advantage of seeing hearing in New York

2026"In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court's power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it 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 and hearing the witnesses" ( BRK Props., Inc. v Wagner Ziv Plumbing & Heating Corp. , 89 AD3d 883, 884 ; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford , 60 NY2d 492, 499 ). "[W]here the court's findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses, deference is owed t

2026"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 in a close case that the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses" ( U.S. Bank N.A. v Sakizada , 235 AD3d 800, 801; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford , 60 NY2d 492, 499).

2026"In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court's power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it 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 and hearing the witnesses" ( BRK Props., Inc. v Wagner Ziv Plumbing & Heating Corp. , 89 AD3d 883, 884 ; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford , 60 NY2d 492, 499 ). "[W]here the court's findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses, deference is owed t

2022"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 and hearing the witnesses'" ( Matter of Mazur Bros., Inc. v State of New York , 97 AD3d at 828, quoting BRK Props., Inc. v Wagner Ziv Plumbing & Heating Corp. , 89 AD3d 883, 884 ; see Matter of Town of Oyster Bay v 55 Motor Ave.

2024"In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial court and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses" ( Matter of State of New York v Clarence D. , 82 AD3d 776, 777 ; see Matter of State of New York v Allan A. , 207 AD3d 635, 637 ).

2016In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Matter of State of New York v Robert B., 106 AD3d 828, 828 [2013]; Matter of State of New York v Leon F., 84 AD3d 1098, 1100 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v Clarence D., 82 AD3d 776, 777 [2011]).

2014In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment that it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Matter of State of New York v Robert B., 106 AD3d 828 [2013]; Matter of State of New York v Andrew J.W., 85 AD3d 805, 807 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v

2014In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment that it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Matter of State of New York v Robert B., 106 AD3d 828 [2013]; Matter of State of New York v Andrew J.W., 85 AD3d 805, 807 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v

2016In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Matter of State of New York v Robert B., 106 AD3d 828, 828 [2013]; Matter of State of New York v Leon F., 84 AD3d 1098, 1100 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v Clarence D., 82 AD3d 776, 777 [2011]).

2014In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Matter of State of New York v Robert B., 106 AD3d 828, 828 [2013]; Matter of State of New York v Leon F., 84 AD3d 1098, 1100 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v

2026Corp.</i>, 142 AD3d at 1089 ). "'In condemnation cases, the authority of this Court to review findings of fact after a nonjury trial is as broad as that of the trial court'" (<i>id.</i> at 995, quoting <i>Matter of Mazur Bros., Inc. v State of New York</i>, 97 AD3d 826 , 828). "'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 and hearing the witnesses'" (<i>id.</i> [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2022"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 and hearing the witnesses'" ( Matter of Mazur Bros., Inc. v State of New York , 97 AD3d at 828, quoting BRK Props., Inc. v Wagner Ziv Plumbing & Heating Corp. , 89 AD3d 883, 884 ; see Matter of Town of Oyster Bay v 55 Motor Ave.

2026"In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court's power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it 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 and hearing the witnesses" ( BRK Props., Inc. v Wagner Ziv Plumbing & Heating Corp. , 89 AD3d 883, 884 ; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford , 60 NY2d 492, 499 ). "[W]here the court's findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses, deference is owed t

2019ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements. " In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court's power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it 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 and hearing the witnesses'" ( Quadrozzi v Estate of Quadrozzi , 99 AD3d 688, 691 , quoting BRK Props., Inc. v Wagner Ziv Plumbing & Heating Corp. , 89 AD3d 883, 884 ; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v

2019While an owner of property abutting a State highway has a compensable right of access to that highway, that right is not absolute as " access . . . and not convenience is the dispositive damage yardstick'" ( Van Valkenburgh v State of New York , 131 AD2d 903, 904 , quoting Raj v State of New York , 124 AD2d 426, 427 ). " In reviewing a determination after a nonjury trial, the power of [this] Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and we may render a judgment we find warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the

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 we may render a judgment we find warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses” (Hall v McDonald, 115 AD3d 646, 647 [2014]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]).

2014In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and we may render a judgment we find warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Marini v Lombardo, 79 AD3d 932, 933 [2010]).

2014In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and we may render a judgment we find warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Marini v Lombardo, 79 AD3d 932, 933 [2010]).

2017While due deference is usually given to the trial court's determination with respect to issues of credibility, and, notwithstanding that an intermediate appellate court must "take into account that in a close case the trial judge has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses" ( Marinoff v Natty Realty Corp., 34 AD3d 765, 767; Zere Real Estate Servs., Inc. v Parr Gen.

2017While due deference is usually given to the trial court's determination with respect to issues of credibility, and, notwithstanding that an intermediate appellate court must "take into account that in a close case the trial judge has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses" ( Marinoff v Natty Realty Corp., 34 AD3d 765, 767 ; Zere Real Estate Servs., Inc. v Parr Gen.

2016In reviewing a determination made by a hearing court, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the hearing court, and this Court may render its own determination as warranted by the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the hearing court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Prosolov v PSRS Realty, 128 AD3d 934 [2015]; Doubletree Hotel Tarry town v Chacko, 115 AD3d 703 , 704 [2014]; Bartow v Lugo, 66 AD3d 936, 937 [2009]).

2015In reviewing a determination made by a hearing court, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the hearing court, and this Court may render its own determination as warranted by the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the hear *935 ing court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Doubletree Hotel Tarrytown v Chacko, 115 AD3d 703, 704 [2014]; Bartow v Lugo, 66 AD3d 936, 937 [2009]; Mastroianni v Rallye Glen Cove, LLC, 59 AD3d 686, 687 [2009]).

2015In reviewing a determination made by a hearing court, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the hearing court, and this Court may render its own determination as warranted by the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the hear *935 ing court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Doubletree Hotel Tarrytown v Chacko, 115 AD3d 703, 704 [2014]; Bartow v Lugo, 66 AD3d 936, 937 [2009]; Mastroianni v Rallye Glen Cove, LLC, 59 AD3d 686, 687 [2009]).

2014In reviewing a determination made by a hearing court, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the hearing court and it may render the determination it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the hearing court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Bartow v Lugo, 66 AD3d 936, 937 [2009]; Mastroianni v Rallye Glen Cove, LLC, 59 AD3d 686, 687 [2009]; Hall v Sinclaire, 35 AD3d 660 [2006]).

2014Our factual review power permits us to render the determination warranted by the facts, making our own findings of fact when necessary, while bearing in mind that in a close case, the Supreme Court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Matter of George L., 85 NY2d 295, 305 [1995]; Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Matter of Jeremiah S. [New York State Commr. of Mental Health], 69 AD3d 730, 732 [2010]; see also Matter of Thomas G., 50 AD3d 1139, 1140 [2008]).

2014Our factual review power permits us to render the determination warranted by the facts, making our own findings of fact when necessary, while bearing in mind that in a close case, the Supreme Court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Matter of George L., 85 NY2d 295, 305 [1995]; Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Matter of Jeremiah S. [New York State Commr. of Mental Health], 69 AD3d 730, 732 [2010]; see also Matter of Thomas G., 50 AD3d 1139, 1140 [2008]).

2013Here, the Supreme Court’s finding that the State established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the appellant suffers from a “mental abnormality,” as that term is defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i), was warranted by the facts (see Matter of State of New York v Spencer D., 96 AD3d 768, 771 [2012]; Matter of State of New York v Andrew J.W., 85 AD3d 805, 807 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v Leon F., 84 AD3d at 1100-1101 ; Matter of State of New York v Clarence D., 82 AD3d at 777 ).

2013Here, the Supreme Court’s finding that the State established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the appellant suffers from a “mental abnormality,” as that term is defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i), was warranted by the facts (see Matter of State of New York v Spencer D., 96 AD3d 768, 771 [2012]; Matter of State of New York v Andrew J.W., 85 AD3d 805, 807 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v Leon F., 84 AD3d at 1100-1101 ; Matter of State of New York v Clarence D., 82 AD3d at 777 ).

2012Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. “ ‘In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court’s power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it 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 and hearing the witnesses’ ” (Havel v Goldman, 95 AD3d 1174, 1175 [2012], quoting BRK Props., Inc. v Wagner Ziv Plumbing & Heating Corp., 89 AD3d 883, 884 [2011]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Crawford v Village of Mi

2012Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. “ ‘In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court’s power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it 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 and hearing the witnesses’ ” (Havel v Goldman, 95 AD3d 1174, 1175 [2012], quoting BRK Props., Inc. v Wagner Ziv Plumbing & Heating Corp., 89 AD3d 883, 884 [2011]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Crawford v Village of Mi

2013“Although an appellate court’s authority in reviewing a nonjury determination is as broad as that of the trial court, due deference is given to the trial court’s determination, taking into account that in a close case the trial judge has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses” (Marinoff v Natty Realty Corp., 34 AD3d 765, 767 [2006]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Lelekakis v Kamamis, 41 AD3d 662, 664 [2007]; Losner v Cashline, L.P., 41 AD3d 789, 790 [2007]; Healy v Williams, 30 AD3d 466, 468 [2006]).

2013“Although an appellate court’s authority in reviewing a nonjury determination is as broad as that of the trial court, due deference is given to the trial court’s determination, taking into account that in a close case the trial judge has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses” (Marinoff v Natty Realty Corp., 34 AD3d 765, 767 [2006]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Lelekakis v Kamamis, 41 AD3d 662, 664 [2007]; Losner v Cashline, L.P., 41 AD3d 789, 790 [2007]; Healy v Williams, 30 AD3d 466, 468 [2006]).

2026"In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court's power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it 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 and hearing the witnesses" ( BRK Props., Inc. v Wagner Ziv Plumbing & Heating Corp. , 89 AD3d 883, 884 ; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford , 60 NY2d 492, 499 ). "[W]here the court's findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses, deference is owed t

2022"In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad of 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 judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses" ( Central Park Capital Group, LLC v Machin , 189 AD3d 984, 985 ; see BNG Props., LLC v Sanborn , 153 AD3d 1221, 1221-1222 ; A. Montilli Plumbing & Heating Corp. v Valentino , 90 AD3d 961, 961 ).

2018The defendant appeals. " In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court's power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it 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 and hearing the witnesses'" ( Quadrozzi v Estate of Quadrozzi , 99 AD3d 688, 691 , quoting BRK Props., Inc. v Wagner Ziv Plumbing & Heating Corp ., 89 AD3d 883, 884 ; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford , 60 NY2d 492, 499 ; Bryant v Broadcast Music, Inc. , 143 AD3d 934, 935 ; N

2017“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court’s power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it 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 and hearing the witnesses” (BRK Props., Inc. v Wagner Ziv Plumbing & Heating Corp., 89 AD3d 883, 884 [2011]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v *815 Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Bryant v Broadcast Music, Inc., 143 AD3d 934, 935 [2016]).

2011“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjtiry trial, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial court and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses” (Matter of State of New York v Clarence D., 82 AD3d 776, 777 [2011]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; 6243 Jericho Realty Corp. v AutoZone, Inc., 71 AD3d 983, 984 [2010]).

2011In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial court and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; 6243 Jericho Realty Corp. v AutoZone, Inc., 71 AD3d 983, 984 [2010]; see also Matter of Jeremiah S. [New York State Commr. of Mental Health], 69 AD3d 730, 732 [2010]).

2022"In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court's power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it 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 and hearing the witnesses" ( Annan v New York State Off. of Mental Health , 165 AD3d 1020 , 1021 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Quadrozzi v Estate of Quadrozzi , 99 AD3d 688, 691 ). "[W]here the trial court's findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses, deference is owed

2021In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court denied the appellant's motion for a writ of assistance, finding that the defendant had sustained his burden of proving succession rights [*2]to the rent-stabilized apartment. "'In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court's power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it 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 and hearing the witnesses'" ( Quadrozzi v Estate of Quadrozzi , 99 AD3d 688, 691 , quoting BRK Props., Inc. v Wa

2022The defendants appeal. "'In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court's power is as [*2]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 and hearing the witnesses'" ( US Bank N.A. v Cusati , 185 AD3d 870, 872 , quoting Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Gibson , 157 AD3d 853 , 855) .

2021Proof of the requisite mailings of the RPAPL 1304 notices may be "'established with proof of the actual mailings, such as affidavits of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure'" ( U.S. Bank N.A. v Bochicchio , 179 AD3d 1133, 1136 , quoting Citibank, N.A. v Conti-Scheurer , 172 AD3d 17 , 21). "'In reviewing a determination . . . after a nonjury trial, this Court's power is as broad as that of the tria

2012Moreover, “[i]n reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court’s power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it 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 and hearing the witnesses” (BRK Props., Inc. v Wagner Ziv Plumbing & Heating Corp., 89 AD3d 883, 884 [2011]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Crawford v Village of Millbrook, 94 AD3d 1036 [2012]).

2012“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court’s power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it 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 and hearing the witnesses” (BRK Props., Inc. v Wagner Ziv Plumbing & Heating Corp., 89 AD3d 883, 884 [2011]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Crawford v Village of Millbrook, 94 AD3d 1036 [2012]).

2016In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Matter of State of New York v Robert B., 106 AD3d 828, 828 [2013]; Matter of State of New York v Leon F., 84 AD3d 1098, 1100 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v Clarence D., 82 AD3d 776, 777 [2011]).

2014In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial or hearing, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial or hearing court, and it may render the judgment that it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial or hearing judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Matter of State of New York v Robert B., 106 AD3d 828 [2013]; Matter of State of New York v Andrew J.W., 85 AD3d 805, 807 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v

2013The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and the credibility determinations of that court, which has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, are entitled to considerable deference on appeal (see Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d 1033 [2012]; Matter of Richardson v Richardson, 80 AD3d 32, 43-44 [2010]).

2013The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and the credibility determinations of that court, which has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, are entitled to considerable deference on appeal (see Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d 1033 [2012]; Matter of Richardson v Richardson, 80 AD3d 32, 43-44 [2010]).