Long Is. Auto Consultants, Inc. v Hubbard Sand & Gravel Corp.

Long Is. Auto Consultants, Inc. v Hubbard Sand & Gravel Corp. 2009 NY Slip Op 05951 [64 AD3d 688] July 21, 2009 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Long Island Auto Consultants, Inc., et al., Appellants,
v
Hubbard Sand & Gravel Corp., Respondent.

—[*1] Rosenberg Calica & Birney LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Robert M. Calica and Megan F. Carroll of counsel), for appellants.

Glynn Mercep & Purcell, LLP, Setauket, N.Y. (Timothy B. Glynn of counsel), for respondent.

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of an option to purchase real property pursuant to a commercial lease, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenberg, J.), entered January 31, 2008, which, upon a decision of the same court dated October 17, 2007, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant and against them, dismissing the complaint and awarding the defendant the principal sum of $260,689 on its counterclaim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Where, as here, a nonjury trial is involved, this Court's power to review the evidence is as broad as that of the trial court, bearing in mind that due regard must be given to " 'the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses' " (Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983], quoting York Mtge. Corp. v Clotar Constr. Corp., 254 NY 128, 133-134 [1930]; see Totonelly v Enos, 49 AD3d 710, 711 [2008]). Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the trial court's determination dismissing the complaint and awarding judgment in favor of the defendant in the principal sum of $260,689 on the counterclaim was warranted by the facts.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.