Xiu Jian Sun v Yuk Y. Fung

Annotate this Case
[*1] Xiu Jian Sun v Yuk Y. Fung 2015 NY Slip Op 51559(U) Decided on October 19, 2015 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 19, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-478 Q C

Xiu Jian Sun, Appellant,

against

Yuk Y. Fung, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered January 28, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this breach of contract action to recover the sum of $19,200 for failure to pay wages. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed the complaint.

In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this court's power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Hamilton v Blackwood, 85 AD3d 1116 [2011]; Zeltser v Sacerdote, 52 AD3d 824, 826 [2008]; D'Elia v 58-35 Utopia Parkway Corp., 43 AD3d 976, 977-978 [2007]). Upon a review of the record, we find that the Civil Court properly concluded that plaintiff failed to produce evidence sufficient to prove his case. As the record supports the trial court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Alliota and Solomon, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: October 19, 2015

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.