Timepayment Corp. v 1 Needs 1, LLC

[*1] Timepayment Corp. v 1 Needs 1, LLC 2020 NY Slip Op 50081(U) Decided on January 27, 2020 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 27, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Cooper, J.
&em;

Timepayment Corp., Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

1 Needs 1, LLC, Simon Khan and Yeonsu Choi, Defendants-Appellants.

Defendants Simon Khan and Yeonsu Choi appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Leticia M. Ramirez, J.), dated December 7, 2018 and a judgment (same court and Judge), entered January 4, 2019, after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff and awarding it damages in the principal sum of $11,989.29.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Leticia M. Ramirez, J.), entered January 4, 2019, affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order (Leticia M. Ramirez, J.), dated December 7, 2018, dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

In reviewing a judgment from a bench trial, the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to credibility of witnesses (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). Applying that standard here, and giving deference to the trial court's determination to reject the "less than credible" testimony of defendant Khan, we find no basis to disturb the award issued in favor of plaintiff. A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the court's finding that plaintiff established the existence of the guaranty executed by defendants, the underlying debt under a commercial equipment lease agreement, and defendants' failure to perform under the guaranty (see Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A., "Rabobank Intl.," NY Branch v Navarro, 25 NY3d 485, 492 [2015]; Sarfati v Palazzolo, 142 AD3d 877 [2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 27, 2020