeffers v Stein , 152 AD3d 754, 754 ). "[W]here the [trial] court's findings of fact rest in large measur

2026The plaintiffs appeal.</p> <p>"'In reviewing a determination made after a non-jury 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'" (<i>Morris v Tausik</i>, 222 AD3d 969, 971 , quoting <i>Winston v Reichenbaum</i>, 209 AD3d 801, 804 ).</p> <p>"'A written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms'" (<

2026The plaintiffs appeal. "'In reviewing a determination made after a non-jury 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'" ( Morris v Tausik , 222 AD3d 969, 971, quoting Winston v Reichenbaum , 209 AD3d 801, 804). "'A written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms'" ( Ikezi v 82nd St.

2020In 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 the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony ( see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford , 60 NY2d 492, 499 ; Khan v Kaieteur Constr., Inc. , 120 AD3d 770, 770 ; West Orange Mgt., Inc. v Alaimo , 57 AD3d 530, 530 ).

2015“In reviewing a determination rendered 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, taking into account that in a close case the trial court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony” (Khan v Kaieteur Constr., Inc., 120 AD3d 770, 770 [2014]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Novair Mech.

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 the witnesses and hearing the testimony" ( DePaula v State of New York , 82 AD3d 827, 827 , quoting Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford , 60 NY2d 492, 499 ; see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Macaulay , 187 AD3d 721, 723-724 ; [*3]Ganai v 6910 Fort Hamilton Parkway Corp. , 149 AD3d 914, 915-916 ). "[W]

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 witnesses and hearing the testimony" ( Ganai v 6910 Fort Hamilton Parkway Corp. , 149 AD3d 914, 915-916 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "[W]here the court's findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses . . . deference is owed to the trial court's credibility det

2019"Since a hearing court has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses as they testify, we give appropriate deference to its credibility determinations" ( Rothauser v Greer , 145 AD3d at 930 ; see Praimnath v Torres , 59 AD3d 419, 419-420 ).

2016Since a hearing court has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses as they testify, we give appropriate deference to its credibility determinations (see Matter of Tenzer, 144 AD3d 1044 [2d Dept 2016]; Praimnath v Torres, 59 AD3d 419, 419-420 [2009]).

2018The State, while "not an insurer of the safety of its roads" ( Sinski v State of New York , 2 AD3d 517, 517 ; see Carlo v State of New York , 51 AD3d 618 ), has a "nondelegable duty to maintain its roads in a reasonably safe condition" ( Friedman v State of New York , 67 NY2d 271, 286 ; see Weiss v Fote , 7 NY2d 579, 587 ).

2016While the State has a “nondelegable duty to maintain its roads in a reasonably safe condition” (Friedman v State of New York, 67 NY2d 271, 286 [1986]; see Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579, 587 [1960]), it is “not an insurer of the safety of its roads” (Sinski v State of New York, 2 AD3d 517, 517 [2003]; see Carlo v State of New York, 51 AD3d 618 [2008]).

2018The State, while "not an insurer of the safety of its roads" ( Sinski v State of New York , 2 AD3d 517, 517 ; see Carlo v State of New York , 51 AD3d 618 ), has a "nondelegable duty to maintain its roads in a reasonably safe condition" ( Friedman v State of New York , 67 NY2d 271, 286 ; see Weiss v Fote , 7 NY2d 579, 587 ).

2016While the State has a “nondelegable duty to maintain its roads in a reasonably safe condition” (Friedman v State of New York, 67 NY2d 271, 286 [1986]; see Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579, 587 [1960]), it is “not an insurer of the safety of its roads” (Sinski v State of New York, 2 AD3d 517, 517 [2003]; see Carlo v State of New York, 51 AD3d 618 [2008]).

2016“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 [or referee] had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony” (Matter of Frank A.L. v Vaccarelli, 117 AD3d 740, 741 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2015“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” (Matter of Frank A.L. v Vaccarelli, 117 AD3d 740, 741 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Campbell v Campbell, 50 AD3d 614, 615 [2008]).

2026It has been recognized that in the context of matrimonial proceedings, "[s]ince the court had the opportunity to view the demeanor of the witnesses at the hearing, it was in the best position to gauge their credibility, and its resolution of credibility issues is entitled to great deference on appeal" ( Lieberman v. Lieberman , 21 AD3d 1004 [2d Dept 2005] [internal citations omitted]).

2025It has been recognized that in the context of matrimonial proceedings, "Since the court had the opportunity to view the demeanor of the witnesses at the hearing, it was in the best position to gauge their credibility, and its resolution of credibility issues is entitled to great deference on appeal" ( Lieberman v. Lieberman , 21 AD3d 1004 [2d Dept 2005] [internal citations omitted]).

2021Real Estate, Inc. v Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage , 131 AD3d 507, 507-508 , quoting Palombo Group v Poughkeepsie City Sch.

2019Real Estate, Inc. v Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage , 131 AD3d 507 ).

2026Academics , 221 AD3d 986, 987 [brackets omitted], quoting Greenfield v Philles Records , 98 NY2d 562, 569).

2022"In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court's power is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony" ( Rudovic v Rudovic , 190 AD3d 997, 998 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Central Park Capital Group, LLC v Machin , 189 AD3d 984, 985 ). "[A] written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms" ( Gr

2024In 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 in a close case that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony ( see Rodriguez v State of New York , 166 AD3d 922 , 923; Stevens v State of New York , 47 AD3d 624, 624-625 ).

2011In 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]).

2018The State, while "not an insurer of the safety of its roads" ( Sinski v State of New York , 2 AD3d 517, 517 ; see Carlo v State of New York , 51 AD3d 618 ), has a "nondelegable duty to maintain its roads in a reasonably safe condition" ( Friedman v State of New York , 67 NY2d 271, 286 ; see Weiss v Fote , 7 NY2d 579, 587 ).

2016While the State has a “nondelegable duty to maintain its roads in a reasonably safe condition” (Friedman v State of New York, 67 NY2d 271, 286 [1986]; see Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579, 587 [1960]), it is “not an insurer of the safety of its roads” (Sinski v State of New York, 2 AD3d 517, 517 [2003]; see Carlo v State of New York, 51 AD3d 618 [2008]).

2026Academics</i>, 221 AD3d 986, 987 [brackets omitted], quoting <i>Greenfield v Philles Records</i>, 98 NY2d 562, 569 ).

2026Academics , 221 AD3d 986, 987 [brackets omitted], quoting Greenfield v Philles Records , 98 NY2d 562, 569).

2024"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" ( Matter of Jewett , 145 AD3d 1114, 1116 [3d Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks, ellipsis and citations omitted]; see Baba-Ali v State of New York , 19 NY3d 627, 640 [2012]).

2024"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" ( Matter of Jewett , 145 AD3d 1114, 1116 [3d Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks, ellipsis and citations omitted]; see Baba-Ali v State of New York , 19 NY3d 627, 640 [2012]).

2022"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" ( HSBC Bank USA, NA v Macaulay , 187 AD3d 721, 723 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Jeffers v Stein , 152 AD3d 754, 754 ; Anderson v Mastrangelo , 18 AD3d 677, 677 ). "[W]here the [trial] court's findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibi

2022"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" ( HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Macaulay , 187 AD3d 721, 723 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford , 60 NY2d 492, 499 ; Jeffers v Stein , 152 AD3d 754, 754 ). "[W]here the [trial] court's findings of fact rest in large measur

2020Co. v Lubeck , 111 AD3d 947 , 948; see Baba-Ali v State of New York , 19 NY3d 627, 640 ; Matter of Nationwide & Mut.

2016Co. v Lubeck, 111 AD3d 947 , 948 [2013]; see Baba-Ali v State of New York, 19 NY3d 627, 640 [2012]; Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Matter of Liberty Mut.

2016In 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 Horn v Horn, 101 AD3d 816 , 817 [2012]; DePaula v State of New York, 82 AD3d 827 [2011]).

2014“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” (H om v Hom, 101 AD3d 816 , 817 [2012], quoting Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]).

2026The plaintiffs appeal.</p> <p>"'In reviewing a determination made after a non-jury 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'" (<i>Morris v Tausik</i>, 222 AD3d 969, 971 , quoting <i>Winston v Reichenbaum</i>, 209 AD3d 801, 804 ).</p> <p>"'A written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms'" (<

2026The plaintiffs appeal. "'In reviewing a determination made after a non-jury 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'" ( Morris v Tausik , 222 AD3d 969, 971, quoting Winston v Reichenbaum , 209 AD3d 801, 804). "'A written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms'" ( Ikezi v 82nd St.