Watkins v Martin

Watkins v Martin 2010 NY Slip Op 07920 [78 AD3d 685] November 3, 2010 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Thomas Watkins, Appellant,
v
Albert Martin, Respondent.

—[*1] Rawlins & Gibbs, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Earle A. Rawlins of counsel), for appellant.

Michael B. Heckman, Pine Bush, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action, inter alia, for a permanent injunction, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated June 23, 2009, which, upon a decision of the same court dated October 17, 2008, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant and against him in the principal sum of $53,750 on the first counterclaim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On an appeal from a judgment entered after a nonjury trial, this Court "may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account in a close case '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, 134 [1930]). Upon our review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the Supreme Court's determination (see Trump Vil. Section 3 v New York State Hous. Fin. Agency, 292 AD2d 156, 158 [2002]; see also Ross v Ross, 233 App Div 626, 635 [1931], affd 262 NY 381 [1933]; see generally Furia v Furia, 116 AD2d 694, 695 [1986]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are not properly before us (see generally Centurion Taxi v Happy Go Lucky Cab Corp., 230 AD2d 817, 818 [1996]; see also Cholowsky v Civiletti, 69 AD3d 110, 116 [2009]).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Covello, J.P., Leventhal, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.