Marwan v Ibrahim

Annotate this Case
[*1] Marwan v Ibrahim 2015 NY Slip Op 51786(U) Decided on December 2, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 2, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : ELLIOT, J.P., PESCE and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-1142 Q C

Hisham Ahmed Marwan, Appellant,

against

Mohammed Ibrahim, Respondent.

Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered October 17, 2013. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,023.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a taxi driver, commenced this action to recover the sum of $10,334.61, which he alleged defendant owed him for unpaid wages. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,023.

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]). As the record supports the trial court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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


Decision Date: December 02, 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.