Legal Opinion
Otto v. Dureja
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 29, 2014PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Upon review of a determination rendered after a nonjury trial, this Court’s authority is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account in a close case the fact that the *830trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]).
As the plaintiff correctly concedes, the Supreme Court properly found that there was no meeting of the minds with respect to the material terms of his alleged oral agreement with the defendants.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Northern Westchester Professional Park Associates v. Town of BedfordNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Computer Associates International, Inc. v. U.S. Balloon Manufacturing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Countrywide Funding Corp. v. ReynoldsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Voyticky v. DuffyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
3Cited by7 opinions
- DHE Homes, Ltd. v. JamnikAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Thompson v. HorowitzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Herskowitz v. Wesley Hills Ctr., LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
- Ramdhanie v. RamnarainAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Cusumano Associates, Inc. v. PolitoskiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.