Imrie v Imrie

[*1] Imrie v Imrie 2004 NY Slip Op 51040(U) Decided on September 20, 2004 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 20, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT:McCABE, P.J., COVELLO and TANENBAUM, JJ.
NO. 2003-1569 S C

KENNETH IMRIE, Appellant,

against

GLORIA IMRIE and DANIEL IMRIE, Respondents.

Appeal by plaintiff from a decision of the District Court, Suffolk County

(S. Hackeling, J.), dated August 12, 2003, dismissing the complaint, deemed (see CPLR 5520 [c]) an appeal from a judgment of the same court entered November 6, 2003, which dismissed the complaint.

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced the instant action to recover the sum of $15,000 for personal property which he alleged was converted by defendants. Plaintiff testified that
some time after he moved into a house owned by his mother, defendant Gloria Imrie, he was locked out and was unable to retrieve several items of personal property which
belonged to him despite his demands for same. Defendant Gloria Imrie testified that she had allowed plaintiff (her son) to move into her house, and when she asked him to move out, he refused to do so. When she arrived at the house one day, she could not gain access and realized that plaintiff had changed the locks. Thereafter, she had the locks changed and returned all of plaintiff's personal property to him. Defendant Daniel Imrie (plaintiff's brother) testified that plaintiff left his furniture at the house for one year because he did not want to pay storage fees. However, plaintiff eventually picked up the furniture. Plaintiff's attorney conceded that the [*2]furniture had been returned to plaintiff. Defendant Daniel Imrie further testified that he did not take plaintiff's stereo equipment, and that he last saw said equipment on the front lawn of a woman's house where plaintiff had resided for a time. The conflicting testimony presented an issue of credibility as to whether defendants converted plaintiff's personal property. We are of the opinion that the lower court's resolution of said issue of credibility in favor of defendants was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence and should not be [*3]
disturbed on appeal (see Jones v Hart, 233 AD2d 297 [1996]; DiSalvo v Ordway, 208 AD2d 798 [1994]). Accordingly, the judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the action should be affirmed.
Decision Date: September 20, 2004