City of New York v Perez

[*1] City of New York v Perez 2013 NY Slip Op 52211(U) Decided on December 24, 2013 Appellate Term, First 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 24, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Torres, JJ
570192/13.

The City of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Manuel Perez, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant purports to appeal from a decision of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), "entered" January 14, 2013, after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff and awarding it damages in the principal sum of $10,300.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from decision (Margaret A. Chan, J.), "entered" January 14, 2013, deemed an appeal from the ensuing judgment (same court and Judge), entered on or about March 25, 2013, and so considered (see CPLR 5520[c]), judgment, affirmed, with $25 costs.
Giving proper effect to the clear terms of the loan agreements sued upon, the trial court properly awarded plaintiff City of New York a recovery of the balance shown to be due on the tuition loans previously advanced to defendant in connection with his participation in the Police Cadet Corps Program. As the court properly recognized, defendant may not avoid his firmly established loan debt by seeking to invoke the identically worded loan forgiveness provisions set forth in paragraph 6 of the agreements, which, by their express terms, were to be triggered in circumstances, not present here, where the loan recipient "remain[s] in the employment of the [New York City] Police Department as a uniformed member for a period of two (2) years." The contrary contention urged by defendant — that his service as a police cadet itself satisfied the two-year "uniformed member" requirement — is not easily reconciled with several key provisions of the loan agreements, particularly the requirement plainly appearing in paragraph 5 obligating a cadet to accept "a position as police officer in the City of New York" upon the Police Department's offer of such a position. Moreover, adoption of defendant's reading of paragraph 6 would serve to undermine the stated purpose of the loan agreements to "increas[e] the overall educational level of the officers serving in the [Police] Department" and lead to an unintended result (see generally Currier, McCabe & Assoc., Inc. v Maher, 75 AD3d 889, 892 [2010]).

Defendant's remaining arguments, including his claims of error relating to the conduct of the trial, are lacking in merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: December 24, 2013