Valentine Mgt. Assoc. v Twumasi-Ankrah

[*1] Valentine Mgt. Assoc. v Twumasi-Ankrah 2014 NY Slip Op 50483(U) Decided on March 17, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 17, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., IANNACCI and TOLBERT, JJ
.

Valentine Management Associates, Appellant,

against

Michael Twumasi-Ankrah, PHYLLIS TWUMASI-ANKRAH, and any/all Other Occupants, Respondents.

Appeal from a final judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (Arthur J. Doran III, J.), entered October 10, 2012. The final judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the final judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Landlord commenced this holdover proceeding alleging that tenants had violated the terms of their lease by making excessive noise. Following a nonjury trial, the petition was dismissed.

It is well settled that a decision rendered by a court after a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clear that the court's conclusions could not have been reached under a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Perez v Garcia, 304 AD2d 544 [2003]). Appellate courts are generally deferential to a trial court's determinations of credibility since the evaluation of witnesses and the quality of proof can best be made by the court which had direct access to the parties (see Standard Bldrs. Supplies v Gush, 206 AD2d 720, 721 [1994]; Matter of City of Albany, 199 AD2d 746 [1993]). In the case at bar, a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the City Court's determination. Moreover, although landlord's attorney made several objections regarding the relevancy of tenants' testimony, the record indicates that the City Court considered only testimony which was admissible as evidence and excluded inadmissible evidence from its deliberations (see People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 406 [1987]; Matter of Danasia Mc., 94 AD3d 1122, 1123 [2012]; People v Marvin, 216 AD2d 930 [1995]). Landlord's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or lack merit. Consequently, we find no basis to disturb the determination of the City Court.

Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and Tolbert, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 17, 2014